Libya: should anything be done?

[Santa_Claus]

That's a good summation of some of the structural problems with the UN, not to mention the balance of power being based on the state of the world back in 1945. Daft, really ...

'Tis daft - the French still having a permanent seat, ludicrous.

How the French were given a permanent place in the first place is difficult to fathom. They appease Hitler in the 1930s, and roll over for him like the proverbial French whore in 1940. Most of them affirmatively sympathized with Germany, and cooperated (Vichy, e.g.) with the pogrom against the Jews. They had Germany driven out of France mainly by the efforts of the UK, US, Canada, Australia and other such countries fighting the good fight, and then they're propped back up and given a seat at the adult's table?

Must've been for the wine and cheese...

Bit harsh on the French. And a selective interpretation of WWII history - I like it

Part of stacking the top table against the Russkies. and whilst the French not so poodle like to the US as the English, fundamentally they are on the same side.

The 5 will always be part of the Security Council - but the Security Council will not always be "the" decider (and stabilzer) it once was. The Countries that matter will always self-define and if we are lucky will create their own forum / commitee for decisions and debate and inactions and arguments. "The UN international stability Committee" - US / Russia / EU / China / India / Brazil / Japan as veto members. .....plus others rotating in - maybe by region? Africa / Oceania / Asia / Europe / North America / South America / Central Asia / Middle East.

Always makes me smile when folk demand Europe flex their military muscles. No sense of history - as only since WWII have us Europeans stopped killing each other on an industrial scale. and (in the main) given up the hobby of travelling long distances to kill foreigners on a large scale. We are very good at that sort of thing, it's how we got where we are. In Europe (those who didn't arrive by plane or in the back of a lorry ). A well armed Europe willing to use it's capacity to wage war is not on on my wish list as I rather fear we are like Alkies with a crate of booze. or Schnapps .......




On the Libyan thing, really a slam dunk for the West to win politically in the long term (and in our interests to intervene - it's on the EU doorstep) - not to say we won't find a way to f#ck it up again though.

[Warren Dew]

British and French frustration with the lack of international will to intervene in Libya is growing. British Prime Minister David Cameron said on Tuesday that Arab sentiment was, "if you don't show your support for the Libyan people and for democracy at this time, you are saying you will intervene only when it's about your security, but you won't help when it's about our democracy."

http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts ... n_on_libya

Heh. Now the French know how Bush felt in 2003.

[Santa_Claus]

Now the French know how Bush felt in 2003.

Like a clueless Retard?

- but I think you underestimate what the French can do when they put there mind to it (rather than just playing along). No f#cking around. and no prisoners......even if they do outsource a lot of the hands on stuff nowadays, which runs the risk of things running out of control (like Rwanda). But don't underestimate the French resolve, and zeal.

[Thumpalumpacus]

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

A good working definition for me is, "The ability of a citizen to speak up against, and if necessary turn out, his or her government without fear of government reprisals." Hopefully that helps.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

US Tomahawks launched at Libya. Pucker factor escalates. French planes fire as well.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Brits committed to the attack. Cameron looks like a dick.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

110 cruise missiles fired by US/UK.

[Warren Dew]

Has anyone volunteered for the nation building afterwards?

Although in the case of Libya, unlike Iraq, taking the oil might actually pay for the military expenditures.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Has anyone volunteered for the nation building afterwards?

Although in the case of Libya, unlike Iraq, taking the oil might actually pay for the military expenditures.

The smartest thing would be let the new government ask somebody first.

[sandinista]

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

A good working definition for me is, "The ability of a citizen to speak up against, and if necessary turn out, his or her government without fear of government reprisals." Hopefully that helps.

Speak up in what sense? Overthrow the government without fear of reprisals? That doesn't exist anywhere. Any government will fight back if they feel the risk of being overthrown. I know this is a little off topic, and I do apologize, but this terminology interests me. Seems very vague.

back on topic...

Robert Fisk: First it was Saddam. Then Gaddafi. Now there's a vacancy for the West's favourite crackpot tyrant

So we are going to take "all necessary measures" to protect the civilians of Libya, are we? Pity we didn't think of that 42 years ago. Or 41 years ago. Or... well, you know the rest. And let's not be fooled by what the UN resolution really means. Yet again, it's going to be regime-change. And just as in Iraq – to use one of Tom Friedman's only memorable phrases of the time – when the latest dictator goes, who knows what kind of bats will come flying out of the box?

And after Tunisia, after Egypt, it's got to be Libya, hasn't it? The Arabs of North Africa are demanding freedom, democracy, liberation from oppression. Yes, that's what they have in common. But what these nations also have in common is that it was us, the West, that nurtured their dictatorships decade after decade after decade. The French cuddled up to Ben Ali, the Americans stroked Mubarak, while the Italians groomed Gaddafi until our own glorious leader went to resurrect him from the political dead.

Could this be, I wonder, why we have not heard from Lord Blair of Isfahan recently? Surely he should be up there, clapping his hands with glee at another humanitarian intervention. Perhaps he is just resting between parts. Or maybe, like the dragons in Spenser's Faerie Queen, he is quietly vomiting forth Catholic tracts with all the enthusiasm of a Gaddafi in full flow.

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/co ... 46415.html

[Atheist-Lite]

110 cruise missiles so far tonight says don't mess with Western interests like oil, oil, oil.

[JimC]

sandinista wrote:

Speak up in what sense? Overthrow the government without fear of reprisals? That doesn't exist anywhere. Any government will fight back if they feel the risk of being overthrown. I know this is a little off topic, and I do apologize, but this terminology interests me. Seems very vague.

In context, he said "turn out" the government, which I took to mean with the ballot box, not a violent overthrow, which indeed would naturally be resisted by a government. An attempt to violently overthrow a government is clearly wrong if an election is going to be held in the normal way, in the normal time, and citizens have the ability to choose an alternative.

If a government suspends elections, muzzles opinion and represses protest with force, then a violent rebellion against them is removing an illegitimate government, and can reasonably be supported by the international community...

[JimC]

The Libyan situation has the potential to become a long-term, bloody stalemate. If western forces only commit to the defeat of the Libyan Air Force, then the rebels would have a reasonable chance of hanging on to their present territory, but may not be able to advance. A protracted, messy war of attrition could follow, and/or a defacto separation of Libya into 2 zones for a long period of time...

[JOZeldenrust]

The Libyan situation has the potential to become a long-term, bloody stalemate. If western forces only commit to the defeat of the Libyan Air Force, then the rebels would have a reasonable chance of hanging on to their present territory, but may not be able to advance. A protracted, messy war of attrition could follow, and/or a defacto separation of Libya into 2 zones for a long period of time...

I've been thinking about this. Resolution 1973 rules out an occupation force, but it does alow for the deployment of ground troops in other roles. The US has ruled out deploying ground troops, but other coalition partners haven't. Other coalition partners, preferably Arab countries, could provide ground troops to support the Libyan rebels. As long as those troops were under the command of the Libyan rebels, I think such an intervention would be both legal within the limitations imposed by resolution 1973, and something that could count on popular support among the Libyan population.

[Coito ergo sum]

The Italians "stoked" Qadafi? Fisk is such a tool, sandi. A lying sack of shit - almost everything I read from that guy involves some fabrication.

The last thing Qadafi was was the baby or puppet of the West. The West - first Italy and then the Brits - propped up the King that Qadafi overthrew. Naturally, in Fisk's world, we propped up the King and also Qadafi. The West was behind them both.