See Wikileaks outcry, Bradley Manning, Julian Assange witch hunt and hysterical condemnation of the role of journalism and press for summation of said violent authoritarian conspiracy.
Except - again - those are all things you got from (drumroll please)
Western media. So clearly there must be more going on, than some simple conspiracy. The primary resistance to this putative conspiracy, indeed, is exactly Western media.
I need to point out that you leapt in the same way, but in the opposite direction.
No, in fact, you do not. I have already admitted that I was too hasty, and apologized for such.
(note to self: Hmm... ICC prosecutor who does not prosecute self confessed torturers)
You have examples of self-confessed torture taking place under ICC jurisdiction?
I am pointing out that there are two sides to the story. Not just the Western Media`s Viagra fueled rape hysteria et al.
And the other side you come up with, is also from Western Media. Which pretty clearly implies that the attribution to "Western Media" is erroneous. Both sides of said story (and many other sides) are playing out within Western media. So you should start identifying the actual, relevant components (authoritarian toadies, military-industrial complex, progressive left, etc.) rather than persisting in the whole misplaced, broad-brush inanity.
And the Viagra-fueld systematic rape accusation remains an open investigation.
Perhaps. That is a pertinent point. I suppose after 23248 sorties everything is still as good as new.
So you're just going to go ahead and assume that Libya's standard of living is necessary worse than it ever was under Qaddafi, based on... ? The number of sorties? And then attribute all damage to NATO, despite Qaddafi commanding a belligerent army?
The pertinent question is how the intervention compared to the likely alternative, not whether there were costs associated with the intervention at all.
In a nutshell Resolution 1973 specifically excludes regime change.
No it doesn't. It doesn't saying anything about that. Have you read it? It specifically excludes "foreign occupation forces." It says nothing to prejudice the fate of the Qaddafi regime, and it certainly doesn't come out endorse Qaddafi and delegitimize the rebels by excluding regime change.
You believe thousands upon thousands of sorties, shells and bullets do no damage?
Are you really unable to read, or do you just prefer to troll me instead of responding substantively?
The crux of the matter is legitimate or not, it is not NATO`s business to facilitate regime change.
Why not? That was an illegitimate regime, using military force to crush opposition. No?
The Libyan people would have, in the fullness of time, and as they were enjoying amongst the highest standards of living in the world, effected political and thus regime change.
You seem to forget that this whole thing started with Libyans expressing peaceful desires for political changes, and being met with violent resistance from Qaddafi. The Libyan people did not seem content to sit on their hands and wait another decade or two or four for change. Hence the uprising. I'm unclear on why you are so upset that outsiders responded to their requests for help in doing so. It seems to be only because said outsiders were "Western."
Meanwhile, what we got was exactly "the Libyan people effect[ing] political and thus regime change." I guess you have some fantasy that such would have come for free, without any violence, under some other scenario?
Which was occurring anyway, before NATO intervened and fanned the flames - and backed their winner.
So it would have been better to stand aside, watch Qaddafi use military force to violently crush the opposition, and then go back to buying oil from the dictator? This is the morally preferable alternative?
If you have some substantial argument that the intervention did more damage than the likely alternative, this would be the time to produce it. Short of that, your complaint seems to be little more than that the West got involved at all.
But I have established clearly, that both parties are guilty of human rights abuses - including the execution of the previous head of State.
But you haven't established that the one side's abuses are equivalent to the other side's. Indeed, they hardly could be - Qaddafi had decades to rack up his list of crimes and abuses. Nor have you addressed the question of the legitimacy of the ends advanced by those costs.
Does that not immediately render the TNC as illegitimate as Gaddafi?
No. In the first place, legitimacy is primarily a matter of the relation between the state and the governed. If the governed give free consent to the state, then it's legitimate, regardless of what you think about its human rights record.
In the second place, it was a war. All sides commit abuses in every war. The real differentiator will be whether the new regime is abusive in peacetime (as Qaddafi was), or if that stuff was a product of a chaotic, uncontrolled environment. Moreover, legitimacy is not a binary thing wherein any polity associated with any abuses, ever, is thereby rendered as illegitimate as the worst of dictators. Under that absurd metric, all governments that have ever existed "are as illegitimate as Qaddafi" and the only principled response is anarchy.
But, yes, if the TNC fails to respect the people's rights and will, allow for true democracy, establish safety and security, etc., they will lose legitimacy quickly enough.
Hypothetically, if we agree re the basic morality of the two groups, you are correct, but the legitimacy of the TNC is yet to be established.
To you, maybe. Doesn't seem to be in much doubt to anyone whose opinion on that question matters.
