Libya: should anything be done?

[JOZeldenrust]

Wouldn't the "recognition" of the new government have to come from the UN? Or, do countries now, as opposed to 5 or 8 years ago, have the right to form a "Coalition of the Willing..." ?

I have no idea. A lot of international law is based purely on convention, though I suppose to act on a resolution it would need official recognition by the UN.

The coalition of the willing didn't act via a resolution, they just went for it regardless of international law.

Isn't that what France is doing by recognizing a rebel "government" on it's own? Going for it regardless of international law?

Moreover, the Security Council are not dictators of the world, nor does the UN Charter specify that international law is what the Security Council says. There is nothing in the UN Charter that would authorize 10 countries and 5 abstentions to authorize a war, unless it was coming to the defense of a member state who is exercising a right of self defense. The member state is Libya - the President of Libya is Qadafi.

I think countries can choose to recognize countries and governments as they like. Recognition of governments isn't governed by international law.

I think military intervention to protect a people from their tyranical rulers is justified, though caution should be observed. In the case of Libya it is quite obvious that the Lybian government is a direct threat to the Libyan population.

Likewise, I think it would've been reasonable to intervene in Iraq to protect the Iraqi people from Sadam Hussein. I would've supported an invasion of Iraq on those grounds. However, the invasion of Iraq was justified by suggesting Sadam Hussein had WMDs, and the CIA forged or misrepresented evidence to convince the world of this. An invasion of Iraq could've been justified, but the justification used was dishonest.

[Coito ergo sum]

Wouldn't the "recognition" of the new government have to come from the UN? Or, do countries now, as opposed to 5 or 8 years ago, have the right to form a "Coalition of the Willing..." ?

I have no idea. A lot of international law is based purely on convention, though I suppose to act on a resolution it would need official recognition by the UN.

The coalition of the willing didn't act via a resolution, they just went for it regardless of international law.

Isn't that what France is doing by recognizing a rebel "government" on it's own? Going for it regardless of international law?

Moreover, the Security Council are not dictators of the world, nor does the UN Charter specify that international law is what the Security Council says. There is nothing in the UN Charter that would authorize 10 countries and 5 abstentions to authorize a war, unless it was coming to the defense of a member state who is exercising a right of self defense. The member state is Libya - the President of Libya is Qadafi.

I think countries can choose to recognize countries and governments as they like. Recognition of governments isn't governed by international law.

Sure they can - that's true. However, they can also go to war without UN approval without being in violation of international law. Recognition of governments is governed by international law, but it is not the sole purview of the UN. The UN is "a" source of international law, but it is by far not the only source of international law.

I think military intervention to protect a people from their tyranical rulers is justified, though caution should be observed. In the case of Libya it is quite obvious that the Lybian government is a direct threat to the Libyan population.

Likewise, I think it would've been reasonable to intervene in Iraq to protect the Iraqi people from Sadam Hussein. I would've supported an invasion of Iraq on those grounds. However, the invasion of Iraq was justified by suggesting Sadam Hussein had WMDs, and the CIA forged or misrepresented evidence to convince the world of this. An invasion of Iraq could've been justified, but the justification used was dishonest.

Part of the explicit reason - stated in the Iraq Liberation Act, and the Iraq War Resolution, was to protect the Iraqi people from Sadam Hussein. WMD was "a" reason to go to war, but not the only reason offered. A panoply of reasons combined were offered.

It's a bit surprising to hear you suggest that the reason to oppose the war in Iraq was because the justification relied on by the US at the time was wrong - but, that there was a good justification. If there was a good justification, whether it is the one considered most important at the time seems hardly relevant. It's like saying "had they said, 'we're going in for solely humanitarian reasons' then I'd have supported it, but since they offered a different reason in addition to the humanitarian reasons that I find unpersuasive, I oppose the whole effort."

Moreover, I wonder what happened to the argument that the humanitarian reason is bullshit because there are humanitarian crises all over the world, and we don't intervene in them. Doesn't that argument fly anymore? I mean - my response to folks who said that was that we can't intervene everywhere, we have to deal with practicalities, and we as a nation tend to prefer to intervene where we perceive our national interest most at stake. Obviously, that same argument I made about Iraq can be made here - I just wonder why the same people who who were on the "we only intervene in humanitarian crises where oil is involved" team five years ago, are no longer making that argument.....

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Diplomatic recognition is a sovereign right. We refused to recognize Manchuoko.

[sandinista]

This all seems rather strange to me, countries getting together and yammering on about how "we can't stand by and let this happen blah blah blah" patting each other on the back saying "something must be done". Why? Why not this kind of response to the war in the Congo, for example. I mean, it's been the deadliest war since WW2, over 4 million killed, total devastation, where's the "we can't stand by and let this happen blah blah blah"? It's painfully obvious the "humanitarian" reasons for intervening are simply lies and propaganda.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/artic ... 21,00.html

[Warren Dew]

In the case of Libya it is quite obvious that the Lybian government is a direct threat to the Libyan population.

I don't think this is at all obvious, at least if you look at all of Libya's population.

Qadafi's rule has actually benefited the citizens of Tripoli quite a bit, though arguably at the expense of the eastern areas of Libya that include Benghazi and Tobruk. It's not a coincidence that the uprising is strongest in Benghazi, where the old monarchy was centered, and that popular sentiment in Tripoli seems strongly in favor of Qadafi.

Objectively what would probably make the most sense would be a partition between eastern and western Libya, but that doesn't seem to be a likely outcome at present.

[Coito ergo sum]

Wouldn't the "recognition" of the new government have to come from the UN? Or, do countries now, as opposed to 5 or 8 years ago, have the right to form a "Coalition of the Willing..." ?

Why "as opposed to"? The Iraq war was based on a security council resolution as well. It's basically the same situation, except spearheaded by a different set of countries.

I don't know why. That's why I'm asking. I don't get why the same folks who had an issue with it 5 or 8 years ago, don't seem to mind much about it now. I think that the "spearheaded by a different set of countries" is a fair point.

What I think is interesting is the contrast between the UK and French position in favor of intervention, and the German and Italian position against it. Italians currently own a lot more of the oil producing assets in Libya; the UK and France may see a change of government as an opportunity to lever the Italians out and replace them.

I think maybe Obama did the right thing in dithering a little. He basically sent the message that - "if we're going to do this thing, you assholes are going to be in it too," and we're not going have a bait-and-switch played on us. So, now we have the no-fly zone, which I support, and we can't get fucked in the ass by naysayers - it's not just us on the chopping block. Of course, Italy and Germany dropped out, but I am pleased France ponied up for a change.

[Coito ergo sum]

This all seems rather strange to me, countries getting together and yammering on about how "we can't stand by and let this happen blah blah blah" patting each other on the back saying "something must be done". Why? Why not this kind of response to the war in the Congo, for example. I mean, it's been the deadliest war since WW2, over 4 million killed, total devastation, where's the "we can't stand by and let this happen blah blah blah"? It's painfully obvious the "humanitarian" reasons for intervening are simply lies and propaganda.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/artic ... 21,00.html

I agree. Something should be done in the Congo. That's my vote.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

We get involved, we get yelled at. We don't get involved, we get yelled at. People bitch that we're establishing hegemony. People bitch that we're not the world's police force.

Fuck the lot of 'em.

[sandinista]

We get involved, we get yelled at. We don't get involved, we get yelled at. People bitch that we're establishing hegemony. People bitch that we're not the world's police force.

Fuck the lot of 'em.

Thats such utter bullshit, even from you.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

We get involved, we get yelled at. We don't get involved, we get yelled at. People bitch that we're establishing hegemony. People bitch that we're not the world's police force.

Fuck the lot of 'em.

Thats such utter bullshit, even from you.

Okay, retard, what's the problem with it?

[sandinista]

We get involved, we get yelled at. We don't get involved, we get yelled at. People bitch that we're establishing hegemony. People bitch that we're not the world's police force.

Fuck the lot of 'em.

Thats such utter bullshit, even from you.

Okay, retard, what's the problem with it?

Would obviously be over your head "retard". Like explaining politics and foreign policy to a monkey with brain damage (no offense to monkeys with brain damage).

[Gawdzilla Sama]

And he runs away again. That's your style. Hide in the backwoods and snipe at your betters.

[sandinista]

And he runs away again. That's your style. Hide in the backwoods and snipe at your betters.

[Warren Dew]

I agree. Something should be done in the Congo. That's my vote.

My vote is to mind our own business both in Libya and the Congo. Unlike Iraq under Saddam Hussein, those situations are not our fault, and we don't have any moral obligation to interfere.

[Twoflower]

We get involved, we get yelled at. We don't get involved, we get yelled at. People bitch that we're establishing hegemony. People bitch that we're not the world's police force.

Fuck the lot of 'em.

Thats such utter bullshit, even from you.

Okay, retard, what's the problem with it?

Zilla name calling is against the rules, attack the ideas not the person.