Libya: should anything be done?

[JimC]

Meanwhile, back in Libya: As chance would have it, I came across this quote from Montgomery about Allied air support in the Western Desert:

The moral effect of air action [on the enemy] is very great and out of all proportion to the material damage inflicted. In the reverse direction, the sight and sound of our own air forces operating against the enemy have an equally satisfactory effect on our own troops. A combination of the two has a profound influence on the most important single factor in war—morale

Good quoting!

I suspect in the latter part of the war, the satisfaction was even greater for those allied troops who had been the early Blitzkrieg in Europe, when the Stukas came stooping down continuously...

[Thumpalumpacus]

When I say that it is flawed, what I mean is that as an operating philosophy this outlook ignores a major human quality, that of ownership and possessiveness. No one likes giving up their hard-earned comforts, privileges, and perqs to another person who may well just be sandbagging his way through life. When someone's possessions are removed by force, or by the threat of force, that is theft.

So, you actually want to discuss something? OK.

I've been trying to discuss this with you, but it's proving very difficult at times to get any sort of straight answers; instead, I get hit with requests to define what are after all very basic terms. Unless I have an esoteric meaning for a word or phrase, you can safely take the colloquial meaning to be pertinent.

As much as you may say, "this outlook ignores a major human quality, that of ownership and possessiveness", I could say that cooperating and group solidarity are just as powerful human qualities. It's about which qualities are rewarded more than the qualities themselves. "Human nature" is not static, it evolves just like everything else. As for what "no one likes", there are a lot of things that people do that they don't particularly like or approve of. Life isn't a free for all, at least life in a community.

Indeed. I wasn't positing that greed is the only human quality, nor that it doesn't co-exist with other, more noble drives. I was simply stating that Communism ignores this quality, and it's a pretty big one to ignore. And of course human nature isn't static, but I'd be willing to bet that the sense of possession lies much deeper in our makeup. You ever try to take a bone away from a dog? Watch your hand, because that dog feels that bone is his. Now, we are seeing in the slow evolution of human nature the rise of altruism, but as to whether that will ever supplant the sense of ownership is doubtful at best, in my opinion.

The term "theft" is dependent on what a particular law is, "theft" can be redefined as well. Anyone could claim that any, say tax, is theft. Property itself could be considered theft.

Theft:

–noun
1. the act of stealing; the wrongful taking and carrying away of the personal goods or property of another; larceny.
2. an instance of this.
3. Archaic . something stolen.[/quote]

"Wrongful" doesn't mean "illegal". Some theft is illegal. And as to whether property is theft depends on whether or not that property was forcibly removed from a previous owner. Without an original owner, "theft" is a meaningless term.

[Coito ergo sum]

[

Yah...the Soviet Union bombed the shit out of Vietnam. Fail. It was the US vs Vietnam. No matter how many times you want to revise history.

The Soviets backed Hanoi.

It was the US vs north Vietnam. Again, I know the Party line full-well. You can pretend that there were no Vietnamese fighting against the north all you want. There were, plenty.

[Coito ergo sum]

The Soviets tooled NV like we tooled SV. Both sides were puppets.

Really? The soviet union bombed SV, murdered millions of Vietnamese and sent in thousands of ground troops? Invisible Soviet technology I take it?

The Soviets and the Chinese were supporting the communists in Vietnam long before the the 1964 escalation - as far back as the 1940s and early 1950s, significant support and aid were funneling in from the Soviet Union and China. In 1954, the Chinese pushed the north to accept a split of the country between the north and the south, actually, which was, as you know, partitioned that year.

Like good Communists following the plan - between 1953 and 1956, the North Vietnamese government instituted various agrarian reforms, including land redistribution. Large landowners and rich peasants were publicly denounced, and their land seized and distributed to poor and middle peasants. In some cases there were mass slaughters of landlords.

in 1956, when large numbers of "trainees" were sent to the USSR and China for pilot training. The north Vietnamese air force initially used MiG-17 fighters in the mid 1960's, and in 1965 upgraded to MiG-21s. Soviet fighters.

The north also used SA-2 antiaircraft missiles - Soviet missiles.

The north used AK-47s - Soviet made. And Type 56 assault rifles (Chinese). SKS Simonov semiautomatic carbines - Soviet.

They used Soviet PT-76 tanks, and Soviet BTR-50 armored personnel carriers. They also used Chinese Type 59 through 63 tanks. Soviet SU-100 tank destroyers. Polish T-72 tanks, Soviet T-52/54/62 tanks.

They used Soviet infantry fighting vehicles, Soviet trucks and Soviet infantry weapons, and Soviet artillery, Soviet missiles, and Soviet helicopters.

All that technology, apparently was or is "invisible" to you.

[Hermit]

All that technology, apparently was or is "invisible" to you.

Where are you going with that? Yes, in part the Vietnam war was a war by proxy, but the American military was not beaten by Soviet Migs, tanks, antiaircraft missiles or even AK-47s.

Meanwhile, in some hot, dry and dusty towns east of Tripoli...

[Coito ergo sum]

All that technology, apparently was or is "invisible" to you.

Where are you going with that? Yes, in part the Vietnam war was a war by proxy, but the American military was not beaten by Soviet Migs, tanks, antiaircraft missiles or even AK-47s.

In part, to the extent the US military was beaten, it was beaten by those things. That's the military hardware the north used.

But, nevertheless, I was only illustrating the fact that Sandi's suggestion of "invisible" support by the Soviets to the north Vietnamese was incorrect. The support was quite visible.

Meanwhile, in some hot, dry and dusty towns east of Tripoli...

We are fighting a war against a country that neither attacked us nor threatened us, did not attack its neighbors, disbanded its catastrophic weapons programs, did not participate in 9/11, did not support global terrorism, poses no "imminent threat," and as far as humanitarian crises go it falls considerably far down on the list, far below places like Sudan or Congo.

[Coito ergo sum]

Russia said on Monday attacks on forces loyal to Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi amounted to intervention in a civil war and were not backed by the U.N. resolution authorising no-fly zones.

In the latest Russian criticism of military action by the Western-led coalition, Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said the resolution passed by the U.N. Security Council on March 17 had the sole aim of protecting Libyan civilians

http://af.reuters.com/article/topNews/i ... 28?sp=true

We're in it for the humanitarianism.

[sandinista]

All that technology, apparently was or is "invisible" to you.

Where are you going with that? Yes, in part the Vietnam war was a war by proxy, but the American military was not beaten by Soviet Migs, tanks, antiaircraft missiles or even AK-47s.

In part, to the extent the US military was beaten, it was beaten by those things. That's the military hardware the north used.

But, nevertheless, I was only illustrating the fact that Sandi's suggestion of "invisible" support by the Soviets to the north Vietnamese was incorrect. The support was quite visible.

it's like listening to a creationist trying to explain that evolution is just a theory equal to that of creationism. To think the Soviet involvement in the US invasion of Vietnam was anywhere near the US involvement is ludicrous, even for you.

[Warren Dew]

it's like listening to a creationist trying to explain that evolution is just a theory equal to that of creationism. To think the Soviet involvement in the US invasion of Vietnam was anywhere near the US involvement is ludicrous, even for you.

Where did he claim equal involvement?

[Coito ergo sum]

All that technology, apparently was or is "invisible" to you.

Where are you going with that? Yes, in part the Vietnam war was a war by proxy, but the American military was not beaten by Soviet Migs, tanks, antiaircraft missiles or even AK-47s.

In part, to the extent the US military was beaten, it was beaten by those things. That's the military hardware the north used.

But, nevertheless, I was only illustrating the fact that Sandi's suggestion of "invisible" support by the Soviets to the north Vietnamese was incorrect. The support was quite visible.

it's like listening to a creationist trying to explain that evolution is just a theory equal to that of creationism. To think the Soviet involvement in the US invasion of Vietnam was anywhere near the US involvement is ludicrous, even for you.

Of course, I never made that claim.

You're the one who thought that Soviet support was "invisible." Maybe you weren't counting that the Soviets bankrolled them, and were their major arms supplier. What the Soviets didn't provide, the Chinese did.

Remember - you asked, "Invisible Soviet technology I take it?" I specifically responded to your question, and demonstrated that most of the north's military equipment and munitions were provided by the Soviet Union in a very "visible" fashion.

[sandinista]

All that technology, apparently was or is "invisible" to you.

Where are you going with that? Yes, in part the Vietnam war was a war by proxy, but the American military was not beaten by Soviet Migs, tanks, antiaircraft missiles or even AK-47s.

In part, to the extent the US military was beaten, it was beaten by those things. That's the military hardware the north used.

But, nevertheless, I was only illustrating the fact that Sandi's suggestion of "invisible" support by the Soviets to the north Vietnamese was incorrect. The support was quite visible.

it's like listening to a creationist trying to explain that evolution is just a theory equal to that of creationism. To think the Soviet involvement in the US invasion of Vietnam was anywhere near the US involvement is ludicrous, even for you.

Of course, I never made that claim.

I took it from this statement,

"That assumes that it the US vs. Vietnam, and not the US supporting part of the country and the USSR supporting the other part of the country.".

From that I took it you meant is was somehow equal support. The "invisible" statement didn't mean the Soviets didn't supply ANY weapons, just that, in comparison to what the US did, their contributions were "invisible" aka, they did not bomb the shit out of the South, send in thousands of ground troops and murder millions of Vietnamese.

[Coito ergo sum]

Of course, I never made that claim.

I took it from this statement,

"That assumes that it the US vs. Vietnam, and not the US supporting part of the country and the USSR supporting the other part of the country.".

From that I took it you meant is was somehow equal support.

That's not implied by my statement at all. The USSR was, however, the main arms supplier to the north - the north drove Soviet tanks, fired Soviet artillery and missiles, flew Soviet planes, dropped Soviet bombs, fired Soviet bullets from Soviet Kalashnikovs, received Soviet training, received Soviet funding, flew Soviet helicopters, and most of the rest of what the north used was Chinese, with a smattering of Eastern European (Soviet client States) sprinkled in for good measure.

The "invisible" statement didn't mean the Soviets didn't supply ANY weapons,

They provided the vast majority of the weapons and munitions, and none of the technology was "invisible."

just that, in comparison to what the US did, their contributions were "invisible" aka, they did not bomb the shit out of the South, send in thousands of ground troops and murder millions of Vietnamese.

The US didn't "murder millions of Vietnamese" either. The Soviets did not send in ground troops, that's true. However, the weapons they supplied to the north did do a lot of killing. Unless you're suggesting that the north prevailed in the conflict without killing any south Vietnamese, soldiers and civilians...

[sandinista]

That's not implied by my statement at all.

I thought it was.

The USSR was, however, the main arms supplier to the north

and? what would have happened in the war had the US simply supplied weapons to the south. It would have been over in a year. It was a peoples war against a US invasion.

The US didn't "murder millions of Vietnamese" either.

yes they did, of course they did. wtf?

[Coito ergo sum]

That's not implied by my statement at all.

I thought it was.

You have a habit of that.

The USSR was, however, the main arms supplier to the north

and?

and your statement about invisible technology is demonstrably bollocks.

what would have happened in the war had the US simply supplied weapons to the south. It would have been over in a year. It was a peoples war against a US invasion.

Like I said, I know the Party Line. North Vietnamese = "people" and south Vietnamese fighting against them = [oughta be dead in the purges anyway]

The US didn't "murder millions of Vietnamese" either.

yes they did, of course they did. wtf?

Let's see your sources and stats for the "murders," and define what you believe the word "murder" covers (i.e. - all deaths? civilians only?) My experience with the Party line is that all deaths tend to be attributed to the US under the argument that the US presence was illegal and therefore all deaths resulting from the war were "murders." Is that your tack?

[sandinista]

oh just keep your head in the clouds and stick to your ideology coito...back to Libya.