Quote: (11-25-2014 07:08 AM)zidhai89 Wrote:
NATO attacked Libya with the French and British leading the charge not the USA.
A charge which the US government was strongly in favor of and decided to partake in...therefore, the US government shares responsibility for the effort and for its consequences. That's only fair.
Quote:Quote:
I stand corrected if true then. Source?
Here, here and here.
Quote:Quote:
It's a drastic projection but not unrealistic. Rwanda population during genocide - 9 million. Libyan population - 6 million.
In Rwanda we reached a death toll upwards of half a million even though the people carrying out genocide were ill trained, uneducated and equipped with machetes.
If the colonel had been allowed to turn his tanks and air force on the rebels who were armed with machine guns and limited ammunition you can bet it could easily have crossed those numbers.
First, the rebels weren't so poorly armed, they even had a functioning air force. Second, turning one's tanks and air force on armed, hostile rebels is what a military is for, and isn't illegitimate use of force. What distinguishes Rwanda is that violence was inflicted upon unarmed and defenseless populations due only to ethnicity, which is what you'll need to prove was happening in Libya if you want this argument to carry any weight. Third, there's zero evidence to suspect that Gaddafi had any motivation, intention or actionable plan in place to commit genocide against Benghazi or unrestrained violence against any population during that time. In fact, evidence to suggest this was produced by neither the US nor any other NATO government, both in the run-up and in the aftermath of western involvement.
In other words, I'm afraid you're justifying western intervention on the basis of a hypothetical, and one without evidence.