I. Trekkers know the Prime Directive.
1. Should the countries of the world, e.g., the UN remove governments which harm their populace beyond a certain point? I say yes. If so, see 2. If no, see 3.
2a. How much harm? Oppression, imminent or incipient mass-killing, or mass-killing ongoing? The UN has recognized this need. See http://www.oxfam.org...006/pr060428_un from http://en.wikipedia....ide#cite_ref-29 and the UN resolution itself if you can, on the UN website. Presumably, the language is vague so a judgment may be made in each case by vote and/or nations can intervene on their own.
b. Should there be one standard for all countries no matter their nature? If no, what factors should be considered?
c. Will the populace of one or more nations be willing to die for the freedom of another?
3. If countries do not intervene, can humanity ever be regarded as civilized? Will we be able to face extraterrestrials? If oppressive governments continue, what is to stop them from making deals with extraterrestrials not in the best interest of all humanity?
II. Libya as an example.
Libya does not present as an ideal candidate for intervention because its populace is too evenly divided for and against its government and its colonel whom I shall refer to as M. because of the multitude of spellings of his name. The Libyan government has committed crimes, a prison massacre in 1996 ( see http://en.wikipedia....prison_massacre ), but worse actors remain in line ahead of Libya for intervention: Red China and its human ant farm North Korea (may the Muses forgive me, a carnival of souls headed by human Borg without any), Vietnam, and Cuba, to name the most obvious, all of which have confirmed their candidacy by being the occasions for conflicts and/or major diasporas, which Libya had not until the present war. Unfortunately, all of those four have already been the target of interventions, of one sort or another, which have waned recently except for North Korea, and the interventions failed (no baloney that the US "lost the Vietnam War"; South Vietnam lost the war because at least the North violated the negotiated treaty and the US Congress refused to fund further support for the South; North Vietnam wanted to dominate more than South Vietnam wanted its freedom, causing thousands to flee who did want freedom). Do I desire a world war toward freedom in Red China? No, but neither do I desire Christmas decorations or anything else made by Red Chinese serfs. Also, I will die before I buy anything made in Vietnam; anyone who buys such urinates and defecates on the Vietnam Veterans War Memorial. After Tiananmen I don't recall US economic sanctions or the freezing of assets. US Presidents, get off your knees when you criticize Red China. How many died at Tiananmen? What is the material difference between Red Chinese tanks and Libyan planes (against 'protesters' cum insurgents)? International relations ain't a snap, hence the length of this piece. While Saddam Hussein was a tyrant and a war criminal, I was offended when moron Bush demanded he and his sons leave the country so I was glad the war did not turn out well FOR BUSH though I supported the war except that GWB was not the one to wage it as he was not qualified to be President; many of our recent Presidents have not been experientially qualified; maybe his father was (eight years as VP for on-the-job training). No foreigner has the right to tell someone to leave their country. Now moron Obama tells M. to leave, the difference being no 'or else'. While Obama deserves credit for what he orated in his State of the Union, giving a green light for change, which others in his place would not have done and which I sincerely believe has made the difference in the continuation, a double standard applies. If the oppressors are clients, it's fine. International oil companies rape the country Niger, creating disease-causing zones, but you'd have to scour the back pages to know. Nigeria: corruption to the max squandering resources. Sanctions, Obama? Absent the double standard, the solution would've been a negotiated settlement toward internationally-supervised elections in which both M. and his opposition could have participated via the Venezualan initiative, as now in Egypt except for the supervision. Better than an indefinite civil war.
_ _ _ _Disclaimer: I have found M. an emotionally appealing figure as a well-read Bedouin intellectual with a master's degree in history when he took over, as a military captain, in 1969, who isn't shy about his Bedouin heritage, who disdains money and hates alcohol, and who abhors imperialism, especially what the Italians and the British did, which is why he took the sides of many underdogs. Jewish people deserved a homeland, preferably in the Holy Land, but the British playing king and "allocating" Moslem land for that purpose due to Jewish militants (the original militants?) didn't work for the Arabs and M., and I try to show cultural sensitivity. M. has, in effect, admitted killing his enemies, belligerence being an uncivilized Arab custom (why you can't expect any better from his opponents than, say, that from the present leaders of Iraq or Afghanistan; the Saudi Arabian Foreign Minister threatened they would cut off any finger raised against the Kingdom). In his otherwise passable UN speech, M. weakly lied that the Taliban were not bin Laden stooges. Many years ago I read his Green Book in English, a do-it-yourself book for governance, if sincere. Regrettably, M. wasn't qualified administratively to lead a country or temperamentally prudent to set a tone for his government, and so disorder has reigned, not honor. Obama: M. "...is on the wrong side of history." My translation: not on the side of Israel AND big-power hegemony (aka the strong rule the weak, which some term imperialism whereas M. has always been prominent in the so-called nonaligned movement; where are M.'s allies now? Did everyone get aligned when I turned my head?).
Imagine there's no countries....
-John Ono Lennon and Yoko Ono Lennon, "Imagine"
This post has been edited by Diogenes: 17 March 2011 - 09:39 AM