THIS is why we're intervening in Libya

[Coito ergo sum]

Gadaffi has been very naughty + the UN considers its in the world interest to deal with him. It usually takes both factors for the UN to get involved

So, not an illegal war, then?

[MrJonno]

If the UN says its legal its legal, really not that difficult. Its the supreme body when it comes to international law (not Seth)

[Coito ergo sum]

If the UN says its legal its legal, really not that difficult. Its the supreme body when it comes to international law (not Seth)

It actually isn't. It's part of international law and it's a very important part of international law, but it is simply not true that if the UN (security council) sayhs it's legal, it's legal. They can't vote, for example, to wage aggressive war. That would be contrary to the Charter. The UN is not above the law anymore than the President, the supreme commander of the US, is technically above the law.

The UN is not even a "world Congress" and has no authority to enact laws for the world. It creates treaties and resolutions, and countries either assent to them or they don't.

There is a fundamental misunderstanding concerning how public international law is made.

[Coito ergo sum]

Doing more harm than good? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... onvoy.html

[Seth]

Actually, there is no such rule about asking. If someone attacks a NATO country, for example, other NATO countries can and will respond and they won't ask anyone before doing it, for example. The inherent rights of nations were not abrogated by the UN Charter and the UN Charter specifically says so.

I've read the resolutions. There isn't one that literally says what you say it says.

Libya has asserted the illegality of the war. Qadafi himself has claimed that it is illegal. And, Iraq never filed anything with the UN Security Council over the Iraq War either.

The idea that the SC is a "war approval body" and wars are legal if approved by the SC and illegal if not approved by the SC is not correct international law.

There was a treaty set out between Iraq and other nations about monitoring the situation and weapons inspections and about reasons for military incursions. Probably the reason you see nothing is you are not looking in the right place.

There was no treaty, there was a cease-fire agreement signed by Saddam after the defeat of his invasion of Kuwait. That cease fire required him to submit to WMD inspections. He defied 14 UN resolutions regarding his interference with those inspections over a dozen years. Hostilities were re-opened by the United States after September 11, 2001, because there was credible evidence that Saddam was both harboring and financially supporting terrorism, and that he was both hiding and building various weapons of mass destruction. This evidence was presented to the coalition leaders, including Tony Blair and Hillary Clinton...and Barack Obama, and our Congress authorized a second invasion as a result of Saddam's own recalcitrance and violations of the terms of the CEASE FIRE agreement. Legally, we were simply continuing our take-down of a brutal dictator who invaded one of our allies and who did actually have WMD's that he failed to report, allow inspection of, and dispose of, specifically thousands of tons of Sarin-filled artillery shells which he moved to Syria in an airlift and truck convoy under the guise of "humanitarian relief" for an earthquake in Syria. This is according to his own Air Marshall who was in charge of the 40-odd 747 flights that moved the WMDs out of Iraq immediately prior to our second invasion.

[Seth]

If the UN says its legal its legal, really not that difficult. Its the supreme body when it comes to international law (not Seth)

No it's not. It just likes to think it might one day be.

Many nations are not part of the UN and do not recognize its authority.

And in the end, any "supreme body" of "international law" is just a bunch of pud-pulling wankers sitting around a circular table sucking each other off if it doesn't have the power to enforce it's rulings.

And there is no military organization on the face of the planet more useless than the UN security forces.

Fuck 'em. They want to try to enforce some ruling against the US we don't like, we'll just shove some JDAMs through the windows of the Security Council as a punctualization of our withdrawal and repudiation of our recognition of it's authority. Enforce that, motherfuckers!

As Andrew Jackson once said in relation to the case Worcester v. Georgia, "John Marshal has made his decision; now let him enforce it."

[MrJonno]

It actually isn't. It's part of international law and it's a very important part of international law, but it is simply not true that if the UN (security council) sayhs it's legal, it's legal. They can't vote, for example, to wage aggressive war. That would be contrary to the Charter. The UN is not above the law anymore than the President, the supreme commander of the US, is technically above the law.

The ultimate authority anywhere is never written laws whether its the UN Charter, national consitutions or laws its people either representatives of governments or judges.

Its one of the reasons I never want to see a constitution in the UK, its takes away power from elected representatives and gives it to unelected judges

[Seth]

It actually isn't. It's part of international law and it's a very important part of international law, but it is simply not true that if the UN (security council) sayhs it's legal, it's legal. They can't vote, for example, to wage aggressive war. That would be contrary to the Charter. The UN is not above the law anymore than the President, the supreme commander of the US, is technically above the law.

The ultimate authority anywhere is never written laws whether its the UN Charter, national consitutions or laws its people either representatives of governments or judges.

Quite right. The ultimate authority is naked force, and the ability of a people or a nation to take, secure, and hold their freedom against incursions and attempts to enslave them. And that's why the United States DOES have a Constitution, because it limits how our central government can oppress us, and it protects our right as individuals to keep and bear the instruments of our own liberty. And that's why we spend so much on our military, in order to make it the finest, fittest, most effective military force in history. This protects our liberty against enemies foreign and domestic, and is why we can say "don't fuck with America."

We really mean it, and are willing to back it up with force at any time.

[sandinista]

It actually isn't. It's part of international law and it's a very important part of international law, but it is simply not true that if the UN (security council) sayhs it's legal, it's legal. They can't vote, for example, to wage aggressive war. That would be contrary to the Charter. The UN is not above the law anymore than the President, the supreme commander of the US, is technically above the law.

The ultimate authority anywhere is never written laws whether its the UN Charter, national consitutions or laws its people either representatives of governments or judges.

Quite right. The ultimate authority is naked force, and the ability of a people or a nation to take, secure, and hold their freedom against incursions and attempts to enslave them. And that's why the United States DOES have a Constitution, because it limits how our central government can oppress us, and it protects our right as individuals to keep and bear the instruments of our own liberty. And that's why we spend so much on our military, in order to make it the finest, fittest, most effective military force in history. This protects our liberty against enemies foreign and domestic, and is why we can say "don't fuck with America."

We really mean it, and are willing to back it up with force at any time.

[MrJonno]

Even in the US if the judges of the Supreme Court interpret the constitution to say individuals no longer have the right to have guns you no longer have that right, if they say Atheists, blacks, catholics don't count as humans they no longer have any rights. The only limits the US government has is what judges say it has (not a consitution) and guess who appoints the judges.

Give me rule by majority rule no matter how moronic, its better than judges

[Seth]

Even in the US if the judges of the Supreme Court interpret the constitution to say individuals no longer have the right to have guns you no longer have that right, if they say Atheists, blacks, catholics don't count as humans they no longer have any rights. The only limits the US government has is what judges say it has (not a consitution) and guess who appoints the judges.

Wrong. First of all, judges are not gods or tyrants, they are constrained by the Constitution. The Supreme Court cannot say I no longer have a right to a gun any more than the Congress can. My right to a gun is inherent, unalienable, and does not depend for its existence upon anyone's judgment. The worst that a Supreme Court judge can do is to say that the Second Amendment does not protect my individual right to keep and bear arms, and that the intent of the Founders was that the RKBA is a "collective" right of the states to arm militias. From that point, it is the states, or the federal government that would then pass a law saying that I cannot own a gun, presuming that it could overcome the various other checks and balances on such action.

The most fundamental of which is my right to resist tyranny by force of arms, even when imposed by my own government.

Nor can judges say that any particular group "no longer have any rights." That's not how the courts work at all, at least in the US.

The limits on the US government are what the People say they are, and the People can amend the Constitution, limit the scope and authority of judges or congresscritters, prohibit judges from ruling on entire subjects in fact, if that's what the People choose to do, because ALL power and authority is vested in the People, and flows from them to the government. This is the simple fact that most socialists fail to understand. Government is our servant, not our master.

Give me rule by majority rule no matter how moronic, its better than judges

Er, you mean like that "majority rule" in Iran? Really?

Give me a Constitutional Republic with foundational documents expressing the sovereign will of the People, the resolve of the People to forever constrain government within those boundaries, and the tools to make it happen if and when government becomes tyrannical, thank you very much.

[sandinista]

David Cameron's gift of war and racism, to them and us
6 April 2011

The Euro-American attack on Libya has nothing to do with protecting anyone; only the terminally naive believe such nonsense. It is the West’s response to popular uprisings in strategic, resource-rich regions of the world and the beginning of a war of attrition against the new imperial rival, China.

President Barack Obama’s historical distinction is now guaranteed. He is America’s first black president to invade Africa. His assault on Libya is run by the US Africa Command, which was set up in 2007 to secure the continent’s lucrative natural resources from Africa’s impoverished people and the rapidly spreading commercial influence of China. Libya, along with Angola and Nigeria, is China’s principal source of oil. As American, British and French planes currently incinerate both “bad” and “good” Libyans, the evacuation of 30,000 Chinese workers is under way, perhaps permanently. Statements by western officials and media that a “deranged and criminal Colonel Gaddafi” is planning “genocide” against his own people still await evidence. This is reminiscent of fraudulent claims that required “humanitarian intervention” in Kosovo, the final dismemberment of Yugoslavia and the establishment of the biggest US military base in Europe.

http://www.johnpilger.com/articles/davi ... hem-and-us

[Aos Si]

Ah but there wasn't a civil war going on it makes a big difference.

Really? Some international law says that?

But, the reality is there wasn't initially a civil war going on in Libya, there was unrest. NATO came in and leveled the playing field so that the civil war could arise and be fought on "more equal" terms.

And you know full well if you read it the charter said they should not go in without the authority of the UN SC without provocation direct or a threat to their own armies lives.

It does not say that. No SC approval is required for a country to come to the defense of another country. That's an inherent right of self-defense and collective self defense which is specifically preserved by the UN Charter. Article 51. That Article specifically contemplates that there are times when a nation is attacked and other nations would come to that nation's defense, and there would not have been time for the UN to react.

How a government chooses to treat people in its legal system is a separate human rights issue and had nothing to do with the treaty. I wouldn't bother with this argument clearly your convinced Iraq wasn't illegal

I am. And, for many of the same reasons that people supporting Obama's venture into Libya are saying that Obama hasn't violated the law by doing so.

and clearly anyone who understands the situation who isn't from the US thinks it was

Some do and some don't. Tony Blair doesn't and didn't, for example. Neither many from the 37 nations that participated in the Iraq War.

and no matter what their expertise or how involved they were in this decision, and how willing to hold their hands up and say it was wrong they are, they are just wrong.

I disagree with them, yes. Just as you disagree with all those who did not conclude the War was illegal.

I've done it before its a waste of time talking about. You believe whatever you like, I don't really care tbh any more. Been there seen it done it bought the T-shirt. Saudi Arabia has an appalling civil rights history, as do many ME countries, what makes them ripe for invasion has nothing to do with that though. This was about settling old scores and other issues.

I agree with you about Saudi Arabia. Based on the justifications offered for the Iraq War, however, Saudi Arabia does not meet that standard (Saudi Arabia is not threatening its neighbors, gassing its own people, and has no designs on catastrophic weapons, and hasn't flouted 12 years of UN resolutions and hasn't violated a Cease Fire Accord and never invaded its neighbors). Based on the rationale for the Libya affair, however, there is no country in the middle east and probably very few countries in the world, that don't measure up to the "government threatening to kill rebels" test for war - probably 100 countries fitting that bill can be named right off the bat.

Come to the defence.



There was no war, you didn't come to the defence of anyone, there were people in jails facing the death sentence for being dissidents. Oh come off it this is weak stuff. Why not invade China then since thousands of people are languishing in their jails (many of whom face the death sentence) for doing nothing more than speaking out against the government, or being part of dissident movements. How about South America, thousands of people rounded up and made to disappear, I didn't see you running in there? Pull the other one its got bells on.

There are nearly 60 nations on Amnesty internationals list that are guilty of egregious violations of UNCoT and other human rights violations, some of them as bad if not worse than Iraqs. Why not start at the top of the list and work your way down?

I mean really do you even believe the excuses yourself, no one outside of the US does (who does not have a vested interest in not answering questions about this) and most of those involved in our country at least have admitted their culpability. What harm would being honest for once do you, or your country, really?

Some do and some don't. Tony Blair doesn't and didn't, for example. Neither many from the 37 nations that participated in the Iraq War.

Hiding behind the USs immunity from SC executive decisions by way of veto is hardly what I would call a convincing reason to believe anything. Tony Blair has admitted he went in anyway for reasons that had nothing to do with the stated ones that would of justified it. He stops short of saying he lied, but obviously he did.

But, the reality is there wasn't initially a civil war going on in Libya, there was unrest

Yeah ok whatever. You just keep telling yourself all these things, and maybe one day the cognitive dissonance will go away.

Not really interested in this discussion any more so I wouldn't bother saying anything else. I get where you are coming from, trust me.

[JimC]

Right now, the pragmatic reality is that we have a bloody stalemate, with no obvious end in sight. The air strikes have stopped the ability of Libyan forces to crush the rebels, but those same rebels have no hope whatsoever of defeating the bulk of the Libyan army, which seems to be staying true to its salt...

[Warren Dew]

Meanwhile, Syria and Israel have joined the "slaughter civilians" club. I'm guessing NATO will not intervene....