Libya: should anything be done?

[Thumpalumpacus]

We in America should leave this alone.

The US of A is the force behind installing and maintaining the vast majority of the ruthless dictators on the planet.
Did you promote the same non-interference policy when the CIA helped Gadaffi put down several attempted coups?
The USA's "hands-off" policy is because they owe Gadaffi some favours for his help with their "rendition" program, torturing to death such individuals as Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi.
After all, the club of world criminals has to engage in a lot of scratch my back and I'll scratch yours.

Perhaps someday when you're looking for someone human to help you, you too will experience utter betrayal, as the Kurds did, as the Iranians did, as the Rawandans did, as the Libyans now have.
America - that bastion of freedom and defender of democracy everywhere!

Perhaps you ought not assume so much. My personal history gives me a little insight into this line of argument; I lived for four years in Pahlevi-era Iran, and saw first-hand the sentiments American meddling arouses in people. Your assumption that I'm unaware of other meddlings is not only unjustified, but unfair. Your assumption that I think my country is Simon-pure is also twaddle, so get off'n your high horse already. At least, get the fuck off my leg.

I advocate Realpolitik in my country's dealings with the world, no more and no less. Why that might put a burr under your saddle is of little interest to me; the ax you wish to grind is already so obvious from your apparent assumptions, and this poorly-judged leap, that I doubt a constructive conversation might take place.

I prefer that we support democracy everywhere, but the fact is that many cultures aren't set up on democratic lines, and I don't support forcing democracy at gunpoint, because that isn't democratic.

[sandinista]

We in America should leave this alone.

The US of A is the force behind installing and maintaining the vast majority of the ruthless dictators on the planet.
Did you promote the same non-interference policy when the CIA helped Gadaffi put down several attempted coups?
The USA's "hands-off" policy is because they owe Gadaffi some favours for his help with their "rendition" program, torturing to death such individuals as Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi.
After all, the club of world criminals has to engage in a lot of scratch my back and I'll scratch yours.

Perhaps someday when you're looking for someone human to help you, you too will experience utter betrayal, as the Kurds did, as the Iranians did, as the Rawandans did, as the Libyans now have.
America - that bastion of freedom and defender of democracy everywhere!

Perhaps you ought not assume so much. My personal history gives me a little insight into this line of argument; I lived for four years in Pahlevi-era Iran, and saw first-hand the sentiments American meddling arouses in people. Your assumption that I'm unaware of other meddlings is not only unjustified, but unfair. Your assumption that I think my country is Simon-pure is also twaddle, so get off'n your high horse already. At least, get the fuck off my leg.

I advocate Realpolitik in my country's dealings with the world, no more and no less. Why that might put a burr under your saddle is of little interest to me; the ax you wish to grind is already so obvious from your apparent assumptions, and this poorly-judged leap, that I doubt a constructive conversation might take place.

I prefer that we support democracy everywhere, but the fact is that many cultures aren't set up on democratic lines, and I don't support forcing democracy at gunpoint, because that isn't democratic.

I could possibly support "democracy" if I ever experienced it. Not sure what "democracy" entails so I am hesitant to "support" it.

[Warren Dew]

So, Ian, where's the resolution to put a no fly zone over Bahrain?

Why are you asking me?

Because you're the one who claimed the U.S. didn't support the Saudi intervention in Bahrain. Now it appears you're withdrawing that claim and agreeing with me instead, so you needn't worry about that question.

I lived for four years in Pahlevi-era Iran, and saw first-hand the sentiments American meddling arouses in people.

I have to say, it's nice to see those sentiments directed primarily against someone other than the U.S. this time:

But, India and other members of the Council voiced concerns about the absence of specific details on creating a no-fly zone as well as the lack of clarity on the source of assets for its implementation.

"Passing a resolution is an interactive process...if countries have doubts...you try to remove them," Puri said. "I'm afraid that the two countries leading the process (UK and France) did not make the required effort." [emphasis mine]

It will be interesting to see whose planes, if any, try to enforce the no fly zone.

[JimC]

So, Ian, where's the resolution to put a no fly zone over Bahrain?

Why are you asking me?

Because you're the one who claimed the U.S. didn't support the Saudi intervention in Bahrain. Now it appears you're withdrawing that claim and agreeing with me instead, so you needn't worry about that question.

I lived for four years in Pahlevi-era Iran, and saw first-hand the sentiments American meddling arouses in people.

I have to say, it's nice to see those sentiments directed primarily against someone other than the U.S. this time:

But, India and other members of the Council voiced concerns about the absence of specific details on creating a no-fly zone as well as the lack of clarity on the source of assets for its implementation.

"Passing a resolution is an interactive process...if countries have doubts...you try to remove them," Puri said. "I'm afraid that the two countries leading the process (UK and France) did not make the required effort." [emphasis mine]

It will be interesting to see whose planes, if any, try to enforce the no fly zone.

It's time for the feared and mighty Luxembourg Air Force to flex its muscles and show the world what it's made of...

[Clinton Huxley]

A lovely mini-war will be a good distraction from austerity measures in the UK. Royal wedding too! The ruling classes are pulling out all the stops to keep the proles quiet.

[Coito ergo sum]

As an aside, since Libya didn't attack anyone, wouldn't military action against Libya be illegal, and the leaders of those countries guilty of war crimes?

The Security Council has no legal authority under the UN charter to authorize wars, except for UN action in defensive wars. It came to the defense of a UN member state in Kuwait and in Korea. Here, it's just going to bomb Libya, who has neither attacked nor threatened any other State.

it would seem that to be consistent, anyone who suggested one war was illegal because "so and so never attacked us..." ought to be screaming mad about another war against a country which never attacked us (or anyone else).

[Pappa]

As an aside, since Libya didn't attack anyone, wouldn't military action against Libya be illegal, and the leaders of those countries guilty of war crimes?

The Security Council has no legal authority under the UN charter to authorize wars, except for UN action in defensive wars. It came to the defense of a UN member state in Kuwait and in Korea. Here, it's just going to bomb Libya, who has neither attacked nor threatened any other State.

it would seem that to be consistent, anyone who suggested one war was illegal because "so and so never attacked us..." ought to be screaming mad about another war against a country which never attacked us (or anyone else).

I've been thinking the same. They have a get-out clause though. If enough countries recognise the group fighting the Gadaffi government as the legitimate rulers of the country, then they can jump in go to war "legally".

[klr]

...
It will be interesting to see whose planes, if any, try to enforce the no fly zone.

It won't be much of a no-fly zone, in the sense that Libyan loyalists have relatively few serviceable combat aircraft at their disposal. "All necessary measures to protect civilians short of an invasion ..." means something quite different.

As an aside, since Libya didn't attack anyone, wouldn't military action against Libya be illegal, and the leaders of those countries guilty of war crimes?

The Security Council has no legal authority under the UN charter to authorize wars, except for UN action in defensive wars. It came to the defense of a UN member state in Kuwait and in Korea. Here, it's just going to bomb Libya, who has neither attacked nor threatened any other State.

it would seem that to be consistent, anyone who suggested one war was illegal because "so and so never attacked us..." ought to be screaming mad about another war against a country which never attacked us (or anyone else).

So the UN can only step in if a conflict traverses national borders? Bugger that I say. It's about time that the UN took a more proactive role in dealing with despots who act within their own borders. People have the same basic rights regardless of who is oppressing them.

[JOZeldenrust]

Now on Al Jazeera: the Libyan foreign minister announces that Libya has issued an immediate and total cease fire. Might it really be this easy?

[klr]

Now on Al Jazeera: the Libyan foreign minister announces that Libya has issued an immediate and total cease fire. Might it really be this easy?

No, that's Gaddaffi desperately trying to stop having his forces pounded from the air. It's nothing more than a stop-gap tactic. This was predicted last night soon after the resolution was passed. What will happen next ...?

[JOZeldenrust]

Now on Al Jazeera: the Libyan foreign minister announces that Libya has issued an immediate and total cease fire. Might it really be this easy?

No, that's Gaddaffi desperately trying to stop having his forces pounded from the air. It's nothing more than a stop-gap tactic. This was predicted last night soon after the resolution was passed. What will happen next ...?

The cease fire will prove to be a sham, international forces will start enforcing the no fly zone, and Gadaffi will claim it's Western imperialists trying to impose a colonial regime on Libya.

[Coito ergo sum]

As an aside, since Libya didn't attack anyone, wouldn't military action against Libya be illegal, and the leaders of those countries guilty of war crimes?

The Security Council has no legal authority under the UN charter to authorize wars, except for UN action in defensive wars. It came to the defense of a UN member state in Kuwait and in Korea. Here, it's just going to bomb Libya, who has neither attacked nor threatened any other State.

it would seem that to be consistent, anyone who suggested one war was illegal because "so and so never attacked us..." ought to be screaming mad about another war against a country which never attacked us (or anyone else).

I've been thinking the same. They have a get-out clause though. If enough countries recognise the group fighting the Gadaffi government as the legitimate rulers of the country, then they can jump in go to war "legally".

I'm not sure why that would make a difference. If that's true, then the Qadaffi government, which is Libya in the UN, and which is in good standing in the UN - no resolution has declared Qaddafi's government NOT the lawful government, then on what legal basis do they side with the rebels?

Is it now legal to intervene in any civil war on one side or the other - all we need to do is have "enough" nations claim that one side or the other is the legitimate government?

[klr]

Now on Al Jazeera: the Libyan foreign minister announces that Libya has issued an immediate and total cease fire. Might it really be this easy?

No, that's Gaddaffi desperately trying to stop having his forces pounded from the air. It's nothing more than a stop-gap tactic. This was predicted last night soon after the resolution was passed. What will happen next ...?

The cease fire will prove to be a sham, international forces will start enforcing the no fly zone, and Gadaffi will claim it's Western imperialists trying to impose a colonial regime on Libya.

That's one likely possibility. But there are likely very few takers for the colonial argument, either inside or outside Libya. It will also be interesting to see just whose aircraft turn up over Libya in the next few days.

[Coito ergo sum]

As an aside, since Libya didn't attack anyone, wouldn't military action against Libya be illegal, and the leaders of those countries guilty of war crimes?

The Security Council has no legal authority under the UN charter to authorize wars, except for UN action in defensive wars. It came to the defense of a UN member state in Kuwait and in Korea. Here, it's just going to bomb Libya, who has neither attacked nor threatened any other State.

it would seem that to be consistent, anyone who suggested one war was illegal because "so and so never attacked us..." ought to be screaming mad about another war against a country which never attacked us (or anyone else).

So the UN can only step in if a conflict traverses national borders? Bugger that I say. It's about time that the UN took a more proactive role in dealing with despots who act within their own borders. People have the same basic rights regardless of who is oppressing them.

I agree. I just wonder about those who objected to wars, like ,the Persian Gulf War, and wonder where they will stand on this one. The UN sanctioned Persian Gulf War had many folks calling it "illegal" and "war crime." The no-fly zone over Iraq was likewise called a war crime in and of itself, despite Security Council approval.

Moreover, the Security Council is just a few nations on Earth. We haven't had a General Assembly vote. The vote was 10-0 with five countries abstaining including Russia and China, which have veto power in the council, along with India, Germany and Brazil. LOL. 10 countries decided this. Fewer countries than joined in the Iraq War in 2003....4 countries in 2003 provided ground invasion troops - US, UK, Australia, Poland. And 37 countries provided troops to assist after the invasion.

[Coito ergo sum]

Now on Al Jazeera: the Libyan foreign minister announces that Libya has issued an immediate and total cease fire. Might it really be this easy?

No, that's Gaddaffi desperately trying to stop having his forces pounded from the air. It's nothing more than a stop-gap tactic. This was predicted last night soon after the resolution was passed. What will happen next ...?

The cease fire will prove to be a sham, international forces will start enforcing the no fly zone, and Gadaffi will claim it's Western imperialists trying to impose a colonial regime on Libya.

Would he be wrong? I remember something about western countries not having the right to meddle in the internal affairs of other countries....something about it not being our business to "impose" our ways on other countries...

The idea of Qaddafi killing his own people doesn't, to me, make sense as a justification - not coming from those who rejected it as a justification in previous instances.