re my posting on: Lessons learned in Libya, CBC, Oct 21, 2011
While the end of the Libyan conflict is an older story now, I thought on Remembrance Day it would be fitting to reflect on the tough question on when we should or shouldn't get involved in armed conflicts for just causes, and what some of the tensions and trade-offs are. Also, as more and more people in Syria die every day, just for the crime of wanting to be free, it reminds me to value all the more the freedom we have, and appreciate the sacrifices made in the past by those that fought to preserve it.
While it has been and will continue to be messy, letting people determine the direction of their country is always preferable to despotic, repressive rule. There will always be a trade off between concerns for freedom and regional security, but when we listen to the voices of isolationism from the likes of China and Russia and just look the other way when thousands die, then we are making a devils bargain that will one day come back to haunt us.
Yes it is tough to decide if and when to intervene, and there will never be a formula for it. But as is suggested in the CBC article, if we limit our interventions only to those times when the people from across ethnic, religious and tribal lines together consistently ask for help, or when there is an immanent genocide such as Rwanda, then I think there is a much better likelihood of making a positive difference. The fundamental principle is that we have to listen carefully before we act, but then be prepared to act decisively, albeit with continued local and regional cooperation / coordination.
Just think how this would have all ended had NATO not intervened. Tens of thousands more would have died in Benghazi and across the country, many more thousands of refugees would have fled to Europe and Canada, and the Arab spring would have a suffered a potentially fatal blow. Of course, the political realities limit the countries where intervention is even a possibility. Syria is a tough question given the size of the country and its army. But just because we can't or shouldn't intervene in every case doesn't mean we should never do so.
And while this is the Libyan people's victory, we should remember and thank our people in uniform that did their part to support Libyan's sacrifices.
Saturday, November 12, 2011
A great day for Libya ... apparently a sad day for Canadians.
This is from my posting on: Libya Gadhafi Capture, CBC, Oct 20,2011
A great day for Libya
... apparently a sad day for Canadians.
What's wrong with CBC readers? I scanned 150+ comments, and > 90% of them are negative. Even someone who simply said "good day for Libya" got scored only 259 for and 271 against. I don't get it. We live in a democracy, but you want to deny the Libyan people a chance at democracy (not a guarantee), just because you vilify NATO and Harper and everything they do? Get your head out of that emotional/ strait jacket.
While I know how much fun we have criticizing how Americans can be out of touch, the more I read comments on cbc the more I worry about how many Canadians seem out of touch with the world - both with what's going on and what other peoples and cultures actually think.
I do agree that it is a good idea to get your news from multiple sources. I find Al Jazeera does as good a job as BBC, sometimes better. Its always good to check a regional news source on any major story. But I would avoid sites or bloggers that have just one agenda to push - either left or right, status quo or conspiracist.
Finally, why do we have to be such pessimists? There's enough bad news in the world, why can't we just congratulate the Libyan people and leave it at that? This is their victory more than anyone else's, so it shouldn't be about politics and points. And if you think that Gadhafi wasn't much worse than Harper or some other such nonsense, you need to get out of the west and go visit Zimbabwe or Syria or somewhere else where the thugs that run the government can throw you away without a moments pretense about justice. I've been in former Yugoslavia during the wars there, so I know something about criminal regimes. I don't think you will find refugees from those kind of places mourning Gadhafi's demise.
A great day for Libya
... apparently a sad day for Canadians.
What's wrong with CBC readers? I scanned 150+ comments, and > 90% of them are negative. Even someone who simply said "good day for Libya" got scored only 259 for and 271 against. I don't get it. We live in a democracy, but you want to deny the Libyan people a chance at democracy (not a guarantee), just because you vilify NATO and Harper and everything they do? Get your head out of that emotional/ strait jacket.
While I know how much fun we have criticizing how Americans can be out of touch, the more I read comments on cbc the more I worry about how many Canadians seem out of touch with the world - both with what's going on and what other peoples and cultures actually think.
I do agree that it is a good idea to get your news from multiple sources. I find Al Jazeera does as good a job as BBC, sometimes better. Its always good to check a regional news source on any major story. But I would avoid sites or bloggers that have just one agenda to push - either left or right, status quo or conspiracist.
Finally, why do we have to be such pessimists? There's enough bad news in the world, why can't we just congratulate the Libyan people and leave it at that? This is their victory more than anyone else's, so it shouldn't be about politics and points. And if you think that Gadhafi wasn't much worse than Harper or some other such nonsense, you need to get out of the west and go visit Zimbabwe or Syria or somewhere else where the thugs that run the government can throw you away without a moments pretense about justice. I've been in former Yugoslavia during the wars there, so I know something about criminal regimes. I don't think you will find refugees from those kind of places mourning Gadhafi's demise.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)