Libya Right or Wrong!
- Thread starter Norwayhornet
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
That`ll be 10 intergalactic groats please
I'll have one too please
You must log in or register to see images
Oh hang on - you said g r oat
An interesting and very civilised debate which raises some crucial questions about the west's development and the apparent increasing conflicts between economic interests and what appears morally the right thing to do.
My first instinct is to say that killing people is wrong, wars kill people, therefore going to war is wrong. In the past we have fought many wars - some because we believed our own lives were under threat; others because someone else was interfering with our economic interests. We would no longer see the Chinese opium trade as a cause to go to war, I think! Have the boundaries moved in other ways? The media have unquestionably had an impact on our instinctive feelings about war, though our sensitivities may have been dulled since the days of Donald McCullin's Vietnam photographs. As a nation we do not have the fire power we once had. We are perhaps quicker to question the loss of life in any overseas conflict. So are we becoming more civilised or simply more pragmatic?
Despite its terrorist record Libya does not offer a major threat to the UK. None of us would wish to see Libyan people killed, particularly not simply for expressing dissatisfaction with the country's leader. We would not wish to see people starve either, or suffer as a result of natural disasters. Since we cannot prevent all of these, we inevitably end up being selective and, politics being what it is, the decisions about where we intervene and where we don't are a product of a complex mixture of factors, all of them linked to how the government of the day thinks they will be received. In the end it is not about ethics or economics alone, but whether involvement is likely to win or lose votes.
My first instinct is to say that killing people is wrong, wars kill people, therefore going to war is wrong. In the past we have fought many wars - some because we believed our own lives were under threat; others because someone else was interfering with our economic interests. We would no longer see the Chinese opium trade as a cause to go to war, I think! Have the boundaries moved in other ways? The media have unquestionably had an impact on our instinctive feelings about war, though our sensitivities may have been dulled since the days of Donald McCullin's Vietnam photographs. As a nation we do not have the fire power we once had. We are perhaps quicker to question the loss of life in any overseas conflict. So are we becoming more civilised or simply more pragmatic?
Despite its terrorist record Libya does not offer a major threat to the UK. None of us would wish to see Libyan people killed, particularly not simply for expressing dissatisfaction with the country's leader. We would not wish to see people starve either, or suffer as a result of natural disasters. Since we cannot prevent all of these, we inevitably end up being selective and, politics being what it is, the decisions about where we intervene and where we don't are a product of a complex mixture of factors, all of them linked to how the government of the day thinks they will be received. In the end it is not about ethics or economics alone, but whether involvement is likely to win or lose votes.
Excellent point Hornethologist, it was so long ago that we wouldn't question what our government was doing overseas, supporting the 'glorification of the Empire'(!) or some such. With education and constant news coverage on tv and internet it is becoming ever easier to form our own justifiable opinions on everything and anything that happens (it also puts a great deal of power into the hands of the media).
At the end of the day though it is likely that background politics and agendas to which we are not exposed are as vital to decisions as the ones we all know about. Makes it all conjecture to a point, but nonetheless great to see such topics being discussed reasonably and maturely!
At the end of the day though it is likely that background politics and agendas to which we are not exposed are as vital to decisions as the ones we all know about. Makes it all conjecture to a point, but nonetheless great to see such topics being discussed reasonably and maturely!
Theo - I was more or less with you till the last bit - I don't think it is about winning or losing votes - Blair was well aware the the invasion of Iraq was more likely to lose than win votes and I don't think Libya will affecting voting unless we send n ground troop who start dying.
I think it is about 1) economic self-interest, 2) our puppy attitude towards the US and a long way behind 3) some humanitarian concerns
One thing I like about not606 is that politics etc is not banned and also that the people who post to our board at least can argue in a friendly and fair - and surprisingly expletive free manner
I think it is about 1) economic self-interest, 2) our puppy attitude towards the US and a long way behind 3) some humanitarian concerns
One thing I like about not606 is that politics etc is not banned and also that the people who post to our board at least can argue in a friendly and fair - and surprisingly expletive free manner
Leo, thoroughly with you about 606.
I agree too that economic self-interest is a major factor in political decision-making, but it has become the case that most elections are fought for "the pound in your pocket" so that this economic self-interest is uppermost in politicans' minds because that's what makes them popular or otherwise. Any party which appears to be putting our standard of living at risk won't stay in power long.
I certainly thought that under Blair we were unwilling to challenge the US world-view, though there were no doubt economic factors present there too. We may well still have a government which sees things this way, though I'd guess Obama has a marginally better understanding than Bush that there are other equally valid ways of viewing other states. Not saying much really, is it?
The issue of humanitarian concerns is the one which is most problematic. Unfortunately there are many hollow words spoken about the need to protect human rights elsewhere. I do believe we are slowly edging towards a willingness to accommodate the interests of other nations, but only as long as it doesn't seriously impose on our own health and comfort. We have a way to go I think!
As you say though, it's good to live in a place where such things can be debated freely.
I agree too that economic self-interest is a major factor in political decision-making, but it has become the case that most elections are fought for "the pound in your pocket" so that this economic self-interest is uppermost in politicans' minds because that's what makes them popular or otherwise. Any party which appears to be putting our standard of living at risk won't stay in power long.
I certainly thought that under Blair we were unwilling to challenge the US world-view, though there were no doubt economic factors present there too. We may well still have a government which sees things this way, though I'd guess Obama has a marginally better understanding than Bush that there are other equally valid ways of viewing other states. Not saying much really, is it?
The issue of humanitarian concerns is the one which is most problematic. Unfortunately there are many hollow words spoken about the need to protect human rights elsewhere. I do believe we are slowly edging towards a willingness to accommodate the interests of other nations, but only as long as it doesn't seriously impose on our own health and comfort. We have a way to go I think!
As you say though, it's good to live in a place where such things can be debated freely.
http://english.aljazeera.net/mritem...m Transitional National Council Statement.pdf
Looks good to me, can work with this.
Looks good to me, can work with this.
Would be good if some good came of it , then the poilticians can look smug and say they were right!!!
It looks good to me as well. Interesting to see that it describes the Gadaffi regime as illegal. I did catch a piece of the news earlier showing discussions taking place outside of the main talks with the opposition leaders. I hope that if they ever do manage to gain control the aspiration of that document will become reality.
Whats pleasing is that there appears to be a sentiment of tolerance and freedom running through it. Yes Gaddafi has got to go but that will happen and he'll flee to Venezuela and Norway you know my close ties and concerns for that one which seriously is a threat to our world order and is likely to be the next and last target for US military input, no doubt you'll claim its the oil again but the political ideology and destruction of civil rights is far more imortant as a motive.
One thing you can be assured of is if there is military involvement in Venezuela that the brits wont be involved , weve had our go for this parliamentary term!!!
