[Diogenes]

Let's first get something straight. I am not a fool. I might be an innocent, which I am, but I am not a fool. If you think the US is the greatest country in the world (if there could be such a thing), stop reading, especially if you are over 40. I sincerely believe your perceptivity to be severely wanting and it would be best if you never read me and save us both some trouble. With that done, the rest of us can proceed.

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

[Shlomi of Vulcan]

The only comment I can make here about this situation is if Michael Moore and Louis Farrakhan are deriding Obama for bombing Libya and calling for Quaddafi's ouster then the President is on the right track with this one. Any side opposite the opinions of Moore and Farrakhan is the right side of any issue or situation.

[ensign edwards]

This is a very rare case of my supporting military intervention in a foreign country. The reasons for this are many and varied, but the most important is that the Libyan people actually asked for our help. It becomes less a case of us invading and more a case of us giving aid, albeit aid at the barrel of a gun.

[Apocalypse]

Reminds me of the Prime Directive discussion we had a while ago.
I don't think any super power has the option for isolationism anymore. It's a "With great power comes great responsibility" situation. With a bit of a "Who watches the watchmen?" vibe going on, but I don't think that's quite the debate we're having. The Prime Directive might be more feasible for interplanetary relationships, but not international. In fact, if we specifically adopt a Star Trek viewpoint for this discussion, the Prime Directive simply can't happen between nations. We need to think as a species and not as separate cultures.

[JulesLuvsShinzon]

Anyone who makes sweeping assumptions about people over a certain age probably have views based upon very little other than personal prejudice and ignorance. I in turn was encouraged to assume that the rest of that person's opinions are based on equally shaky foundations and are therefore not worth reading. Not surprisingly, I didn't bother reading them, so I guess the lesson here is not to alienate your audience in your opening gambit, or else your views will not be heard and your voice will be silent.

I shouldn't be having to tell that to someone who thinks he knows what Star trek is about. I suggest you go back to TOS episode 1 and start all over again.


Lesson 1 - do not make assumptions about your fellow humans based uppon age, sex, religion of any other label - else you get labelled yourself.

ensign edwards, on 20 March 2011 - 12:43 AM, said:

This is a very rare case of my supporting military intervention in a foreign country. The reasons for this are many and varied, but the most important is that the Libyan people actually asked for our help. It becomes less a case of us invading and more a case of us giving aid, albeit aid at the barrel of a gun.

Yes, but let's be very clear that they are not asking us to be an occupying force nor to influence who will form the new Libyan government, otherwise it will be an invasion.

[Apocalypse]

JulesLuvsShinzon, on 21 March 2011 - 01:53 AM, said:

Anyone who makes sweeping assumptions about people over a certain age probably have views based upon very little other than personal prejudice and ignorance.

Or under, for that matter. I seem to remember a particular TU member who had difficulty with this concept and caused a bit of strife.

[ensign edwards]

Quote

Yes, but let's be very clear that they are not asking us to be an occupying force nor to influence who will form the new Libyan government, otherwise it will be an invasion.

Agreed. To be clear, I do have concerns over where this might ultimately lead, but as it stands now, I support the actions taken by the coalition. The no fly zone and strategic air strikes are a good idea to protect civilian lives at minimum risk to us, but I would prefer not to see us participate in a long term occupation. That wouldn't be good for us, and it wouldn't be good for the Libyan people.

[sevnson_71]

I'm actually glad to see they're treating the air crews with respect. The WSO of the F-15 was returned safely by rebel forces in good health with a full belly.

[JulesLuvsShinzon]

Apocalypse, on 21 March 2011 - 04:29 AM, said:

Or under, for that matter. I seem to remember a particular TU member who had difficulty with this concept and caused a bit of strife.

I'm assuming you're not trying to aim that comment at me, because if you are then you're barking up the wrong tree because I have only ever called out younger posters when they were actively demonstrating ignorance or making assumptions about older people or people outside their demographic - as I see has happened here. Basically, if I see ignorance or sweeping assumptions I call it out regardless of the age of the poster. There have been some seriously crass youngsters posting here in the past deserving a rebuke and there have been some well-informed and serious-minded youngsters well worthy of being given the time of day and who are great to parlay with. It's not about age, it's not even about whether you agree or disagree, it's about being well-informed, being intelligent and making a point in a coherent way. I saw the OP as a dense block of rants that lost my interest within about 3 sentences and I see nobody really engaging with any of the OP's points in a meaningful way - maybe they didn't get all the way through the post either?

What depresses me greatly about many of the people here - regardless of age category - is how some of the principles of Star Trek get twisted around to suit their own rants and often to support ideas that are very far from the guiding principles that Roddenberry envisoned would be adopted by the people of the future. That said, I'm off after the venerable Shlomi!!

[JulesLuvsShinzon]

ensign edwards, on 21 March 2011 - 11:41 PM, said:

Agreed. To be clear, I do have concerns over where this might ultimately lead, but as it stands now, I support the actions taken by the coalition. The no fly zone and strategic air strikes are a good idea to protect civilian lives at minimum risk to us, but I would prefer not to see us participate in a long term occupation. That wouldn't be good for us, and it wouldn't be good for the Libyan people.

I agree, and the Libyans want intervention against the ruling regime while they are being attacked by their own government forces, but they do not want an occupying force - certainly that's the word coming from the ground where BBC reporters are speaking to the people. Besides, the recession is forcing serious cutbacks in the British military and the British couldn't help underpin and occupation like they did in Iraq alongside the continuing effort in Afghanistan.

I'd be willing to bet that the Libyan people won't have been told about the British fighters who turned around when they realised there were civilians around their designated target. I'd also bet that they won't know about the women being forced along with their children being bribed with toys to be deployed as human sheilds around likely targets. In some ways let's hope this is getting through via the internet - it's one of the things I see as making a significant difference during this spate of uprisings.

[Apocalypse]

JulesLuvsShinzon, on 22 March 2011 - 07:31 PM, said:

I'm assuming you're not trying to aim that comment at me

Not at all. I was referring to Legolas, who made it his mission to personally attack Plazmataz and myself merely based on our age. I understand he had some personal problems, but despite my age I've had my own dealings with things of that nature... in fact, it's practically a rite of passage for American teenagers. But I never took it out on other people and I like to think I came through that ordeal as a better and complete person.

Quote

It's not about age, it's not even about whether you agree or disagree, it's about being well-informed, being intelligent and making a point in a coherent way.

Agreed wholeheartedly, mainly because I still deal with this sort of thing. I don't mean to be arrogant (though I am anyway) but I consider myself a very intelligent person with a well-rounded education... that unlike many people I actually remember. I don't believe in treating anyone their age, particularly when they've reached intellectual and emotional maturity prematurely. I have internet friends as young as 15 and 16 whom I adore and count as equals.

[JulesLuvsShinzon]

Apocalypse, on 23 March 2011 - 02:24 AM, said:

Not at all. I was referring to Legolas, who made it his mission to personally attack Plazmataz and myself merely based on our age. I understand he had some personal problems, but despite my age I've had my own dealings with things of that nature... in fact, it's practically a rite of passage for American teenagers. But I never took it out on other people and I like to think I came through that ordeal as a better and complete person.

Understood! I know what you mean and it's a big part of maturing. I had the same experiences too when I was a youngster and older people can lapse into that argument default setting of "you're too young to know what you're talking about" even and often - especially - when the young person concerned is talking sense. My parents used to do it to me all the time - come to that - they still do!!

Quote

Agreed wholeheartedly, mainly because I still deal with this sort of thing. I don't mean to be arrogant (though I am anyway) but I consider myself a very intelligent person with a well-rounded education... that unlike many people I actually remember. I don't believe in treating anyone their age, particularly when they've reached intellectual and emotional maturity prematurely. I have internet friends as young as 15 and 16 whom I adore and count as equals.

I've come across some really impressive teens in my time online. There are quite a few here too. I'm always impressed by young people who aren't afraid to admit to gaps in their knowledge and show an interest in, say for example, what it was like to grow up during the Cold War, or who have taken the trouble to learn about things outside their immediate experience because they're interested and because they know knowledge is power! There are youngsters who know a lot more about some topics than I do and I learn from them. I always appreciate a fresh perspective as well.

And as for "arrogance" - don't worry about seeming that way. I'm one of those who dislike false modesty! Be proud of being smart and have a well-rounded education! It's depressing when I have encountered all too frequently people who think it's hip to dumb down or who regard anyone positing really imaginative ideas as "pretentious". Anti-intellectualism is the scourge of society!

[Diogenes]

II. Libya as an example.
While I continue to think negotiated elections and nonintervention the best alternative for Libya, I must relay upon further research that M. abused his position as head of state by contributing to the Red Brigades and the IRA, groups which I have publicly denounced, among others, thereby interfering in the internal affairs of Italy and Britain so he cannot now complain when they do in Libya's against him. In those times such events went unnoticed by me because I did not then follow international affairs as closely. I emphasize that, in my opening, my disclaimer was just that, a disclaimer to contextualize my first paragraph, not any expression of support for a government I decried in my second sentence. It must be asked who created the hatred in M. and others, the answer being Italy and Britain. Not my supposition but the words of those who'd met M. when he was younger, whose interviews I watched (http://www.pbs.org/n...afi2_02-23.html), but M. had no right to act as he did._ _ _ _Obama's speech (transcript and video available at http://www.politico....0311/52093.html), pabulum to enable the force-feeding of the pill of Machiavellianism ("interests", in his thirteenth paragraph from the bottom, beginning "There will be..." and wherein "flow of commerce" means oil) hardly conceals the filthy secret that if you play ball with us (Egypt, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Morocco, Nigeria, Niger, etc.) we won't interfere, but if you don't (Libya, Syria, and ultimately Iran and Pakistan) you might look over your shoulder to see a predator drone behind you. Nicolas Sarkozy and David Cameron represent the parasitic rich, and they led Obama, not vice versa. Since cocoa doesn't "flow" it took embarrassingly long for France and the UN to move on Gbagbo, and maybe they only did due to the incongruity of not doing so. Concern has been voiced that depleted uranium might be deployed in Libya (see http://www.commondre...ne/2011/04/03-1 but ignore d.u. search results of the website Press Tv as it is the mouthpiece of Iran), and the US has sometimes not admitted such use until much after the fact. It should be outlawed, and some foreign posters opine its usage justifies response with "dirty bombs" in Western countries._ _ _ _Internationally-supervised elections hold the most promise for the world, but rebels have rejected proposals (http://en.wikipedia....ation_proposals). M. is not the question; Libyan loyalists will never accept a rebel installed by force as a head of state, but they might buy in if the person were elected (Lebanon and Gaza) as that would give them a chance next time. An installed leader would be beholden because he who pays the piper calls the tune, and this has a bad history (Pahlavi, Marcos, and Pinochet). Also, if you break it, you buy it (Afghanistan and Iraq). See http://www.stratfor....ative-democracy if you think I'm alone in what I've raised about lack of Libyan unity and the nature of the rebels._ _ _ _In general, I favor intervention and removal of oppressors (see I.1. and 3. above), so what bothers me about Libya most is its selective character, explained away by Obama. If your memory slips, the reason the world couldn't act years ago owes to the Soviet Union, which Reagan rightly termed "the focus of evil in the modern world", but that no longer pertains. If you adore countries ("the measles of mankind"), consider that the US, evidently one of the better ones, loved slavery until 1865 and segregation until 1965, hated women's suffrage until 1920 and minority suffrage (effectively) until 1964, loved atom bombs 1945 on, still loves landmines and cluster bombs but hates the International Criminal Court (uh-huh, hypocrite Susan Rice), and always loved native American land but never native Americans. Definitively, humanity will never be civilized unless and until it looses the grip of the parasitic rich and, more pointedly, of riches as illustrated in "Star Trek: The Next Generation", especially "The Neutral Zone". That concludes my analysis of Libya as an example. When next I post I will answer your replies. Need I repeat my quote from "Imagine"?

This post has been edited by Diogenes: 24 April 2011 - 11:26 PM

[sevnson_71]

[JulesLuvsShinzon]

These days I am so used to Facebook that I was searching for the "Like" button. Nice one Sevenson!

[sevnson_71]

Have you joined our group page on Facebook?

[JulesLuvsShinzon]

sevnson_71, on 25 May 2011 - 06:26 AM, said:

Have you joined our group page on Facebook?

No, but I will now!

[Legolas]

Well, i see that we have a heated discussion afoot here.
Why not throwing a few cheastnuts in this little campfire here?

Well, for starters, tyrants and dictators seldom run a fairly governed country, with a notable exception of Napoleon Bonaparte who, in the short time he controlled the region now known as Slovenia, for the first time in our history put our own language into schools and gave my people the rights never before even dreamt of.
So in most of the dictatorial regimes you see two distinct worlds: the rulling machine with the government and the group of the followers, paid by the rulling family members and the poor, opressed, rightless majority of rural people, who are the bread and butter providers to the dictator.

As a citizen of such an opressed country that has only achieved independence from YUGOSLAVIA (funny, how they hid the word 'slave' in there), i know just a bit more than the average joe about the tirany.

My point is: the governments that oppress the populace should go into the past, not history. The only way that the people could have their saying is a democracy , but i'd also say no to capitalism that has ruined the world far too much already.
We are also very far from reaching the point where we could be seen by extraterrestrials as anything more than barbarians.
As for Gadafi, i'm glad that the people of Libiya have removed him from power. That should happen to ALL dictators who commit crimes and genocides against their own citizens.

This post has been edited by Legolas: 23 October 2011 - 02:48 PM