Libya: should anything be done?

[Warren Dew]

A good distinction, and thanks for putting it in. However, "cooperative" relationships is a rather vague term, too. Myself, at this point I'd rather see us pull back both military units and strategic commitments. Although Japan has taken a recent hit, SKorea and Europe can well fend for themselves.

I was thinking more in terms of economic cooperation - things like participation in the WTO - which I think are highly beneficial.

I will say I don't think we should disengage completely from a strategic standpoint, either. There are some threats out there that have a potential to be a direct threat to the U.S. More specifically, there are two: Iran and North Korea. I'm in favor of efforts to prevent those two from getting nuclear weapons.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I like the euphemism "work on the enemy". The definition of work is "force applied through distance" in this case.

[Warren Dew]

I'm a little suspicious of the claim that Qadafi's forces are still targeting civilians on the ground. Has anyone seen hard evidence of this targeting? Or, is it just an assumption being made by the western forces?

That's something that bothers me, too. There are unconfirmed reports of civilians being shot, but individual snipers are not something that air attacks are very effective at eliminating. I suppose some people might be considering the people who are shooting RPGs at Qadafi's tanks to be "civilians", but using a more realistic definition, I haven't seen even an allegation that the tanks are being used against civilians.

[egbert]

You can't, at least not consistent with the Geneva Conventions, bomb the fuck out of a country, help send it into disarray and then wash your hands of it all.

Vietnam. Cambodia. Burma. East Timor. Iraq.

[Coito ergo sum]

You can't, at least not consistent with the Geneva Conventions, bomb the fuck out of a country, help send it into disarray and then wash your hands of it all.

Vietnam. Cambodia. Burma. East Timor. Iraq.

We didn't leave Iraq in disarray, we stayed and fixed it. Unless your suggesting that for the last two years the Obama Administration has just been jerking off and not working to assist Iraq's stabilization...

Vietnam, we occupied the south until it was overrun by the North Vietnamese. Once they occupied it, it was their responsibility as an occupying power.

We can talk about the other three if you like, but that's the gist. It's not legal to defeat a country and then just leave the population to fend for themselves. That's what the Fourth Geneva Convention is for.

[sandinista]

You can't, at least not consistent with the Geneva Conventions, bomb the fuck out of a country, help send it into disarray and then wash your hands of it all.

Vietnam. Cambodia. Burma. East Timor. Iraq.

We didn't leave Iraq in disarray, we stayed and fixed it. Unless your suggesting that for the last two years the Obama Administration has just been jerking off and not working to assist Iraq's stabilization...

Vietnam, we occupied the south until it was overrun by the North Vietnamese. Once they occupied it, it was their responsibility as an occupying power.

We can talk about the other three if you like, but that's the gist. It's not legal to defeat a country and then just leave the population to fend for themselves. That's what the Fourth Geneva Convention is for.

North Vietnam was occupied South Vietnam? Holy shit Coito?

[DRSB]

The Allies still cannot agree on what "mission accomplished" means: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/25/world ... ml?_r=1&hp

[Coito ergo sum]

You can't, at least not consistent with the Geneva Conventions, bomb the fuck out of a country, help send it into disarray and then wash your hands of it all.

Vietnam. Cambodia. Burma. East Timor. Iraq.

We didn't leave Iraq in disarray, we stayed and fixed it. Unless your suggesting that for the last two years the Obama Administration has just been jerking off and not working to assist Iraq's stabilization...

Vietnam, we occupied the south until it was overrun by the North Vietnamese. Once they occupied it, it was their responsibility as an occupying power.

We can talk about the other three if you like, but that's the gist. It's not legal to defeat a country and then just leave the population to fend for themselves. That's what the Fourth Geneva Convention is for.

North Vietnam was occupied South Vietnam? Holy shit Coito?

Err....fall of Saigon - Hanoi took over the country and the South fell. Yes. That's what happened. What is it that you are disputing? Did the pre-1975 Saigon government survive and I wasn't aware of it? EDIT: naturally, the North Vietnamese view was that it was all one Vietnam with Hanoi being the rightful government of it all. The US backed government in Saigon, of course, did not share that view. From Hanoi's point of view, the country was liberated and unified, yes, if that's what you're alluding to. However, I was making a statement regarding the US's Geneva Convention obligations.

[Coito ergo sum]

The Allies still cannot agree on what "mission accomplished" means: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/25/world ... ml?_r=1&hp

LOL - so much for the ubiquitous question of 2003 to 2008..."who are we to impose....?" Has now changed to "of course! It's our duty to impose!"

Qadafi killed his own people - ergo, it is not only just, but a moral imperative that the West oust him.

Gone also is the requirement of an "imminent threat" to a country in order for military action to be taken. Now, we need no external threat.

We do have some folks taking consistent positions - on this forum, notably Sandinista is 100% consistent in this regard. Outside the forum, we have US Congressman Dennis Kucinich and Michael Moore (asking for Obama to return his Nobel Peace Prize) and others of their ilk expressing these arguments consistently. But, the great mass of the left side of the spectrum is strangely silent - no mass protests - nobody is camped outside of Obama's house, etc.

And, hardly a mention is made that in 2007 Obama stated explicitly that the President simply does not have the power to initiate "military action" without Congressional approval. So much for that.

[Ian]

You can't, at least not consistent with the Geneva Conventions, bomb the fuck out of a country, help send it into disarray and then wash your hands of it all.

I don't know if this comment is accurate at all. So far the coalition has been focusing on things like air defense sites and loyalist tanks, so as to impose the no-fly and keep heavy ground forces from being able to advance into Benghazi. To my knowledge, there hasn't been any foreign bombing of power plants, transportation hubs, industry, or any other infrastructure that will be needed by civilians to keep things running during and after this period.

[Coito ergo sum]

You can't, at least not consistent with the Geneva Conventions, bomb the fuck out of a country, help send it into disarray and then wash your hands of it all.

I don't know if this comment is accurate at all. So far the coalition has been focusing on things like air defense sites and loyalist tanks, so as to impose the no-fly and keep heavy ground forces from being able to advance into Benghazi. To my knowledge, there hasn't been any foreign bombing of power plants, transportation hubs, industry, or any other infrastructure that will be needed by civilians to keep things running during and after this period.

I don't disagree, and I was not implying that we had, as yet, "broke it," so as to lead to the conclusion that we "bought it."

However, IF the invading force's military action causes the demise of the current government, does the invading force not have the obligation to protect civilians and also see that a new government is set up?

The duty to provide security for civilians attaches as soon as the occupying force exercises control or authority over civilians of the occupied territory-that is, at the soonest possible moment. (This principle is stated in U.S. Army Field Manual 27-10 as well as the Fourth Geneva Convention, art. 6.).

If effective control is maintained from the air and the Qadafi government toppled, wouldn't the allied forces have an obligation, at the soonest possible moment, to exercise control or authority over civilians in order to provide security? Isn't that the whole point of the Fourth Geneva Convention - concerning the Protection of Civilians in Times of War?

I mean - this is the thing that irked me a bit from 2003 to 2008 -- during those years, it became almost a mantra that an "occupation" was by its very nature illegal - something against international law. Sometimes, however, occupations are not only legal but MANDATED by international law.

The allies have to be really careful here. Qadafi is a bastard, yes. But, if we topple him and as a result the situation spirals out of control into an all out civil war among remaining factions and competitors for power - doesn't international law require the allied forces - who are invading Libya - no two ways about it - just because your using mostly air forces doesn't change the fact that it's an invasion. It's Libya's airspace, and nobody asked them for permission to enter it. That sort of shit gets civilian airliners shot down (like that incident over Russia 2 decades or so ago).

[sandinista]

You can't, at least not consistent with the Geneva Conventions, bomb the fuck out of a country, help send it into disarray and then wash your hands of it all.

Vietnam. Cambodia. Burma. East Timor. Iraq.

We didn't leave Iraq in disarray, we stayed and fixed it. Unless your suggesting that for the last two years the Obama Administration has just been jerking off and not working to assist Iraq's stabilization...

Vietnam, we occupied the south until it was overrun by the North Vietnamese. Once they occupied it, it was their responsibility as an occupying power.

We can talk about the other three if you like, but that's the gist. It's not legal to defeat a country and then just leave the population to fend for themselves. That's what the Fourth Geneva Convention is for.

North Vietnam was occupied South Vietnam? Holy shit Coito?

Err....fall of Saigon - Hanoi took over the country and the South fell. Yes. That's what happened. What is it that you are disputing? Did the pre-1975 Saigon government survive and I wasn't aware of it? EDIT: naturally, the North Vietnamese view was that it was all one Vietnam with Hanoi being the rightful government of it all. The US backed government in Saigon, of course, did not share that view. From Hanoi's point of view, the country was liberated and unified, yes, if that's what you're alluding to. However, I was making a statement regarding the US's Geneva Convention obligations.

Of course the South was liberated, the country was united, the North didn't "occupy" the south. That's some pretty fucking convenient "obligations". You bomb the shit out of a country, murder millions then claim..."oh, it's your responsibility now"...holy shit.

[Ian]

Of course the South was liberated, the country was united, the North didn't "occupy" the south.

WTF? Try telling that to all the Boat People.
I know several people whose families fled the country in 1975. And it wasn't because they had just been "liberated".

[sandinista]

Of course the South was liberated, the country was united, the North didn't "occupy" the south.

WTF? Try telling that to all the Boat People.
I know several people whose families fled the country in 1975. And it wasn't because they had just been "liberated".

I know a lot of Vietnamese who came to canaduh as well. People who either disagreed with the government, people who worked for the americans, or wealthy people who didn't want anything to do with the Communist north. That doesn't mean it wasn't liberated. I have spoken to people in Vietnam as well who are immensely proud of liberating the country from the americans and the french. Because individuals leave a country doesn't mean it wasn't liberated.

[Ian]

Of course the South was liberated, the country was united, the North didn't "occupy" the south.

WTF? Try telling that to all the Boat People.
I know several people whose families fled the country in 1975. And it wasn't because they had just been "liberated".

I know a lot of Vietnamese who came to canaduh as well. People who either disagreed with the government, people who worked for the americans, or wealthy people who didn't want anything to do with the Communist north. That doesn't mean it wasn't liberated. I have spoken to people in Vietnam as well who are immensely proud of liberating the country from the americans and the french. Because individuals leave a country doesn't mean it wasn't liberated.

It depends on what your opinion of "liberated" means.

Nearly one million Vietnamese emigrated to the US since the fall of Saigon. Another quarter million went to Canada or Australia. Another 200,000 to Europe. Over 100,000 to Hong Kong. More than ten thousand to Japan. Even Israel allowed some in. And who knows how many died at sea, or never found the opportunity to escape? And all that despite the re-education camps set up by the Socialist Republic of Vietnam. I guess all those people have different interpretations of what the North's "liberation" meant as well.