THIS is why we're intervening in Libya

[Aos Si]

Yup. Pretty typical of ignorant Arab Muslims, but not a justification for levying war on a sovereign nation

Obviously in Seth world a soverign nation trumps everything

It did to almost every left-leaning or liberal person five years ago, too. Remember - back then we needed an "imminent threat" to the US in order to justify an attack, and nothing less would do. Where there is no imminent threat, you have to use measures short of military force. A preemptive war was illegal and a war crime back then. Here, we have nothing even remotely hinting at a threat from Libya, and the humanitarian crisis had not yet occurred and we moved in to PREEMPT it.

I remember hearing the arguments "but, there are humanitarian crises and dictators killing their people all over the world - why pick Iraq?" That argument was even used by those opposing the UN effort to free Kuwait of the Iraqi invasion in the early 90s. It was an insufficient reason to go in, that we were trying to help the Kuwaiti people who were being tortured and killed by Hussein. Why not Darfur, Sudan? Why not one of 10 or so other countries?

Yeah there are so many dickheads in the world its no reason to invade. Or we'd of invaded the US when Bush was in power.

Oh come on it's not to late for a Bush dig is it?

Resources have always been a damned good reason to invade. probably best to just topple democracies who have vast oil reserves, that wont play ball, and replace them with Western friendly dictators then no one gets killed except the head of state well sort of. Mentioning no place... ha hum.. Iraahan. Sorry just clearing my throat.

I'm kind of ambivalent on this one, I'd probably side with political pragmatism in the end.

[Coito ergo sum]

Resources have always been a damned good reason to invade.

Not according to those who opposed the Iraq War. They said that the reason we went is was for oil, and that's why it was a war crime. Is it a war crime now?

I'm kind of ambivalent on this one, I'd probably side with political pragmatism in the end.

Why are you ambivalent? And political pragmatism for who? Anything that's pragmatically good for your team?

[Aos Si]

Resources have always been a damned good reason to invade.

Not according to those who opposed the Iraq War. They said that the reason we went is was for oil, and that's why it was a war crime. Is it a war crime now?

It was not a war crime it was just illegal. The Security Council is a paper tiger though.

War crimes are the holocaust, the bombing of Germany in the final stages of the war, England's massacre of peaceful protesters in India (not technically war but), Hiroshima and Nagasaki and so on. Still the winner gets to write history it's only a war crime if you lost.

I'm kind of ambivalent on this one, I'd probably side with political pragmatism in the end.

Why are you ambivalent? And political pragmatism for who? Anything that's pragmatically good for your team?

I was thinking more of overall world good. He is a pain in the ass for everyone generally, mad as a nail and with more power than sense, a frightening combination.

I just wonder as many do if its better the devil you know? Hence the ambivalence. After all dictators generally tend to come to bloody ends, if not at the hands of a foreign power, at the hands of your people.

[ksen]

I just wonder what makes Libya so different from Somalia or Zimbabwe atm.

You mean from Yemen, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, and all those other ME countries where protestors are being killed by governemnt troops?

[Aos Si]

I just wonder what makes Libya so different from Somalia or Zimbabwe atm.

You mean from Yemen, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, and all those other ME countries where protestors are being killed by governemnt troops?

And so on yes.

We can't possible interfere in Saudi Arabia now can we. What a state does is always legal isn't it?

[Coito ergo sum]

Resources have always been a damned good reason to invade.

Not according to those who opposed the Iraq War. They said that the reason we went is was for oil, and that's why it was a war crime. Is it a war crime now?

It was not a war crime it was just illegal. The Security Council is a paper tiger though.

War crimes are the holocaust, the bombing of Germany in the final stages of the war, Hiroshima and Nagasaki and so on. Still the winner gets to write history.

Many folks did make the argument that it was a war crime. When I argued that it wasn't, I was attacked unmercifully.

So....Libyan war is illegal? No imminent threat? Preemptive strike?

I'm kind of ambivalent on this one, I'd probably side with political pragmatism in the end.

Why are you ambivalent? And political pragmatism for who? Anything that's pragmatically good for your team?[/quote]

I was thinking more of overall world good. He is a pain in the ass for everyone generally, mad as a nail and with more power than sense, a frightening combination.

Hussein was more powerful, and Hussein hadn't rolled over and allowed in unrestricted UN inspectors. Qadafi hadn't threatened anyone, had he? He hadn't attacked his own people?

I just wonder as many do if its better the devil you know? Hence the ambivalence.

I find the fact that groups like Moveon.org, Code Pink, International ANSWER and the like, and most mainline Democrats in the US, aren't opposing this war to be quite enlightening. It illustrates what I suspected about Iraq. It wasn't the war, it was who was President.

[Aos Si]

Resources have always been a damned good reason to invade.

Not according to those who opposed the Iraq War. They said that the reason we went is was for oil, and that's why it was a war crime. Is it a war crime now?

It was not a war crime it was just illegal. The Security Council is a paper tiger though.

War crimes are the holocaust, the bombing of Germany in the final stages of the war, Hiroshima and Nagasaki and so on. Still the winner gets to write history.

Many folks did make the argument that it was a war crime. When I argued that it wasn't, I was attacked unmercifully.

So....Libyan war is illegal? No imminent threat? Preemptive strike?

Well it should of gone through the Security Council but war crime, no? At least if the aim is to protect civilians.

A case could be made for legality. But NATO has never operated within the UN. If the UN wasn't functionally hamstrung NATO wouldn't exist, or would it...

I'm kind of ambivalent on this one, I'd probably side with political pragmatism in the end.

Why are you ambivalent? And political pragmatism for who? Anything that's pragmatically good for your team?

I was thinking more of overall world good. He is a pain in the ass for everyone generally, mad as a nail and with more power than sense, a frightening combination.

Hussein was more powerful, and Hussein hadn't rolled over and allowed in unrestricted UN inspectors. Qadafi hadn't threatened anyone, had he? He hadn't attacked his own people?

Well I am saying that both are pathetically justified, I am just saying overall the world might be a better place without the gimp. And I'm not sure it will work out better in the end. But we never learn. I am just not sure atm.

I just wonder as many do if its better the devil you know? Hence the ambivalence.

I find the fact that groups like Moveon.org, Code Pink, International ANSWER and the like, and most mainline Democrats in the US, aren't opposing this war to be quite enlightening. It illustrates what I suspected about Iraq. It wasn't the war, it was who was President.

It was indeed. It wasn't about the stated reason or aims it was far more seedy than that.

[Coito ergo sum]

Resources have always been a damned good reason to invade.

Not according to those who opposed the Iraq War. They said that the reason we went is was for oil, and that's why it was a war crime. Is it a war crime now?

It was not a war crime it was just illegal. The Security Council is a paper tiger though.

War crimes are the holocaust, the bombing of Germany in the final stages of the war, Hiroshima and Nagasaki and so on. Still the winner gets to write history.

Many folks did make the argument that it was a war crime. When I argued that it wasn't, I was attacked unmercifully.

So....Libyan war is illegal? No imminent threat? Preemptive strike?

Well it should of gone through the security council but war crime, no?

A case could be made for legality. But NATO has never operated within the UN.

The Security Council does not have the lawful power to turn an illegal war legal by voting for it, does it? An illegal war is illegal whether the SC votes for it or not.

I'm kind of ambivalent on this one, I'd probably side with political pragmatism in the end.

Why are you ambivalent? And political pragmatism for who? Anything that's pragmatically good for your team?

I was thinking more of overall world good. He is a pain in the ass for everyone generally, mad as a nail and with more power than sense, a frightening combination.[/quote]

Hussein was more powerful, and Hussein hadn't rolled over and allowed in unrestricted UN inspectors. Qadafi hadn't threatened anyone, had he? He hadn't attacked his own people?[/QUOTe]

Well I am saying that both are pathetically justified, I am just saying overall the world might be a better place without the gimp. I am also saying that it isn't justified. [/quote]

Understood.

I just wonder as many do if its better the devil you know? Hence the ambivalence.

I find the fact that groups like Moveon.org, Code Pink, International ANSWER and the like, and most mainline Democrats in the US, aren't opposing this war to be quite enlightening. It illustrates what I suspected about Iraq. It wasn't the war, it was who was President.

It was indeed. It wasn't about the stated reason or aims it was far more seedy than that.

Humanitarian reasons and protecting the IRaqi people were among the concerns voiced and among the reasons for the War. And, there was more reason to believe Hussein was doing nasty stuff to his people than we have now for Qadafi. Hussein used rape as a means of law enforcement - he murdered his political opponents - he threatened and even attacked his own people many times. It wasn't a possibility, it was an actuality. And, it wasn't enough back then.

[Aos Si]

The Security Council does not have the lawful power to turn an illegal war legal by voting for it, does it? An illegal war is illegal whether the SC votes for it or not.

True it is but not in legal terms as the world understands it. It is the only place where something can be pronounced illegal internationally. And the only place where it seldom does.

Of course it was illegal but the general council is not considered legally binding, the coalition of the willing are chumps but not illegal chumps technically. Lawyers are cnuts though let's face it. A necessary evil but there scheister tactics will often make red seem like it is blue.

Humanitarian reasons and protecting the IRaqi people were among the concerns voiced and among the reasons for the War. And, there was more reason to believe Hussein was doing nasty stuff to his people than we have now for Qadafi. Hussein used rape as a means of law enforcement - he murdered his political opponents - he threatened and even attacked his own people many times. It wasn't a possibility, it was an actuality. And, it wasn't enough back then.

You're probably arguing against the wrong person here, I think basically we are on the same side.

I know what you mean, I am ambivalent for a reason. It's hard to argue against agnosticism or pragmatism. We'll see just how pragmatic it is. Hypocrisy though is a typically political conceit.

[Coito ergo sum]

The Federal Bureau of Investigation has begun questioning Libyans living in the U.S., part of an effort to identify any Libyan-backed spies or terrorists, and collect any information that might help allied military operations.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... TopStories

Should we hold our breath for the cries of "racial profiling?" Questioning "Libyans living int he US?"

Trying to identify Libyan terrorists? LOL. That's rich.

The move reflects concerns among U.S. officials—in the wake of an allied bombing campaign that established a no-fly zone over Libya to prevent the massacre of antigovernment rebels—that Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi might try to orchestrate revenge attacks against U.S. citizens

Sound familiar? We have a threat now.

[MrJonno]

It's in NATO national interest and once a country joins NATO (it was an US idea to create it) this takes supremancy over individual national interest.

Having refugees flow into fellow NATO country members from Libya is bad economically never mind any moral arguments.

[Coito ergo sum]

NATO is not authorized to wage an illegal war, is it?

It also wasn't initiated as a NATO action. It only later became a NATO action. No NATO countries were attacked. No threats were made, imminent or otherwise. What's the interest?

[MrJonno]

NATO is not authorized to wage an illegal war, is it?

Only the UN can authorise miltary action which it has done, the difference between 'no fly zone' and and a restricted war is entirely academic

[ksen]

NATO's charter doesn't allow it to initiate war. Not that it matters.

[Coito ergo sum]

NATO is not authorized to wage an illegal war, is it?

Only the UN can authorise miltary action which it has done, the difference between 'no fly zone' and and a restricted war is entirely academic

The UN can't legally authorize an illegal war. For example, if the Security Council voted to invade Canada for no reason other than to steal their beer, that would not be legal and the Security Council would be violating the UN Charter. Neither NATO nor the UN is authorized to wage an illegal war.