Libya

[Walsingham]

I was accusing Monte of being Hugh Bicheno, not you Gfted. And he hasn't just written about the American Revolution. I'm reading his history of the Falklands right now, and it's ****ing excellent.

 

Speaking of Somalia, the ICC recently recommended fully armed protection of vessels off Africa and called on all governments to do something about the problem, due to the billions cost (and something about environmental damage caused by hundred mile detours. You know, just in case anyone says we always look after economic interests, because we aren't.

Surely what we come back to again and again is this question of when is force justified, and when is it achievable? The overlap has to be when tinpot goons in resource important nations start committing atrocities. I mean, what's the alternative?

[213374U]

Surely what we come back to again and again is this question of when is force justified, and when is it achievable? The overlap has to be when tinpot goons in resource important nations start committing atrocities. I mean, what's the alternative?

When is force justified, you say? Well, according to the UN, it's justified whenever the UN Security Council says it is. That's one nice little corrupt loophole we got ourselves there, don't you think?

 

"Achievable", yes. This is a key consideration. I'd go further and say "profitable", in terms of money, resources, strategic concerns etc. You don't go to war suspecting it may wreck your economy unless it's a war of annihilation. However, judgements of that sort are apparently only accurate in retrospect, and I guess the perfect example of this is in fact the as of yet unknown end result of the war in Afghanistan.

 

The alternative, you ask? Beats me. But I'm not running for office.

Edited March 23, 2011 by 213374U

[Zoraptor]

Erm no, not Britain. Remember the Iraq war? Wasn't *that* long ago.

Arguably that actually strengthens the case.

 

Much evidence suggests Blair et al went well out of their way to silence/ obfuscate contrary opinions and make sure that war was presented as legal despite them knowing it was on shaky ground. That suggests that they were acutely aware of the importance of 'legality' as a concept. If there were a body capable of saying "well, no, not legal actually, at least so far as the UN is concerned" all that effort would have been redundant and they would either have had to say the political equivalent of "bugger legality we're doing it anyway" or not participate.

 

Practically, since (iirc) they required a vote to participate and many in Labour were already opposed it probably would have been no action.

[Walsingham]

Erm no, not Britain. Remember the Iraq war? Wasn't *that* long ago.

Much evidence suggests Blair et al went well out of their way to silence/ obfuscate contrary opinions and make sure that war was presented as legal despite them knowing it was on shaky ground.

 

I don't know if you've read the argument put forward by the attorney general or not. But In it he specifically mentions that wars have been proven as legal in the face of a 'humanitarian crisis' (wording might be slightly different. I'm going from memory here. I felt this was worth mentioning as the 'Stop The War' coalition cut that section from their copy on their website. Interestingly though, the AG specifically states that he didn't consider Iraq in a humanitarian crisis - all those death squads and genocide struck me as a humanitarian crisis far exceeding Libya, but you make your own mind up.

 

~~

Numbers:

 

Profitable is one way to put it. Sustainable is another. ANY ACTION, WARLIKE OR NOT, can only continue so long as there is the economic means to sustain it. Or to put it another way, we couldn't afford to sustain any meaningful action in (for example) DRC long enough to do the country any good. Not without making sacrifices most people would not vote for. Whereas intervening in a working oil producer has the benefit of at least aiding our economy (in theory).

 

Again, I don't think you can crunch the numbers any other way.

[Malcador]

For Somalia, best solution might be to make it some sort of live fire practice range, with targets that shoot back.

[Hildegard]

The awesome thing about your sarcasm here is that they'll also be able to choose not to eat at McDonalds. Imagine THAT!

 

And imagine how many workers will be able to choose will they work in oil facilities run by Shell, ExxonMobil, Total or BP! In your face unemployment!

[213374U]

Profitable is one way to put it. Sustainable is another. ANY ACTION, WARLIKE OR NOT, can only continue so long as there is the economic means to sustain it. Or to put it another way, we couldn't afford to sustain any meaningful action in (for example) DRC long enough to do the country any good. Not without making sacrifices most people would not vote for. Whereas intervening in a working oil producer has the benefit of at least aiding our economy (in theory).

Thanks. So if the only military actions we are willing to undertake -outside self-defense- are those which "aid our economy" or have a decent chance of us coming out ahead in other respects, then that is the deciding factor, and not humanitarian concerns - pretty much the way societies have been acting since the invention of the spear. Only they didn't have nukes back then and therefore didn't need to sit down and get the rest of the big boys' approval to get started. Humanitarian concerns don't weigh on policy makers' consciences any more than they did on Augustus'.

 

I loved the "sacrifices most people would not vote for" bit, as well. Delicious.

 

 

And imagine how many workers will be able to choose will they work in oil facilities run by Shell, ExxonMobil, Total or BP! In your face unemployment!

I take it that you walk your way everywhere, warm yourself in winter with the power of your own self-sufficiency alone and the computer you wrote that from is made from wood, then?

[obyknven]

Coalition forces break international law

 

http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/36/a36r103.htm.

36/103. Declaration on the Inadmissibility of Intervention

and Interference in the Internal Affairs of States

 

II

(f) The duty of a State to refrain from the promotion,

encouragement or support, direct or indirect, of rebellious or

secessionist activities within other States, under any pretext

whatsoever, or any action which seeks to disrupt the unity or

to undermine or subvert the political order of other States;

Edited March 23, 2011 by obyknven

[Morgoth]

Oh hey, the US and the NATO assaulting another oil-rich country?

 

God bless Austria for not being a NATO member and therefor a perpetrator of evil.

[Purkake]

While protecting civilians and human rights is all well and good, I don't really think this is going to end well, oil or no oil.

 

EDIT: The UN declaration snippet is interesting. I'd like to think that the UN wasn't in that much of a hurry that it didn't read through all the appropriate declarations.

Edited March 23, 2011 by Purkake

[Meshugger]

Well, well, well. The big boys want to play some Realpolitik again. Is it completely impossible for us citizens to elect people into office that are not interested in playing the global game of geopolitics? Or have a missed some sort of prime directive here?

[Enoch]

Well, well, well. The big boys want to play some Realpolitik again. Is it completely impossible for us citizens to elect people into office that are not interested in playing the global game of geopolitics? Or have a missed some sort of prime directive here?

People tend not to vote for candidates who have "I am a huge sap, please take advantage of me" stamped across their forehead.

[Volourn]

"I would love to see what would happen if some country did that to the U.S. Lets say the American Indians have had enough of this mistreatment and decided to rebel. The government smacks them down but at the 11th hour China decides to set up a no fly zone over the Southwest United States to protect the poor downtrodden American Indians. There would be absolutely nothing we could say about it. "

 

Actually, ther eis. the US has the pwoer to actually strike back unlike Lybia.

 

Russia tries to set up a no fly zone? Can't do it through the Un since the US would just veto that **** down.

 

Russia shoots down Amerikan planes and shoots at other US targets/ US returns the favor by attacking Russia.

 

That's why your scenario would never work - espicially since Russia is too busy murdering and putting down their own citizens. R00fles!

 

Plus, 'Amerikan' Indians are treated pretty damn fairly. Same with 'Kanandian' Inddians. In fact, it could be argued at least in Kanada that are Indians are treated better than non Indians. R00fles!

[WDeranged]

I'm seeing this as the UN trying to grow some teeth, not that I think it's a good thing when an unelected body (did you vote?) has the power to plunge us all into a suspicious war so quickly, if removing corrupt dictators who kill their own people is truly the goal we should be declaring war on the whole of the Middle East.

 

The pro war bias of the British media in the last few days has been pretty sad too, I'm no pacifist but I like to think that we should be able to respect the people leading us down this road, we can't even rely on them to collect our rubbish and mind our finances, why do we so readily trust them to declare war?

 

We are supposed to be in a financial crisis, where are we finding the money to go off on Middle East adventures?

 

A lot of people think there's some kind of trickle down benefit from these wars, as if we're all in it together, I'll guarantee your fuel prices are not going to go down.

[obyknven]

[Gfted1]

^I cant even read it but thats delicious. Reminds me of those WWII propaganda posters.

[Zoraptor]

While protecting civilians and human rights is all well and good, I don't really think this is going to end well, oil or no oil.

 

EDIT: The UN declaration snippet is interesting. I'd like to think that the UN wasn't in that much of a hurry that it didn't read through all the appropriate declarations.

They justified it under a different section relating to 'threat to international peace', which is just a touch tenuous.

 

Difficult to imagine they didn't read that section though as it is (iirc) from the UN Charter, not some obscure half remembered unimportant write and forget document. It was the specific section I was thinking of when saying it would be nice if there was a UN supreme court.

[WILL THE ALMIGHTY]

I don't see the point in bombarding Lybia. If anything it'll just leave another crater-filled country with a massive power vacuum. Isn't this usually what causes terrorist activity? Removing a dictator still supported by a bunch of zealots sounds like a terrible idea.

[bigcrazewolf]

Yes you must be in dreamland to think that pic truly portrays the situation. The middle east is speaking and the world need to help, look it's not just Libya, it has happened in many ME countries and will happen in more, the people want to become a part of the world and not have these dictators ruling them anymore. The difference is quack head Daffi won't step down, as he should, but would rather kill his own people because they want him gone. For the non Americans on the boards we don't get any real percentage of our oil from Libya 2% tops, so please don't start with the America needs cheap oil crap.

 

Put yourself in the shoes of the "rebels" that want him gone, you have no say in your government body but you want it and there is no other way to get your freedom to choose it, but to try to force it. They were inspired by what is going on in the ME, and want there say and share as well, cause we know the oil rich countries rulers have total control of the money coming in from it's sales. It is our responsibility to lend a hand to people who ask for it, when seeking freedom.

[Enoch]

I don't see the point in bombarding Lybia. If anything it'll just leave another crater-filled country with a massive power vacuum. Isn't this usually what causes terrorist activity? Removing a dictator still supported by a bunch of zealots sounds like a terrible idea.

There's no ideal solution at this point. Look for the least-bad outcome.

 

Leaving Qaddafi in charge, fighting a continuing struggle to eradicate those who rebelled against him probably does at least as much to cause terrorist activity. (Hint: Without support from U.S./Euro, where else can the rebels get weapons, bombs, tactical advice, and reinforcements? What manner of tactics are they likely to embrace after Q's air power advantage drives them out of their strongholds?) And allowing the civil war to continue also takes the Libyan oilfields offline indefinitely, which is an important factor, particularly for Europe. Add in the Q government's terrible humanitarian record, and it's tough to see any advantages to allowing his rule to continue.

[Walsingham]

Can we please stop the entirely specious nonsense about how we have to fight every dictator at once or none at all? Does a surgeon have to cure everyone at once? Do I have to eat all my bacon at once?

 

Note: buy more bacon.

[HoonDing]

I guess Putin must be pissed over all those MiGs that got vaporized by the French.

[Moose]

I think it would be like releasing all the Star Wars movies at once, it would confuse the audience and there would be nothing to watch in the following years.

 

Edit: buy more bacon

Edited March 24, 2011 by Moose

[bigcrazewolf]

mmmmm bacon

[213374U]

For the non Americans on the boards we don't get any real percentage of our oil from Libya 2% tops, so please don't start with the America needs cheap oil crap.

Good for you. However a rise in oil prices following the closure of Libyan wells would affect the US, whether you get your oil from there or not, especially as Japan's needs are expected to increase in the future. The 2008 economic crisis caused a serious loss of purchasing power in developed countries and the last thing we (you) need now that things are starting to look up is a >$150 oil barrel.

 

And that's without getting into the possible catalyst effect that international intervention in Libya can have in other unstable oil-producing countries.

 

 

It is our responsibility to lend a hand to people who ask for it, when seeking freedom.

Sorry but no. Taking sides in the civil wars of other countries is not only against one of the founding principles of the UN (Charter art. 2.7), it's also something very likely to backfire, immediately or down the road. Further, in this particular case, the rebels are just about defeated and all the allied strikes have achieved is prevent government forces from dealing the coup de grace. How do you figure we help them "seek freedom"?

 

 

Can we please stop the entirely specious nonsense about how we have to fight every dictator at once or none at all? Does a surgeon have to cure everyone at once? Do I have to eat all my bacon at once?

Frankly, if there's anything specious here it's your high-calorie analogies, old boy. See how many people you can convince that the full weight of the law should only fall on the weak - and only when the judges stand to benefit directly from dispensing punishment. It's not about "at once" either - rather, it's about "at all". Edited March 24, 2011 by 213374U