The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > The Responsibility to Protect (R2P): a death in embryo > Comments

The Responsibility to Protect (R2P): a death in embryo : Comments

By Jed Lea-Henry, published 22/7/2015

With all the harm that we are currently seeing in Syria and Iraq, the Doctrine of the Responsibility to Protect or R2P should be rolling off our tongues daily.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. All
We are not responsible for the acts of God, nor for the acts of other men - but we are responsible for our own actions, so lets begin with doing no harm to anyone, be they human or otherwise, then let those who perfected it, help and protect others as well if they so wish.

Obliging others to protect a third-party has no place because itself is a form of violence. If you want to protect that party - do so yourself.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Wednesday, 22 July 2015 10:30:43 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Given all the factions fighting each other, or all and sundry, who do you protect from who!?

Should we protect Assard from ISIL, or just let these evil twins duke it out until one is dominant; then take it out?

As always in the middle east, we are obliged to look over our shoulder at a nuclear armed and expansionist Russia!

And they have a very different take on R2P, which could mean for them?

Right 2 perpetually plunder or pillage or purloin, as they annex this or that oil rich province?

The middle east conflict or sunni against shiite, or Mena against Mecca, has been going on for centuries, which only butchering bastards have been able to quell, with extreme prejudice!

And that is all we also can offer in order to put down the most evil obscenity the world has ever seen!

Almost as if it ISIL, were a rabid dog that just had to be destroyed by any and all means necessary, with nothing off the table, in order to save the unaffected!

But not if it means starting WW111!
Rhrosty
Posted by Rhrosty, Wednesday, 22 July 2015 11:28:18 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
If Libya was the high water mark of R2P I would like to see the low mark.

Prior to our liberation of Libya it was the wealthiest nation in Africa - let that sink in for a moment - the wealthiest nation in Africa. Libya not only was debt free, it had billions of dollars in reserve.

I think we can all agree, there are many countries with tyrants which could do with some help, but why the urgency to "help" Libya? Gadaffi warned the west that the so called moderate rebels were Al Qaeda but he was ignored. He was able to keep Al Qaeda out of his country, but with him gone, Al Qaeda are there in force.

After R2P, Libya has become a lawless, failed state overrun by Al Qaeda and ISIS militants. It's wealth is being kept in trust by its "liberators" - the US and EU - many billions of dollars plus gold. I'm sure it will be returned in due course to its rightful owners - the people of Libya.

Gaddafi was no saint, but his people enjoyed relative safety and prosperity. They had free education, health care, child care, subsidized housing and electricity, and a secular government. What they have now is a nightmare.

With many Libyans fleeing the country since we unleashed our R2P in 2011, where is the west's help now? We are too busy trying to stem the tide of refugees leaving Libya in their efforts to gain safety from their "friends" in Europe - our willingness to protect innocent civilians seems to start our willingness to bomb them to freedom, but ends at Europe's borders.
Posted by BJelly, Wednesday, 22 July 2015 4:26:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yes, BJelly. It's extraordinary that so many still believe this sick propaganda fairytale that we and our wonderful R2P bombs (10,000 NATO sorties in all) liberated and protected the Libyan people.

In addition to all you said, few people know that Gaddafi was a figurehead and that he relinquished his dictatorship in 1979, as he'd promised. Few have ever heard of the Jamahariya, the tribal-based democracy of elected representatives that governed Libya since 1979. Neither do they know that up to two million Libyans (1 in 3 of the total population) rallied to show their strong support for Gaddafi on 1 July 2011 - none of this was shown in the Western media, but you can still find plenty of footage on YouTube.

Far from liberating them from a dictator - there was actually NO liberation and no dictator.

R2P sounds fine as a concept, but in practice, it's been mostly used by Western governments to facilitate brutal regime change in countries whose leaders challenge the Washington consensus. Contrary to the author's bunkum about high watermarks, our totally avoidable and unnecessary destruction of Libya was the lowest of the lowest of the low.
Posted by Killarney, Wednesday, 22 July 2015 9:43:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Jed Lea-Hendry belies in war for humanitarian reasons. He wants the militarily powerful countries of the world to go around invading those countries which violate human rights and which commit genocide. While such a premise does indeed have some merit, the idea of lefties now clamouring for war to save innocent civilians from war is amusing in the extreme.

Jed seems to be convinced that all civilians are innocent victims and they are all must be saved. Nup, sorry, can't agree with that, Jed. Why doncha get hold of a book about the UN "intervention" in Somalia to give yourself a reality check? Just to summarise. After the end of colonialism in Africa, the Africans reverted to their normal state of barbaric savagery, and in Somalia the different tribes did what they had done since time immemorial, they started butchering each other, and they used starvation as a means to kill off each others tribe.

Millions of Somalis were dying of starvation, and the UN could not get food through because the different warlords were preventing the food getting through to the rival tribes. In addition, the warlords were stealing everything the UN was sending to their own people, while even killing the aid agency personnel who were trying to stop millions of their own people from starving to death.

The UN begged the US Army to help by standing over the warlords. The yanks did not have armoured vehicles because some US government genius thought M1A1 tanks would appear too threatening. After all, the yanks were just there to help. The Somali people then turned on the very people who were trying to help them. They sided with their own tribal leaders who were killing them by the millions in the first place. UN aid providers labelled Mogadishu "The city of the insane", while one US colonel said "All we are doing is feeding them so that they can fight us."

Rotsa ruck getting the yanks to do that again. Even the Euros aren't that dumb anymore. Jeb, some people are not worth saving from themselves.
Posted by LEGO, Thursday, 23 July 2015 6:30:08 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Jed Lea-Henry belies in war for humanitarian reasons. He wants the militarily powerful countries of the world to go around invading those countries which violate human rights and which commit genocide. While such a premise does indeed have some merit, the idea of lefties now clamouring for war to save innocent civilians from war is amusing in the extreme.

Jed seems to be convinced that all civilians are innocent victims and they are all must be saved. Nup, sorry, can't agree with that, Jed. Why doncha get hold of a book about the UN "intervention" in Somalia to give yourself a reality check? Just to summarise. After the end of colonialism in Africa, the Africans reverted to their normal state of barbaric savagery, and in Somalia the different tribes did what they had done since time immemorial, they started butchering each other, and they used starvation as a means to kill off each others tribe.

Millions of Somalis were dying of starvation, and the UN could not get food through because the different warlords were preventing the food getting through to the rival tribes. In addition, the warlords were stealing everything the UN was sending to their own people, while even killing the aid agency personnel who were trying to stop millions of their own people from starving to death.

The UN begged the US Army to help by standing over the warlords. The yanks did not have armoured vehicles because some US government genius thought M1A1 tanks would appear too threatening. After all, the yanks were just there to help. The Somali people then turned on the very people who were trying to help them. They sided with their own tribal leaders who were killing them by the millions in the first place. UN aid providers labelled Mogadishu "The city of the insane", while one US colonel said "All we are doing is feeding them so that they can fight us."

Rotsa ruck getting the yanks to do that again. Even the Euros aren't that dumb anymore. Jeb, some people are not worth saving from themselves.
Posted by LEGO, Thursday, 23 July 2015 6:43:18 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy