THIS is why we're intervening in Libya

[Coito ergo sum]

The front in Libya is barely moving as the country remains split between rebels and Gadhafi's troops. The rebels are complaining of not receiving enough air support, but NATO is hardly in a position to ramp it up after the withdrawal of US fighter jets. The resulting stalemate underscores the lack of a clear strategy for the allies in Libya.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/wor ... 16,00.html

How impotent is Europe? A whole continent and it's "hardly in a position to ramp it up after the withdrawal of US fighter jets?" WTF?

[egbert]

[sandinista]

[sandinista]

so...who is nato "protecting"?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12997181

Doctors in Ajdabiya told the BBC at least 13 rebel fighters had been killed by the strike on a rebel tank position.

The BBC's Wyre Davies reports chaotic scenes on the outskirts of Ajdabiya, with rebel forces in retreat reporting being hit by Nato air strikes.

It is the third such incident in recent days involving international forces deployed to protect Libyan civilians.

One rebel commander told the BBC he saw at least four missiles land among rebel fighters.

Many people have been killed and many more have been injured, he said....

[Seth]

For example, if the Soviet Union "invaded" Cuba and erected nuclear-tipped missiles aimed at the United States, the United States would be fully justified in invading Cuba, or blockading it, in order to eliminate the threat.

Err no

Err, yes.

[Coito ergo sum]

so...who is nato "protecting"?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12997181

Doctors in Ajdabiya told the BBC at least 13 rebel fighters had been killed by the strike on a rebel tank position.

The BBC's Wyre Davies reports chaotic scenes on the outskirts of Ajdabiya, with rebel forces in retreat reporting being hit by Nato air strikes.

It is the third such incident in recent days involving international forces deployed to protect Libyan civilians.

One rebel commander told the BBC he saw at least four missiles land among rebel fighters.

Many people have been killed and many more have been injured, he said....

Nobody -- Libya was thrown under the bus by the Arab League. That's the only reason the Arab League initially supported it. The same shit is going on in 5 different places in the Arab world, and the Arab League pushed to get the West to intervene in Libya. Why? For humanitarian reasons? Or, so that Qadafi takes a fall while the rest of the Arab world solidifies its control and represses its insurrections?

[egbert]

For example, if the Soviet Union "invaded" Cuba and erected nuclear-tipped missiles aimed at the United States, the United States would be fully justified in invading Cuba, or blockading it, in order to eliminate the threat.

Err no

Err, yes.

And, in order to get the Soviets to remove those missiles from Cuba, the USA had to agree to remove THEIR nuclear tipped missiles, pointing at Russia, from Turkey.
I guess you jest plumb forgot to mention that, eh?

[Seth]

For example, if the Soviet Union "invaded" Cuba and erected nuclear-tipped missiles aimed at the United States, the United States would be fully justified in invading Cuba, or blockading it, in order to eliminate the threat.

Err no

Err, yes.

And, in order to get the Soviets to remove those missiles from Cuba, the USA had to agree to remove THEIR nuclear tipped missiles, pointing at Russia, from Turkey.
I guess you jest plumb forgot to mention that, eh?

We didn't "have" to agree. We did agree. We could have gone to war instead, and been fully justified in doing so.

[Aos Si]

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.

And there is a general agreement or charter that is signed up to that has the country promise not to make imperialist threats on smaller nations without provocation, not legally binding and everyone just ignores it but then our word often pretty much means shit in politics. Morally though its considered wrong to invade a country without provocation, in this case though I think the saving of civilian lives who would of been bombed is probably a mitigating factor.

[Aos Si]

The front in Libya is barely moving as the country remains split between rebels and Gadhafi's troops. The rebels are complaining of not receiving enough air support, but NATO is hardly in a position to ramp it up after the withdrawal of US fighter jets. The resulting stalemate underscores the lack of a clear strategy for the allies in Libya.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/wor ... 16,00.html

How impotent is Europe? A whole continent and it's "hardly in a position to ramp it up after the withdrawal of US fighter jets?" WTF?

Probably more to do with the fact that no one is prepared to commit forces because of the cost. Not just because we don't see the point in having vast military expenditure any more, particularly when we are in recession.

[Coito ergo sum]

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.

Feel free to link to it.

I've read the treaty you're referring to. It's the Cease Fire Accord. And, Iraq violated it repeatedly, which was also one of the many reasons for the Iraq War in 2003. There was also the Oil for Food Program, which Iraq violated repeatedly.

And there is a general agreement or charter that is signed up to that has the country promise not to make imperialist threats on smaller nations without provocation, not legally binding and everyone just ignores it but then our word often pretty much means shit in politics.

You'll have to name this general agreement or charter. Are you referring to the UN Charter?

Morally though its considered wrong to invade a country without provocation, in this case though I think the saving of civilian lives who would of been bombed is probably a mitigating factor.

LOL - there was the same, or worse, problem of civilian lives being raped and ended by the Saddam Hussein regime too. Not a mitigating factor?

[Coito ergo sum]

The front in Libya is barely moving as the country remains split between rebels and Gadhafi's troops. The rebels are complaining of not receiving enough air support, but NATO is hardly in a position to ramp it up after the withdrawal of US fighter jets. The resulting stalemate underscores the lack of a clear strategy for the allies in Libya.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/wor ... 16,00.html

How impotent is Europe? A whole continent and it's "hardly in a position to ramp it up after the withdrawal of US fighter jets?" WTF?

Probably more to do with the fact that no one is prepared to commit forces because of the cost. Not just because we don't see the point in having vast military expenditure any more, particularly when we are in recession.

Of course, being "hardly in a position" is not the same as making a cost-benefit analysis.

[Aos Si]

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.

Feel free to link to it.

I've read the treaty you're referring to. It's the Cease Fire Accord. And, Iraq violated it repeatedly, which was also one of the many reasons for the Iraq War in 2003. There was also the Oil for Food Program, which Iraq violated repeatedly.

And there is a general agreement or charter that is signed up to that has the country promise not to make imperialist threats on smaller nations without provocation, not legally binding and everyone just ignores it but then our word often pretty much means shit in politics.

You'll have to name this general agreement or charter. Are you referring to the UN Charter?

Morally though its considered wrong to invade a country without provocation, in this case though I think the saving of civilian lives who would of been bombed is probably a mitigating factor.

LOL - there was the same, or worse, problem of civilian lives being raped and ended by the Saddam Hussein regime too. Not a mitigating factor?

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

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

[Coito ergo sum]

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.

[MrJonno]

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