Libya

[Zoraptor]

..NOT invading countries with oil while stampeding towards countries with none nor any other mineral assets is going to make not one single currently unhappy 'intellectual' any more happy.

I don't think anyone has been advocating willy-nilly intervention, and certainly not me. Ultimately how arabs are governed is a question for arabs, not for any smug, superior and infinitely self satisfied westerner, myself included.

 

Most of my objections* would go if Dave or Nick simply stood up and said something like "we're doing it because we can, we think we'll benefit, no-one significant objects and we can manage the PR by spinning the humanitarian angle". While that isn't the paragon of moral certitude they are trying to spin it is at least honest.

 

*It would deal with one objection, the one relating to the UN ignoring its own founding document would remain.

[213374U]

@Grom: so it'll be a long time before Qaddafi (or whoever) re-establishes control over Libya. So... what? The likely retaliation will be maybe twenty years in the future. I didn't say things will be worse for the US immediately. But this is hardly working towards preserving this increasingly nebulous and all-encompassing "national security" concept, unless it doesn't mean what we're told it means. Maybe govt-contractor security would be a better term. Less punch, though.

 

As for the comments on the US economy, I was rambling. No, a catastrophic economic collapse isn't likely, and even if it were, it doesn't guarantee anything, as the 1930's show. It's the rise of credible world title contenders that is a much more likely and realistic prospect. But yes, that's something for another thread.

 

 

FFS, Morgoth we've been over this a million times. Wars cost money. If they aren't remotely beneficial to the economy of the country funding them, then ...er... they don't ****ing work. But that still doesn't mean it's only about money.

 

You might just as well look at a paediatrician and say "You heartless c***. Why don't you help kids for free?"

The ultimate proof for your argument may be that this war is neither particularly beneficial to any participant's economy nor, ostensibly, working. Or maybe it's not working because there's no real political will behind it, it will never be excessively profitable for anyone save the Russians, and your theory is just bunk.

 

You've been defending the same thesis, insatisfactorily, over and over. When challenged about the dodgy application of humanitarian criteria to justify this war, you change topics and discuss it in terms of profit. When presented with the likelihood that economic and political factors and not (as opposed to and) humanitarian or legal reasons are behind it, you again simply suggest that some justice is better than none. However, justice is supposed to be universal and, by extension, free to those that can't afford it.

 

In other news, Sarko wants nothing to do with the immigration wave caused partly by his antics in North Africa, and is willing to piss off his neighbors (and allies) to prevent any possible domestic political backlash that may result. He really cares about those Libyans and Tunisians, as long as they don't get too close to him.

Edited April 23, 2011 by 213374U

[Walsingham]

The ultimate proof for your argument may be that this war is neither particularly beneficial to any participant's economy nor, ostensibly, working. Or maybe it's not working because there's no real political will behind it, it will never be excessively profitable for anyone save the Russians, and your theory is just bunk.

 

You've been defending the same thesis, insatisfactorily, over and over. When challenged about the dodgy application of humanitarian criteria to justify this war, you change topics and discuss it in terms of profit. When presented with the likelihood that economic and political factors and not (as opposed to and) humanitarian or legal reasons are behind it, you again simply suggest that some justice is better than none. However, justice is supposed to be universal and, by extension, free to those that can't afford it.

 

In other news, Sarko wants nothing to do with the immigration wave caused partly by his antics in North Africa, and is willing to piss off his neighbors (and allies) to prevent any possible domestic political backlash that may result. He really cares about those Libyans and Tunisians, as long as they don't get too close to him.

 

I'm a little confused, so I'll try to be clear, and you can set me straight easier:

 

1. I approve of a humanitarian cause for war.

2. I regard a purely humanitarian cause as insufficient to see a war to a successful conclusion.

3. Please explain why justice must be universal, and give an example of it. If there is no example then I suggest your definition is a fantasy and pursuit of it as much use in practical affairs as a pursuit of klingons.

[213374U]

1. I approve of a humanitarian cause for war.

2. I regard a purely humanitarian cause as insufficient to see a war to a successful conclusion.

3. Please explain why justice must be universal, and give an example of it. If there is no example then I suggest your definition is a fantasy and pursuit of it as much use in practical affairs as a pursuit of klingons.

1. Good for you. I hope you also approve of regulations to prevent the arbitrary application of a principle in the real world. There is no such thing atm. Of course, something like that is absurd and impossible. No chance of having an entity with the power to enforce law with a global scope and have it be itself subject to law in a manner that's enforceable.

2. The reasons for the application of law and its conclusions are not to be considered jointly. Law and strategy are different fields with different spheres of application. That's why you have trials in absentia, for instance, and why you hold trials for people that are too old to go to jail.

3. Oh, wow. So the moral foundation of natural law is a fantasy, now? Interesting theory. I guess you are of the rare blend of positivists that don't even try to dispute the complete disconnection between law and morality in their thinking. Arguing that law should be what law can (and is) applied as is not only awfully convenient -and in this context more than a wee bit colonial, might I add- but also possibly a non-argument because of self-referencing.

 

Law in any country where the rule of law is reasonably respected is an example of the universal character of justice*. The unavoidable shortcomings in any system designed and enforced by humans doesn't invalidate either the principle or the system nor, consequently, the example.

 

*Within their jurisdictions. But we are discussing a global jurisdiction here, which is by definition unique - you ask for an example of something that doesn't exist in an attempt to use facticity to support your position. How things are and how they should be are different things. Either it's justice and it stems from the same moral roots as justice (adjectives are bad, m'kay), or it isn't justice and you should find another name for it. It can't be both.

Edited April 28, 2011 by 213374U

[Walsingham]

I could probably use you expanding each of those points. But let's try and see if my response makes any sense, to save you some time.

 

It seems to me that your own standpoint is in danger of insisting that the application always reflect the principle. Or as you suggest it is self-referential.

 

The certain failing of this is that one can only aspire to what one can currently achieve. In fact it goes further because it argues we can only intend what we will always be able to deliver. With the result that we will fail to act when we actually can, where the principle may be sound, simply so that we don't fail to act when the principle is still sound but the means unavailable. That may sound very satisfactory to a philosopher, but it does not satisfy me.

 

There's probably a much clearer way of putting that, but since I'm not sure of your point in the first place I'll leave it there for now.

[pmp10]

Air strike in Tripoli has killed the son of Muammar Gaddafi according to the Libyan government

This is really troubling if it proves to be true.

Actions like this can seriously undermine whatever authority the UN and NATO have left in the middle-east.

[Monte Carlo]

Is this the son who was a footballer perchance?

[pmp10]

No.

This one was apparently kind of a black sheep until recently.

[Monte Carlo]

Look, it's really simple. Gaddafi and his sons have the following options:

 

1. Predator drone strike

2. Immediate Romanian-style execution once the rebels roll into Tripoli

3. Suicide in the bunker

4. Escape to Venezuala with Hugo as their host, with no assets because they'll be frozen

5. ICC at the Hague followed by a comfy cell with satellite TV for thirty years, hey they'll do more than the Lockerbie bomber.

 

I couldn't care less personally, as long as it's quick and the fighting stops.

[pmp10]

This isn't about Gaddafi or even his family but the way the whole intervention is handled.

If that information pans out then a dictator in charge of millions has just been informed that he is effectively a dead man.

That strikes me as a major case of stupidity or incompetence.

Add to that the whole mess over the way resolution has been interpreted and you send a clear signal that only nukes will save you when the west has a mood swing.

As for the fighting - ironically the quickest way to end it right now would be to bomb the rebels.

[Meshugger]

Look, it's really simple. Gaddafi and his sons have the following options:

 

1. Predator drone strike

2. Immediate Romanian-style execution once the rebels roll into Tripoli

3. Suicide in the bunker

4. Escape to Venezuala with Hugo as their host, with no assets because they'll be frozen

5. ICC at the Hague followed by a comfy cell with satellite TV for thirty years, hey they'll do more than the Lockerbie bomber.

 

I couldn't care less personally, as long as it's quick and the fighting stops.

 

3 and 5 might as well be the same thing considering dictators with unchallenged power hate the idea of being sent to a home where there they have no power at all.

[Gorgon]

Why is this troubling. I'm not troubled.

 

They were probably gunning for Ghadaffi, but as we know his saves vs bombs are off the charts and he can only be hurt by magic fire. They should have known better. But... if they had been able to cut the head off the snake and end this, surely that would have been desirable for everyone. (well except the Ghadaffi cadre)

Edited May 1, 2011 by Gorgon

[Walsingham]

Air strike in Tripoli has killed the son of Muammar Gaddafi according to the Libyan government

This is really troubling if it proves to be true.

Actions like this can seriously undermine whatever authority the UN and NATO have left in the middle-east.

 

Mate, I'm not being funny, but if you can only say one thing for mid easterners it's that they aren't ambivalent about the utility of force. They don't read the Independent, and they don't regard assassinating a head of state as either weird or reprehensible. Inconvenient or aggravating, but not unsupportable.

 

What they DO find weird is the notion that we could be anti Ghaddafi, know he won't leave, and not do the logical thing of blowing the bastard up. *

 

I happen to agree with them.

 

*Walsingham, PhD from the Fred Dibnah school of Foreign Affairs.

Edited May 1, 2011 by Walsingham

[pmp10]

My problem isn't so much with the people as with the perception of our foreign policy we create.

If it takes you a month to go from no-fly-zone to we-bomb-bastards and then you end up screwing up the latter you create the impression that there is no real point in talking to you.

Since I don

[Orogun01]

My problem isn't so much with the people as with the perception of our foreign policy we create.

If it takes you a month to go from no-fly-zone to we-bomb-bastards and then you end up screwing up the latter you create the impression that there is no real point in talking to you.

Since I don

[Zoraptor]

The reason it's stupid is because it is clear to all that they are targeting Ghadafi despite (1) saying they wouldn't and (2) it not being an action to enforce a no fly zone/ prevent civilian casualties. It simply reinforces that there is one rule for NATO or those with power and another for anyone else.

 

Gross selective justice and lack of transparency might be OK for petty despots, absolute monarchs and selected forum posters but it's ultimately a dreadful way of setting up an international order. While you might be happy enough with this implementation you won't be if it's Russia or China who decide to use the precedent because that will be 'imperialism' or some other negative -ism. Ultimately it is a 'problem' with increased information; someone in Uganda or Burkina Faso, or Peru or Indonesia who reads about NATO blowing up ambulances (yeah, each time they blew up the rebels accidentally their precise strikes took out ambulances) and then sees the potifications from Nic or Dave re civilian casualties, international law and the like is unlikely to be so... sanguine and forgicing as the typical westerner.

Edited May 2, 2011 by Zoraptor

[Orogun01]

The reason it's stupid is because it is clear to all that they are targeting Ghadafi despite (1) saying they wouldn't and (2) it not being an action to enforce a no fly zone/ prevent civilian casualties. It simply reinforces that there is one rule for NATO or those with power and another for anyone else.

 

Gross selective justice and lack of transparency might be OK for petty despots, absolute monarchs and selected forum posters but it's ultimately a dreadful way of setting up an international order. While you might be happy enough with this implementation you won't be if it's Russia or China who decide to use the precedent because that will be 'imperialism' or some other negative -ism. Ultimately it is a 'problem' with increased information; someone in Uganda or Burkina Faso, or Peru or Indonesia who reads about NATO blowing up ambulances (yeah, each time they blew up the rebels accidentally their precise strikes took out ambulances) and then sees the potifications from Nic or Dave re civilian casualties, international law and the like is unlikely to be so... sanguine and forgicing as the typical westerner.

You'd think that after 50 years of the US operating this way the world would had gotten used to it. Just a question about the guy in Uganda, Peru, Indonesia, ect. He's the leader of which international organization?

Otherwise do you really think that there will be much consequence to some tribal leader disliking NATO because they blew up some ambulances?

[Zoraptor]

Usually not.

 

Then again, Ernesto Guevara wasn't born with occupation: revolutionary on his birth certificate.

[Walsingham]

The reason it's stupid is because it is clear to all that they are targeting Ghadafi despite (1) saying they wouldn't and (2) it not being an action to enforce a no fly zone/ prevent civilian casualties. It simply reinforces that there is one rule for NATO or those with power and another for anyone else.

 

Gross selective justice and lack of transparency might be OK for petty despots, absolute monarchs and selected forum posters but it's ultimately a dreadful way of setting up an international order. While you might be happy enough with this implementation you won't be if it's Russia or China who decide to use the precedent because that will be 'imperialism' or some other negative -ism. Ultimately it is a 'problem' with increased information; someone in Uganda or Burkina Faso, or Peru or Indonesia who reads about NATO blowing up ambulances (yeah, each time they blew up the rebels accidentally their precise strikes took out ambulances) and then sees the potifications from Nic or Dave re civilian casualties, international law and the like is unlikely to be so... sanguine and forgicing as the typical westerner.

 

I would very much like to hear how you think an international order is supposed to function without preference for the powerful. One founded entirely on the not-powerful is going to have a gnat fart's survival chances. Order has to be maintained by the exercise of greater power (almost without exception). I will grant you that NATO is democratically based, so we could vote them out. But that would leave number two shaping world events in the coming century. And that means China. So personally I say **** that in the ear.

[Orogun01]

Usually not.

 

Then again, Ernesto Guevara wasn't born with occupation: revolutionary on his birth certificate.

Then again, my point it's that Ernesto Guevara didn't get further than Cuba. Call me when one of these revolutionary groups fighting for independence actually has the mettle to give the US pause

[Walsingham]

Orogun, I had to double check myself, but it seems he went to the Congo and Bolivia. In the former Che felt the lazy locals weren't worthy of his efforts. In the latter he again felt himself far above and beyond local revolutionaries. Then he got knackered. But he did get beyond Cuba.

[Zoraptor]

Strangely enough Wals, one of the things universal justice is supposed to prevent is domination of the weak by (and impunity of) the strong. Sadly I can't say I'm surprised that you (1) cannot see the difference and (2) need to pull the straw man of saying that I think the powerful should be excluded. The whole point is that everyone should be included and abide by the same rules.

Usually not.

 

Then again, Ernesto Guevara wasn't born with occupation: revolutionary on his birth certificate.

Then again, my point it's that Ernesto Guevara didn't get further than Cuba. Call me when one of these revolutionary groups fighting for independence actually has the mettle to give the US pause

If I ever get around to building a time machine I'll be sure to give you a call from 1975. Might even see if I can get Mr Ho (dunno, maybe Vietnamese don't use typical asian name structure and he's actually Mr Minh) to give a call. And while I would not regard Cuba as particularly important in the grand scheme the US government and sections of its population has for much of the past 50 years.

 

In any case it is not solely an issue of winning an armed struggle, which is setting the bar far too high if your 'enemy' is the US*, just the capacity to do 'damage' of various kinds is sufficient.

 

*Doesn't have to be the US, of course, plenty of countries may 'reap what they sow' at some point in the future- Russia and the North Caucasus for example.

[Orogun01]

@Wals: what I meant was in terms of achievement; The Angolan civil war, and latter Bolivia, they were part of the much larger communist efforts to spread. It's another Fabian strategy case, where the small island doesn't have the military power to harm the US. The only time that they did was very controversial.

 

@Zoraptor: I don't really understand what your point it's, it seems lost on witty comments. My point it's that aside from Al Qaeda with their extensive network of operations and massive funding from Muslim extremists, there hasn't been a successful attack on the US by a revolutionary group. I would have to debate the status of Al Qaeda as a group since its more extensive.

[Walsingham]

Strangely enough Wals, one of the things universal justice is supposed to prevent is domination of the weak by (and impunity of) the strong. Sadly I can't say I'm surprised that you (1) cannot see the difference and (2) need to pull the straw man of saying that I think the powerful should be excluded. The whole point is that everyone should be included and abide by the same rules.

 

You obviously feel we're arguing at each other rather than with. I apologise.

 

I didn't mean to suggest for one moment that you felt the powerful shoudl be excluded from the receipt of justice. My objection was that you seem to expect that justice to be applied by some abstract figure, and I wanted to know who the hell you thought that ought to be.

[213374U]

I would very much like to hear how you think an international order is supposed to function without preference for the powerful.

It's not supposed to work, because the UN was never intended as the World Sheriff's Office -- it was meant to be a forum to give diplomacy a chance, to avert a very likely WWIII. NATO was formed as the military arm of the American containment policy. But you know that. However, with the dissolution of the Eastern Bloc, both organizations lost their raison d'