BruceVC
Members
-
Joined
-
Last visited
Everything posted by BruceVC
-
That trailer was amazing, awesome magic and its effects I want that bird !!! -
Sorry if you feel disrespected, I was just being honest. I respect your view that is what you think but I find it abnormal because that's not how the average person would look at a tragedy that effects the citizens of there own country But you already seem to acknowledge this as the Dutch media showed this concern towards its dead citizens and you didn't understand why, in fact you were offended by this. I can't really explain to you why most people would automatically show more concern to there own citizens killed in a tragedy, its just the way human beings think. Its probably got to do with a level of patriotism and the fact we generally see citizens of our own country as part of our greater community on a national level, citizens in a country are like a tribe. We share a common identify and when someone who belongs to that "tribe " is killed this impacts us on certain levels Empathy in this case would just mean you do feel for the families and the loss. Its something that you don't feel good about. And yes to be totally unconcerned if citizens of your own country are killed in a particular event I think is not right. Sorry to say this The frustrating thing about you lately is that I can't tell if you're intentionally insulting people or not but you do it so constantly that it simply cannot be another way. First off, I take offense to the implication that I don't care at all about citizens of my country being killed when all I said is that I don't value citizens of my country any higher or lower than citizens of any other country, because doing so is unethical. I also take offense to your statement that I don't understand why the Dutch media showed "concern". I understand that perfectly well and I vehemently contest your assessment that it is empathy or even anything related to empathy. I also still take offense to the implication that not showing empathy while not having an emotion connection is abnormal as you have yet to prove in any substantial form that these responses are empathic responses or that they are responses that the average person has. Simply put, I don't think you know what empathy is. Here's the facts: The idea that a country is some sort of enormous tribe is a projection. It cannot exist. If an actual tribe becomes significantly larger than that society's average Dunbar's number (usually somewhere between 150 and 200), it splits. It is impossible to have an emotional connection to more people than the human brain allows and therefore impossible to have a real empathy for them. The fact that the "average" media person (again, I contest your claim that the "average" person does the same because in my personal experience this has never and will never be true) tends to make empathic statements anyway proves not that they have empathy but that they either instinctively fake it because of expectations or project the loss upon themselves (probably under the guise of nationalism), which isn't empathy but self-pity. Were I to read about these people right now and understand who they were, their names, their lives, and form an emotional connection, I would have an empathic reaction. I would have something to identify with, and therefore I would have an empathic response. If you have seen a lot of personal information about these victims? Guess what, you're having an empathic reaction because you have an emotional connection, not because you have some magic "caring about every stranger's life". Maybe the response you lament us not having is culturally respectful, or culturally appropriate, but it certainly isn't nor will it ever be empathy. What happens with nationalism is that the brain can't recognize more people than, again, Dunbar's Number. So it takes more people and internalizes them as a single entity. These good people I know aren't individuals, they're my nationality. It's a projection of belonging with a positive group fit only for people who can't form close emotional connections to the actual people around them. Nationalism on a biological level is the same as discrimination. It's the difference between "this one guy of [race, gender or nationality] is an individual who commited a crime" and "this one guy of [race, gender or nationality] is a criminal, people of [race, gender or nationality] must be criminals". As my country is often referred to as a "melting pot", I can tell you for a fact that nationalism has been nothing else but a source of countless problems and discrimination here. "This guy is dead, but it's worse because he's one of ours!" Does that seem like a good response to you? I think it demeans the entire human race and the fact you consider it "normal" is frankly the most scathing condemnation of modern society I can think of. Okay I did misunderstand you, I thought you were surprised that the Dutch media showed concern for it citizens who were killed. When in fact you were saying they should have shown the same concern for all the people killed. I apologize for misinterpreting what you meant Anyway my point doesn't really change, the media of any country will always seemed more concerned with deaths of there own citizens. That doesn't mean they aren't worried about the deaths of other citizens So for me you don't need to have real visibility around the deaths of citizens of your own country before you feel empathy. Just the fact that you hear that people of your country have been killed is enough to feel empathy. Of course the emotional connection gets more serious when you see who they were and how there loss effects relatives And I don't think being concerned with your own citizens first and then others second makes you a bad person and I don't agree this is a form of discrimination. So I have no problem with Nationalism as long as it doesn't lead to automatic discrimination against foreigners
-
-
Never said the website is closing down. And was it an objective of GG? Can you provide links? I thought one of the objectives was to bring honesty and integrity to gaming media sites. Something you don't seem to agree with. The difference between the two of us is I'm all for honesty and integrity. Try and debate against that all you like but you will lose. I have no problem " losing " Hiro. You just haven't convinced me I need to admit I lost. Also I'm not sure why we have to have a winner or loser, lets try to agree on a common way forward to ensure that GG can make the relevant changes that you feel need to be made in the gaming industry
But is he the legitimate and recognised President of China? Depends on your definition of legitimacy, if you say is he the legitimate leader to the ruling political party then "yes" But is he the legitimate ruler to the people on the street than "no" because they never voted for him. The average Chinese citizen has no say in who the ruling party nominates
Sorry if you feel disrespected, I was just being honest. I respect your view that is what you think but I find it abnormal because that's not how the average person would look at a tragedy that effects the citizens of there own country But you already seem to acknowledge this as the Dutch media showed this concern towards its dead citizens and you didn't understand why, in fact you were offended by this. I can't really explain to you why most people would automatically show more concern to there own citizens killed in a tragedy, its just the way human beings think. Its probably got to do with a level of patriotism and the fact we generally see citizens of our own country as part of our greater community on a national level, citizens in a country are like a tribe. We share a common identify and when someone who belongs to that "tribe " is killed this impacts us on certain levels Empathy in this case would just mean you do feel for the families and the loss. Its something that you don't feel good about. And yes to be totally unconcerned if citizens of your own country are killed in a particular event I think is not right. Sorry to say this
So you admit Gamasutra's views have gone down? No I need to go through the links myself before I comment. But its quite possible, it doesn't mean the website is now going to close down which seems to be an objective of some people from GG?
So Xi Jinping who is the President of China, who didn't come to power through the will of the people is not the legitimate president of China. Because you know he's also the Chairman of the Central Military Commission as well. Check. No China is not a Democracy, its a one party state and demonstrates certain characteristics of a dictatorship. So the current president does not represent the will of the people, he represents the will of the political party
That doesn't make him illegitimate. Democracy does not equal legitimacy. Okay will then we have reached an impasse and that's fine I believe that if people in a country have a chance to vote in a free and fair election and the results of that election mean that the majority of votes determine what political part wins that means there is a legitimate form of government that should govern. You don't think this means that is a legitimate way to determine who governs, what would you definition be of political legitimacy?
I was about to mention it, but decided against it The US electoral college system is not a true democracy and therefore not "legitimate". Waiting for South Africa to declare war in the US to correct that heresy Okay I really don't have the energy or knowledge to get into a discussion around if the " USA is a real Democracy " I just know its more of a Democracy than Libya under Gaddafi ever was
Need to check your own link. Looks like Gamasutra has dropped, not increased. And the other two, how are they doing?
If you can't see it, I'm not sure I can explain it so it makes sense. Who made the decision that a leader with more than 50% backing inside a nationstate is the only "legitimate" leader? What about a leader appointed according to his countrys constitution? Italy had a PM for a while that was appointed "Senator for Life" by the President and appointed PM and a cabinet consisting of People not elected for anything (i.e. technocrats). He was never elected, yet no NATO planes swooped in and bombed Rome back to the stone age. No I can't see it because none of those examples are the same as Libya. Gaddafi came to power through force, there was no valid Libyan constitution under Gaddafi and the Italians in the last 100 years have not decided to wipe out an entire Italian town because that town wanted political transformation. So I just don't see how that post is relevant to what happened in Libya ?
I don't have a problem with the word legitimate. I have a problem with non-Libyans determining who is or isn't a legitimate leader in Libya. I wouldn't want the British to say Lincoln wasn't "legitimate" because he wasn't of royal lineage. Democracy doesn't = Legitimate. It's ironic that you mention legitimacy though. See, Gaddafi was put into power by Libyans; while these rebels owe their success to the west. So if either is to be considered legitimate; it would be Gaddafi. Once again Gaddafi came to power in a coup because he had the support of the army, he didn't come to power through the will of the people So I fail to see how you say that someone who stays in power through military control is legitimate. If he had actually won an election I wouldn't be raising this criticism of this regime
Syria has had a drawn out war because outside forces (like the west) chose to support the rebels. Had we done nothing they would have been crushed and the war would have been over almost as soon as it began. If not for the atmosphere created by intervention there would have been no civil war at all to be honest. The rebels went into the war expecting aid, and got it. What aid did they get ? They received some arms through a proxy county like Saudi Arabia. But they asked the West to destroy the airpower of Assad and his heavy military machinery, exactly the same as the Libya rebels asked for. The fact that Assad has access to this weaponry gives him the obvious advantage in the civil war And they didn't get this help only because of the veto from Russia and China
Is it? Or is it easier just not to care? It doesn't mean you need to get depressed and lament the state of the world but I would say its abnormal to hear about a real crisis or event around the world where people are suffering and not show any empathy? It's actually perfectly normal because it is hard to be empathic if you do not identify with the victim and identification requires familiarity. I assume you've read a lot of different things about this occurance, seen the perpetrators face, seen the victims face, seen the place where it happened, seen footage of it, heard about who the victim was. You have a lot to identify with. If I learned more about it, I'm sure I would be more empathic. But I've pretty much only read about it in dry facts. I agree to a certain degree, you do identify more with victims of a tragedy when it becomes visible. But weren't upset when MH17 was shot down over Ukraine, most of the victims were Dutch citizens. Didn't this fact make the tragedy even worse for you on a personal level even if you didn't know anyone on that plane? Not really. I'm not particularly nationalistic, the fact that they were dutch didn't make it any worse or better for me. I was about as invested in it as I would be in any other crash. I was angry that saving some jet plane fuel was apparently worth going through dangerous territory at the great risk of human lives, though. Not the same thing as empathy. Is it? Or is it easier just not to care? It doesn't mean you need to get depressed and lament the state of the world but I would say its abnormal to hear about a real crisis or event around the world where people are suffering and not show any empathy? It's actually perfectly normal because it is hard to be empathic if you do not identify with the victim and identification requires familiarity. I assume you've read a lot of different things about this occurance, seen the perpetrators face, seen the victims face, seen the place where it happened, seen footage of it, heard about who the victim was. You have a lot to identify with. If I learned more about it, I'm sure I would be more empathic. But I've pretty much only read about it in dry facts. I agree to a certain degree, you do identify more with victims of a tragedy when it becomes visible. But weren't upset when MH17 was shot down over Ukraine, most of the victims were Dutch citizens. Didn't this fact make the tragedy even worse for you on a personal level even if you didn't know anyone on that plane? Not really. I'm not particularly nationalistic, the fact that they were dutch didn't make it any worse or better for me. I was about as invested in it as I would be in any other crash. I was angry that saving some jet plane fuel was apparently worth going through dangerous territory at the great risk of human lives, though. Not the same thing as empathy. Okay that's your view and I respect that. I also think that's abnormal, most people are automatically more concerned and empathetic when they find out that citizens of there own country have been killed in some tragedy and the media of that country normally reflect this understandable view and emotion
Bruce... I think you are being very careless with the use of the word "legitimate". Who exactly are entitled to declare something "legitimate". 99% of cases I see the word used, it's used to describe personal bias. I don't like leader x, therefore his rule is not legitimate. By the same token, You would be dancing around the table and celebrate the Chinese armys Liberation of the poor Tibetan people from the totalitarian and completely illegimate rule of their former dictator, Dalai Lama, who was never elected by the Tibetan people. Besides, the war in Libya was never about democracy. It was about payback and a settling of scores between clans. Ever wondered why the rebellion used the flag of the old king Idris as their gathering point? The "West" saw an opportunity to get rid of an old bogeyman (and only reluctantly at that) while scoring some cheap PR points. Prolonged war would hurt the oil production after all. Edit to add: Main antagonists being the Qadaffis and the Senussis (because i couldn't remember the latters name from top of my head). I don't understand why you and Namutree have an issue with the definition of the word " legitimate " Its quite obvious to me, you have a free and fair Democratic election and a political party and person gets voted in to govern the country. How is this not best way to say this is the best way to reflect a legitimate leader?
Unfortunately Libya is always used as an example of " look what happens when the West intervenes in regime change" when in fact they should be saying " look how the West can effectively implement regime change " The West gave the new Libyan government the opportunity to run there own version of Democracy and system of leadership. They can't be held responsible for the sectarian violence that now threatens the overall stability of the country. The West can help liberate countries but it shouldn't be also expected to now run the new governments Seriously? Really? Are you for real? I hope for your sake you're just trolling. What part of what I said do you disagree with, please in future explain what part of what I said you don't seem to like ? Is it the fact that the West help to liberate Libya from Gaddafi? Or is it the fact that West didn't stay on in Libya and tell the Libyans how to run there new government? The idea that the west isn't responsible for what happens after they overthrow and assassinate heads of states should particularly offend anyone capable of basic thought, it's like saying "I'm not responsible for this building collapsing, I just broke the foundations!". And they can be held responsible for the sectarian and tribal violence, because they helped take away the guy who was keeping things under control. The west shouldn't go in and "liberate" countries, when we all ****ing know it'll only make things worse. Either Libya burns in eternal fire, a guy who is just like Sisi is put in charge of things, or we get ourselves a grand new wannabe caliphate of North Africa. Also, it's not some big great secret that the west can go screwing around in third world countries, Gaddafi himself predicted that the west would eventually get on with replacing the other arab leaders after Saddam was offed, everyone already knew that, we certainly didn't need Libya to show us that. I just want to focus on Libya as that is what we are discussing, I have always maintained that Libya is how the West can get involved in legitimate regime with relatively little impact around committing resources. This is not the same thing as now the West being responsible for actions or inactions of the government that follows So first point is Gaddafi wasn't some sort of legitimate elected leader of Libya, he was a dictator who never had a free and fair election once in his country, I'll repeat that for maximum impact. He never held a free and fair election in 30 years . He ruled the country through control of the army and police. So before I make my main point I fail to see how anyone can say "he was illegally removed from power " ...being a dictator who came to power through a military coup doesn't make you legitimate When the Arab spring started and people started questioning certain governments in the Middle East Gaddafi had the choice to negotiate and address the concerns of the protestors, like the Saudis did where the king of Saudi Arabia basically gave $30 Billion dollars to transformation projects that the protestors were asking for. But Gaddafi decided to use the full might of his army and police to crush any opposition to his dictatorial rule. A civil war started but the military advantage was on the side of Gaddafi because he was quite prepared to use every single military resource he had. His forces surrounded the Libyan rebels in a town call Misrata and this battle was known as the Siege of Misrata and is very significant because its why the West intervened. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Misrata Gaddafi was prepared to commit genocide against his own people by levelling the entire town to the ground and the UN security council voted to allow NATO to directly intervene and prevent this massacre of tens of thousands of people. NATO did end the siege through surgical air strikes but then continued to aid the rebels by destroying Gaddafi's tanks and airpower. Now you can argue they over stepped the UN mandate but my point is " so what ". They helped remove a dictator from power and didn't need "boots on the ground". Why do we care if someone like Gaddafi is removed from power due to the efforts of his own people? The West wouldn't have been able to do this without the Libyan rebels and Gaddafi was executed by the rebels. So this wasn't some sort of assassination plot Once Gaddafi was defeated the Libyan rebels didn't want the West telling them how to now run there new government because there was and still is resistance to any attempts by perceived Western "imperialism ". So the West obliged the Libyans and allowed them correctly to run Libya the way they saw fit. Its not the Wests fault that there is now sectarian violence in Libya caused by disenfranchised tribes. This is something that the Libyans need to resolve for themselves, they are now charge of there own destiny. Its the exact same thing that happened in Iraq where the new Iraqi government decided to not incorporate the Sunni minority in the new political dispensation And if you are of the view that the West should just have not got involved at all and the act of genocide doesn't concern you then you need to take a look at Syria and all the consequences that the protracted civil war has had. Because Syria nowadays is exactly what happens when the West isn't allowed to intervene due to the Veto of Russia and China in the UN security council So in summary the West did the right thing in removing Gaddafi from power, it can't be held responsible for the decisions or actions of the government that followed First off, as I said earlier, we already know the west can take out any third world country should it put its mind to it, just because you can do that doesn't mean you should. I don't recall saying he was illegally removed from power, you rule by the sword, you die by the sword, however, killing him off only hurt the nation, we should've left him be. When you put a group of people in charge of something, you are as responsible as those people for what they do, just because you stepped back it doesn't change the fact that you empowered these people. You can't put incompetent people with limited power and authority in charge of bringing together a bunch of fractured people and expect miracles, you are responsible for what happens latter down the road when you start the chain reactions. One quick brief genocide is better than a lengthy bloody civil war and the ensuring lengthy bloody civil wars that follow. The reason Syria is going down the way it is is that a bunch of foreigners entered the nation, Assads main opposition, ISIS, mainly consists of random people from all over the world. Libyans were way better off under Gaddafi, I'm fairly sure your happiness polling would agree with me if they did surveys within the proper timeframes. You insist on forcing western style democracy on people when it clearly doesn't work for them, there are three ways you can deal with fractured tribes that work, silly western democracies aren't one of them: 1. A strong dictatorship 2. Forcing the tribes to mingle, forcing the tribes to shatter and banishing various people to various parts of the country, then doing everything possible, including forced adoption, to break tribal ties. 3. Institute a heavily decentralized government, one whose central authority has essentially no power, one that gives each group their own military, and control over their local natural resources. Personally I'd prefer 1 or 3, but 2 is the only one that could possibly work if you eventually want to force things into a western democracy mold. Western democracy isn't perfect, it has several benefits, but it is crap for fractured societies, different governments are needed in different environments, western democracy isn't superior at everything, though it is suburb for casual people who just want to go about their life without doing that much of anything. Also by your genocide standards Ukraine was committing genocide against Donetsk and Luhansk, initiate the nato airstrikes at once! You are missing something important, the West never put those people in charge. The Libyan rebels existed before the West got involved and had there own leaders So you need to realize that the West had no influence on the people who managed the new Libyan government. And the reason that Syria is in such a state is not because foreigners came to Syria to fight Assad, this is just a consequence of the war being drawn out for so long. Islamic fighters do generally flock to countries to fight jihads. But this takes time, if the West had been allowed to end Assads rule then there wouldn't have been the environment that allowed the creation of ISIS because there would be no drawn out civil war. So that's on Russia and China as well, they are indirectly responsible for the creation of ISIS And no the siege of Misrata was not the same as the artillery attacks against Donetsk and Luhansk. Gaddafis attacks were much more indiscriminate and he didn't care about any civilian losses. I suggest you read about the Siege of Misrata to understand the difference. The attacks on Donetsk and Luhansk weren't sieges, they allowed aid convoys to go through and there was concern about the civilian population, so the two are not the same and didn't require NATO intervention
Is it? Or is it easier just not to care? It doesn't mean you need to get depressed and lament the state of the world but I would say its abnormal to hear about a real crisis or event around the world where people are suffering and not show any empathy? It's actually perfectly normal because it is hard to be empathic if you do not identify with the victim and identification requires familiarity. I assume you've read a lot of different things about this occurance, seen the perpetrators face, seen the victims face, seen the place where it happened, seen footage of it, heard about who the victim was. You have a lot to identify with. If I learned more about it, I'm sure I would be more empathic. But I've pretty much only read about it in dry facts. I agree to a certain degree, you do identify more with victims of a tragedy when it becomes visible. But weren't upset when MH17 was shot down over Ukraine, most of the victims were Dutch citizens. Didn't this fact make the tragedy even worse for you on a personal level even if you didn't know anyone on that plane?
Oh, I don't understand? It's clear to me Bruce, you're the one who doesn't understand. And it's clear to me you don't care about the standards of people from these gaming media sites and don't hold them accountable at all. And there is no expectation to have a discussion about the standards of these gaming websites that GG has brought up? And these sites like Polygon and RPS and Gawker Media have shown that they will stop at nothing to throw insults at their audience and their sponsors. And you're all for that and don't hold them accountable. You're more interested in holding GG up to a higher standard and ignoring these gaming media sites and their hypocrisy. And why shouldn't the gaming media sites want to discuss all topics about the purpose of good behaviour, honesty, integrity, the gaming industry, good and the bad? The onus is on these media sites to get a clear message across about what they really stand for and distance themselves from the extremist element. But then you say this is not the role of websites like Gamasutra and Polygon?. So you're okay with bullying and harassment from these sites? Good to see where you stand. You're all for bullies and having bullies throw insults at minorities, women, all sorts of people. And these gaming media websites are fine with the fact that they don't care about the issues GG has brought up with them throwing insults at their audience and sponsors and they are prepared to deal with the consequences? Good to see you're championing their cause for bullying and harassment. These gaming websites should be asking "how can we get people like Hiro to support us". And that first step is a cohesive approach that allows proper debate. And twitter could never achieve that. But these editors and reporters from these websites still use twitter as a means to want to bully and harass people on the internet. But you're okay with all this bullying and harassment from Gawker media and it's affiliates because you're more concerned about GG than the hypocrisy of the gaming media. You have every right to feel offended by the perception that certain gaming websites have created about the word " gamers " or how you feel they have treated the GG movement. Personally I think that your outrage is completely misplaced and unnecessary but I won't tell you how you should feel if you truly feel aggrieved But you have no right to expect certain websites to automatically support GG or even to post favourable articles about the movement if that's not what they think You can choose to boycott those websites which many of you have already done, but I fail to see why I should expect the likes of Polygon to expose the corruption that apparently exists in it own community? Because many people like me don't believe the gaming industry is fundamentally corrupt, yes there are issues but not to the degree some people on GG would have us believe. And there are many people who agree with me because sites like Polygon are still very much alive and kicking And finally yes, these websites should try to bring people like Hiro back to them. But what more can they do? What do you really expect them to do. There was a time where websites like RPS went to great lengths to explain there view on GG and it wasn't all critical. But you can't keep repeating a certain stance on a particular subject. Some people refuse to understand certain things and will only see the negative so irrespective of what RPS says it won't change Hiro's mind because he has convinced himself about a certain narrative around RPS
Both those operate in the real world. Internet is chaos. So for internet based consumer revolt no leader is needed. If you really believe the Internet is just chaos and somehow that chaos can achieve a result then you are gong to be very, very disappointed when GG amounts to nothing There are many areas on the Internet that are very organised and have real standards and rules that work. Almost every company in the world has website that is organised, you can place online orders and post real issues that get responded to by the company concerned . There are whole divisions in large companies whose only job is to confirm the image that exists on the Internet and how the company can create more Internet visibility. The Internet has often mobilised people and effected change. But its not done with nameless Twitter comments. You need a website and some sort of effective manageable hierarchy that represents the movement or comments in a way that is not bedlam with no accountability Yes there is chaos on the Internet, this whole GG furore up to now has proven that but that definitely doesn't mean the Internet is all chaos and therefore ineffective at causing real changes
Unfortunately Libya is always used as an example of " look what happens when the West intervenes in regime change" when in fact they should be saying " look how the West can effectively implement regime change " The West gave the new Libyan government the opportunity to run there own version of Democracy and system of leadership. They can't be held responsible for the sectarian violence that now threatens the overall stability of the country. The West can help liberate countries but it shouldn't be also expected to now run the new governments Seriously? Really? Are you for real? I hope for your sake you're just trolling. What part of what I said do you disagree with, please in future explain what part of what I said you don't seem to like ? Is it the fact that the West help to liberate Libya from Gaddafi? Or is it the fact that West didn't stay on in Libya and tell the Libyans how to run there new government? The idea that the west isn't responsible for what happens after they overthrow and assassinate heads of states should particularly offend anyone capable of basic thought, it's like saying "I'm not responsible for this building collapsing, I just broke the foundations!". And they can be held responsible for the sectarian and tribal violence, because they helped take away the guy who was keeping things under control. The west shouldn't go in and "liberate" countries, when we all ****ing know it'll only make things worse. Either Libya burns in eternal fire, a guy who is just like Sisi is put in charge of things, or we get ourselves a grand new wannabe caliphate of North Africa. Also, it's not some big great secret that the west can go screwing around in third world countries, Gaddafi himself predicted that the west would eventually get on with replacing the other arab leaders after Saddam was offed, everyone already knew that, we certainly didn't need Libya to show us that. I just want to focus on Libya as that is what we are discussing, I have always maintained that Libya is how the West can get involved in legitimate regime with relatively little impact around committing resources. This is not the same thing as now the West being responsible for actions or inactions of the government that follows So first point is Gaddafi wasn't some sort of legitimate elected leader of Libya, he was a dictator who never had a free and fair election once in his country, I'll repeat that for maximum impact. He never held a free and fair election in 30 years . He ruled the country through control of the army and police. So before I make my main point I fail to see how anyone can say "he was illegally removed from power " ...being a dictator who came to power through a military coup doesn't make you legitimate When the Arab spring started and people started questioning certain governments in the Middle East Gaddafi had the choice to negotiate and address the concerns of the protestors, like the Saudis did where the king of Saudi Arabia basically gave $30 Billion dollars to transformation projects that the protestors were asking for. But Gaddafi decided to use the full might of his army and police to crush any opposition to his dictatorial rule. A civil war started but the military advantage was on the side of Gaddafi because he was quite prepared to use every single military resource he had. His forces surrounded the Libyan rebels in a town call Misrata and this battle was known as the Siege of Misrata and is very significant because its why the West intervened. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Misrata Gaddafi was prepared to commit genocide against his own people by levelling the entire town to the ground and the UN security council voted to allow NATO to directly intervene and prevent this massacre of tens of thousands of people. NATO did end the siege through surgical air strikes but then continued to aid the rebels by destroying Gaddafi's tanks and airpower. Now you can argue they over stepped the UN mandate but my point is " so what ". They helped remove a dictator from power and didn't need "boots on the ground". Why do we care if someone like Gaddafi is removed from power due to the efforts of his own people? The West wouldn't have been able to do this without the Libyan rebels and Gaddafi was executed by the rebels. So this wasn't some sort of assassination plot Once Gaddafi was defeated the Libyan rebels didn't want the West telling them how to now run there new government because there was and still is resistance to any attempts by perceived Western "imperialism ". So the West obliged the Libyans and allowed them correctly to run Libya the way they saw fit. Its not the Wests fault that there is now sectarian violence in Libya caused by disenfranchised tribes. This is something that the Libyans need to resolve for themselves, they are now charge of there own destiny. Its the exact same thing that happened in Iraq where the new Iraqi government decided to not incorporate the Sunni minority in the new political dispensation And if you are of the view that the West should just have not got involved at all and the act of genocide doesn't concern you then you need to take a look at Syria and all the consequences that the protracted civil war has had. Because Syria nowadays is exactly what happens when the West isn't allowed to intervene due to the Veto of Russia and China in the UN security council So in summary the West did the right thing in removing Gaddafi from power, it can't be held responsible for the decisions or actions of the government that followed
