Are we (Uk/Europe) hypocrites? (Libya)

[Scorched_Cascade]

We've had discussion on whether you think it is right that we (The UN) are interfering in the Libyan situation this is not that. I am questioning whether we have the ability to impartially judge the Libya situation.

Unfortunately this is going to be fairly UK centric due to my foreign history being shaky; I'll admit that from the start but feel free to comment on why your country is able to judge.

It is all over our news at the moment, we vehemently denounce Gaddafi as vile for his actions against the people he rules. Every time I hear that I feel shamed. What gives us the right to judge?

We (Britain) have, in the past, fought tooth and nail to hang onto countries and have committed atrocities against rebellious peoples. Take, for example, Ireland where villages were starved, villages were burned and civilians murdered or America where our attempt to stomp out armed rebellion resulted in outright war.

Our old empire is considered by non-Brits to have been an oppressive regime, the only difference I can see between us and the Libya situation is a few hundred years and the presence of modern technology.

Most other major European countries have similar records.

I'm not pro-Gadaffi by any stretch of the imagination, I just wish our news media wouldn't act like we are squeaky clean. Are we responsible for the sin's of our Fathers? If so our hands are drenched in blood.

Do you think we have learned our lesson well enough that we are now able to correctly judge a similar situation?

Edit-forgot to say that this could get heated; please mind your manners, keep cool and stay civil.

 

[KalosCast]

This is an absolutely asinine argument. Those atrocities were committed by people long-dead and would spark nationwide outrage (if not global) were they committed again. Gadaffi is very much alive and very much doing these things right now. Like literally right now. Not to mention his own personal previous track record over the past 30 years or so.

In fact, a lot of Libya's economic viability (and access to military hardware) comes from Italy investing billions of dollars into the country out of what I assume to be colonial guilt.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Are we responsible for the sin's of our Fathers?

No. Flat out, we totally aren't. Conversely, we aren't responsible for their achievements...pride or shame in your nation's history is very odd, and tends to lead towards all sorts of unpleasantness.

Hell, our ancestors all came from Africa originally, Europe and the US should be attacking Libya to reclaim their homeland, before becoming merpeople and living underwater, by that logic.

 

[Megawat22]

We shouldn't be held responsible for the actions of our fore-fathers. No one should be for that matter.
We live in a "civilised" time now. A few hundred years ago you would be a slave if you were black, shot if you were gay and forced to work in a kitchen all day if you were a lady.
Times have changed, we're better now, Gadaffi didn't get the memo is all.

 

[Nickolai77]

"We (Rome) have, in the past, fought tooth and nail to hang onto countries and have committed atrocities against rebellious peoples. Take, for example, Gaul where villages were starved, villages were burned and civilians murdered or Israel where our attempt to stomp out armed rebellion resulted in outright war.

Our old empire is considered by non-Romans to have been an oppressive regime, the only difference I can see between us and the Libya situation is a few hundred years and the presence of modern technology."

So yeah, why are the Italians supporting NATO? 2000 years ago they occupied Libya, now they're trying to support the Libyan people in overthrowing Gadaffi! Hypocrisy i tell you!

 

[Scorched_Cascade]

"We (Rome) have, in the past, fought tooth and nail to hang onto countries and have committed atrocities against rebellious peoples. Take, for example, Gaul where villages were starved, villages were burned and civilians murdered or Israel where our attempt to stomp out armed rebellion resulted in outright war.

Our old empire is considered by non-Romans to have been an oppressive regime, the only difference I can see between us and the Libya situation is a few hundred years and the presence of modern technology."

So yeah, why are the Italians supporting NATO? 2000 years ago they occupied Libya, now they're trying to support the Libyan people in overthrowing Gadaffi! Hypocrisy i tell you!

There is a vast difference between 2000 years and a few hundred. In the case of Italy I would have gone with these [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_war_crimes].

As for those saying that the people are long since dead? Ireland's easter rising was only 95 years ago. That is still living memory.

 

[havass]

As for those saying that the people are long since dead? Ireland's easter rising was only 94 years ago. That is still living memory.

Actually anybody who were still alive 94 years ago are either dead or were too young then.

OT: My country (Singapore) actually has some reason to criticize Gadaffi. We're still young after all, and haven't committed any atrocities. In fact we were once a British colony!

 

[Nickolai77]

As for those saying that the people are long since dead? Ireland's easter rising was only 95 years ago. That is still living memory.

Point still stands, those whom were old enough to have fought in the Easter Rising are dead, just like the Roman legionaries, Saxon warriors, the medieval knights and the colonial soldiers of the 19th century. As other people have pointed out in this thread, you don't inherit the sins of your farther's.

 

[Harrowdown]

Just because our country has a suspect past, it doesn't make violent dictatorships acceptable.

 

[KalosCast]

As for those saying that the people are long since dead? Ireland's easter rising was only 95 years ago. That is still living memory.

I don't think you understand what "living memory" means. What you're doing right now is justifying someone who has slaughtered helpless civilians, as well as funding abroad those who would do it because you think it's hypocritical in regards to things that you didn't participate in, didn't have any control over and weren't even alive for

 

[MikeOfThunder]

"We (Rome) have, in the past, fought tooth and nail to hang onto countries and have committed atrocities against rebellious peoples. Take, for example, Gaul where villages were starved, villages were burned and civilians murdered or Israel where our attempt to stomp out armed rebellion resulted in outright war.

Our old empire is considered by non-Romans to have been an oppressive regime, the only difference I can see between us and the Libya situation is a few hundred years and the presence of modern technology."

So yeah, why are the Italians supporting NATO? 2000 years ago they occupied Libya, now they're trying to support the Libyan people in overthrowing Gadaffi! Hypocrisy i tell you!

There is a vast difference between 2000 years and a few hundred. In the case of Italy I would have gone with these [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_war_crimes].

As for those saying that the people are long since dead? Ireland's easter rising was only 95 years ago. That is still living memory.

Of course there's not. two thousand years, two hundred years... it doesn't make the greatest difference, after all we were not there and cannot be called into account for what happened then.

I wouldn't accuse a German of being a Nazi simply because his father was. As much as i understand your statement, it doesn't quite make sense.

If a nation commits genocide in its history does that mean that it cannot aid in stopping a genocide in the modern age? (btw Im not claiming Libya is genocide - simply an example)

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of Evil, is for good men to do nothing"

If we do nothing now, then perhaps history will judge us for being cowards.

Studying history I've come to accept one major thing about the subject:
'Don't live in the past, simply learn from it'

 

[Scorched_Cascade]

Just because our country has a suspect past, it doesn't make violent dictatorships acceptable.

So we are doing something about Darfur (Sudan) then? How about Zimbabwe? Burma? Uzbekistan? Syria?

"We (Rome) have, in the past, fought tooth and nail to hang onto countries and have committed atrocities against rebellious peoples. Take, for example, Gaul where villages were starved, villages were burned and civilians murdered or Israel where our attempt to stomp out armed rebellion resulted in outright war.

Our old empire is considered by non-Romans to have been an oppressive regime, the only difference I can see between us and the Libya situation is a few hundred years and the presence of modern technology."

So yeah, why are the Italians supporting NATO? 2000 years ago they occupied Libya, now they're trying to support the Libyan people in overthrowing Gadaffi! Hypocrisy i tell you!

There is a vast difference between 2000 years and a few hundred. In the case of Italy I would have gone with these [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_war_crimes].

As for those saying that the people are long since dead? Ireland's easter rising was only 95 years ago. That is still living memory.

Of course there's not. two thousand years, two hundred years... it doesn't make the greatest difference, after all we were not there and cannot be called into account for what happened then.

I wouldn't accuse a German of being a Nazi simply because his father was. As much as i understand your statement, it doesn't quite make sense.

If a nation commits genocide in its history does that mean that it cannot aid in stopping a genocide in the modern age? (btw Im not claiming Libya is genocide - simply an example)

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of Evil, is for good men to do nothing"

If we do nothing now, then perhaps history will judge us for being cowards.

Studying history I've come to accept one major thing about the subject:
'Don't live in the past, simply learn from it'

I apparently didn't word my OP correctly thats what I get for typing it while playing Dynasty Warriors.

I am not criticisng the action I am criticising the media coverage of the atrocities. They are making him sound like the devil himself while a few hundred years ago that was us. That self-same historic Britain we are proud of and nationalists love? That is it right there on the TV screen and people are appalled.

I'm saying intervening is fine but demonizing someone who might well be one of our ancestors? People should remember that next time they hear someone talking about how great the British Empire was.

 

[Fappy]

Considering I don't live in the UK, I can't even begin to imagine what your news coverage of the situation over there is, and while I agree the English should be conscious about what they have done in their history, you guys should not feel guilty about what you have done when there is a noble cause to attend to. Whether its a way of achieving redemption in the eyes of histories or not, the UK (along with the other Western powers, who are all guilty of similar histories to a certain degree) is trying to do what is right and that is all that should truly matter.

 

[Griffolion]

I believe Enter Shikari said it best in their song 'fanfare for the conscious man' - "We think we have the right to enforce democracy, when we're weakening ours every day, what hypocrisy'.

 

[Thaluikhain]

I am not criticisng the action I am criticising the media coverage of the atrocities. They are making him sound like the devil himself while a few hundred years ago that was us. That self-same historic Britain we are proud of and nationalists love? That is it right there on the TV screen and people are appalled.

I'm saying intervening is fine but demonizing someone who might well be one of our ancestors? People should remember that next time they hear someone talking about how great the British Empire was.

Ah, in that you are, of course, correct. Any talk of how great a nation was, hell, even 50 years ago is going to brush over a hell of a lot.

 

[Harrowdown]

Just because our country has a suspect past, it doesn't make violent dictatorships acceptable.

So we are doing something about Darfur (Sudan) then? How about Zimbabwe? Burma? Uzbekistan? Syria?

What's your point? I never said we shouldn't intervene in those particular places, and neither did I say we should. I never even commented on Libya, really. You argued that we shouldn't intervene due to hypocrisy, and I argued that we're not hypocrites, or at least that being a hypocrite in this case is acceptable to prevent Gaddafi's crimes. Besides, there's a difference. Libya is in the midst of revolution and civil war. When the government is actively launching a military campaign against its civilians, intervention is much easier to justify, both morally and legally.

 

[Fappy]

Just because our country has a suspect past, it doesn't make violent dictatorships acceptable.

So we are doing something about Darfur (Sudan) then? How about Zimbabwe? Burma? Uzbekistan? Syria?

What's your point? I never said we shouldn't intervene in those particular places, and neither did I say we should. I never even commented on Libya, really. You argued that we shouldn't intervene due to hypocrisy, and I argued that we're not hypocrites, or at least that being a hypocrite in this case is acceptable to prevent Gaddafi's crimes. Besides, there's a difference. Libya is in the midst of revolution and civil war. When the government is actively launching a military campaign against its civilians, intervention is much easier to justify, both morally and legally.

Also, unrest Libya is more of a threat to NATO's security than those other countries. But yeah, you're right on all accounts.

 

[Scorched_Cascade]

Well this is a silly argument, considering every country ever has blood on its hands and acted in ways today we consider unacceptable.
Are you a troll ?

Am I troll? No. Am I trolling? No. Do I have a controversial opinion that I am hoping to rectify? Yes. I'm not trying to upset people or provoke responses I'm just trying to see what people's opinion on it is and whether I am wrong. It appears in this case the consensus is against me. I genuinely did think our media was overdoing it on the whole demonising Gadaffi and canonising the west's action but it appears people are fine with it and I'm in the wrong. I'm letting it run for a bit to see if it goes anywhere and then I'll politely ask a mod to lock/bury it.

 

[Eleima]

You don't even need to go as far as the sins of our fathers (although I would argue that we're not responsible for actions that were carried out long before our birth, we can only do so much to atone for it).
At least you're not as bad as our (the French) government which actually extended an invitation to Gaddafi and actually let him pitch his bloody tent on the lawn right across from the bloody Palais de l'Elysée (French White House or Downing Street, it's where we stick our president)... And a year later, Sarkozy actually has the nerve to denounce him.
Now *there's* hypocrisy for ya.

 

[Zaik]

You could make that claim, yeah.

However you would have to hold me personally responsible for purchasing african slaves way back before the American Civil War. Which is ridiculous.

I don't like the whole claiming the moral high ground stance either, but if a guy stepped into a room full of unarmed people with a gun he bought with their money and said he'd kill anyone who disagrees with him, common sense dictates that it's not really right.