Libya megathread: Gaddafi dead

[Lerro]

So, intervening at the request of civilians who are being massacred by an oppressive dictator is bad, unless it's Ossetians?

i think the reason we're intervening here is because we have a shot at taking Gaddaffi out, whereas in the case of Russia/China/Zimbabwe/Crudistan/whatever, the government is too entrenched to be overthrown (obviously the case with Russia and China).

[Laerod]

Yes, they are. You could expect a lot more intervention if China and Russia weren't holding their shielding hands over a bunch of despots. Similarly, the African Union and the Arab League deserve plenty of blame as well. The main reason why intervention is impractical is because of the damage it does to the relations in the international community.

Curiously, Russia has been rather disinclined to intervene for humanitarian reasons in the examples our Russian friend has provided, too, yet has been extraordinarily eager to intervene in cases that, according to said Russian, would not've qualified, and were thus staggeringly blatant and evil imperialism.

One wonders why exactly he's singling out countries that aren't Russia.

To my knowledge, Shofercia lives in California.

[EnragedMaldivians]

How do you get all that from me simply opposing selective enforcement? I'm for enforcement in cases of Genocide, and similarly harsh humanitarian crimes. When what Saudi Arabia does something worse than Lybia, and Lybia gets punished, while Saudi Arabia gets off scot free - that I believe is wrong. That is what I call selective enforcement.

I dunno, maybe because Saudi oil is integral to the global economy - and any destabilizing in that particular region would make it very vulnerable to a revisionist Tehran; whereas those considerations don't factor into Libya.

I'm saying that political considerations often trump principles, and given the rare opportunity that they could align, given that the rebels have explicitly asked for assistance, and Qaddafi is busy bombing his own civilians- your opposition to any intervention so that some illusion of consistensy can be maintained, is frankly just bizzare.

[Nazis in Space]

I think it's reasonably evident where either he, or his parents originally hailed from, and where his loyalties lie, no?

[Andaluciae]

So we wait until he has killed 10000 people a week? Colonel Gaddhafi is responsible for an awful lot of bloodshed. It's not unreasonable to expect him to do what he said, in an active civil war, that has challenged not only his rule and lifestyle (Ukrainian nurses and all) but his life. Iran is not at.war with Israel. Iran lacks the means to wipe out Israel, and the Presidency of Iran is a powerless position--not much different from the role of the Queen. The circumstances.surrounding the rhetoric are fundamentally different.

Shall I go into how many civilians died in Iraq, because of countries that are in NATO thinking that he possessed WMDs? http://www.iraqbodycount.org/ The number's over 100,000. It doesn't have to be 10,000 a week, but it has to be substantial and specific evidence, not "an awful lot of bloodshed". In order for him to do what he said, the Civil War would have to be over. Thus, actually carrying out the threat that he made, would be supremely stupid. And if he's that stupid - remove him. However, considering that he he'lld onto power for quite a while, I doubt that he's that stupid.

The reason for intervening is to inhibit the fulfillment of the occupation of Benghazi, and therefore make a bloody massacre feasible.

The calculus of the west is we can minimize harm by intervening early--before he can cause harm.

And do you seriously expect me to defend the Iraq fiasco? It was a foolish escapade driven by Dubya's daddy issues, a poorly thought out crusader ideology of neoconservativism and an institutional hostility across the US government to Saddam Hussein. Then, an occupation informed by neocon principles was botched, tearing the lid off of the ethnic pressure cooker that killed the vast bulk of those people. Which was rooted in the failed Shi'a uprising after the Gulf War--which failed because the rebels didn't receive support from the west, and were slaughtered by Saddam loyalists. Even further back, Iraq's ethnic strife was another of the aborted mutant fetuses of Versailles, and Wilson's inability to forge a just peace. So, yes, Iraq is an american mess.

[UnitedStatesOfAmerica-]

The US will have to withdraw because Obama did a big no no:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/21/world ... ss&emc=rss

Democrats voiced objections, arguing that the president overstepped his authority by not seeking Congressional approval before authorizing the airstrikes.

Unlike other nations, the POTUS is required to get Congressional approval for any aggressive military operations. President Obama did not do so.

But with the developments in Libya, a man who reached the White House on the strength of a forceful antiwar sentiment four years ago now has three major military conflicts under his command, with polls showing a limited appetite for increased American intervention.

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich was the only prospective candidate to issue a statement, criticizing the military action as “opportunistic amateurism without planning.”

Obama will be a one term President thanks to his illegal attack on Libya. Illegal because he didn't have Congressional consent to involve US forces.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 47752.html

Amr Moussa, Secretary-General of the Arab League, condemned "the bombardment of civilians".

The coalition strike on the compound killed 200 civilians.

they were told by some of those present that three civilians were being buried – including a three-month-old girl

There's the coalition killing babies with Tomahawks.

http://www.allheadlinenews.com/briefs/a ... %20strikes

the African Union condemned the western strikes and called for its immediate halt.

Earlier, in the Mauritanian capital, the AU’s panel on Libya urged international forces to stop the attacks which were killing innocent civilians

Meanwhile, the Arab League vehemently slammed western governments for launching military strikes on the North African country despite French and British claims that Arab involvement was imminent.

Obama should be impeached.

[Takaram]

Please, if we impeached every president who overstepped his bounds, we'd be left with no one in office.

[UnitedStatesOfAmerica-]

I take it you are not aware of the headscarve ban in France?

It seems more likely that you aren't.

France bans all religious symbols from schools. Whether they're headscarves or crosses makes no difference. This does not back your assertion of a christian crusade.

France bans the burqa from being worn on the street. Wearing headscarves is perfectly acceptable.

tl;dr: You're lying.

Actually, I'd say you're probably trolling, but your past posting history supports the possibility that you actually believe the stuff you're saying, which makes it all the more hilarious.

The term I was looking for was burqa, cultural symbol of Islam.
Your correct about the headscarves. I couldn't think of the right term at the time I posted that.

[Fiduses and Diuses]

The US will have to withdraw because Obama did a big no no:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/21/world ... ss&emc=rss

Democrats voiced objections, arguing that the president overstepped his authority by not seeking Congressional approval before authorizing the airstrikes.

Unlike other nations, the POTUS is required to get Congressional approval for any aggressive military operations. President Obama did not do so.

But with the developments in Libya, a man who reached the White House on the strength of a forceful antiwar sentiment four years ago now has three major military conflicts under his command, with polls showing a limited appetite for increased American intervention.

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich was the only prospective candidate to issue a statement, criticizing the military action as “opportunistic amateurism without planning.”

Obama will be a one term President thanks to his illegal attack on Libya. Illegal because he didn't have Congressional consent to involve US forces.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 47752.html

Amr Moussa, Secretary-General of the Arab League, condemned "the bombardment of civilians".

The coalition strike on the compound killed 200 civilians.

they were told by some of those present that three civilians were being buried – including a three-month-old girl

There's the coalition killing babies with Tomahawks.

http://www.allheadlinenews.com/briefs/a ... %20strikes

the African Union condemned the western strikes and called for its immediate halt.

Earlier, in the Mauritanian capital, the AU’s panel on Libya urged international forces to stop the attacks which were killing innocent civilians

Meanwhile, the Arab League vehemently slammed western governments for launching military strikes on the North African country despite French and British claims that Arab involvement was imminent.

Obama should be impeached.

Nope, Pres gets 30ish days(provided s/he/it makes sure to talk to congress within 48 hours) to muck about in military operations before needing congress approval for further funding/actions. link. Though considering Republicans and certain member of his own party attitudes as of late, I wouldn't be surprised if Obama doesn't get it.

[UnitedStatesOfAmerica-]

Gee, and if the US is involved, it has to be for imperialist goals. Anything else is impossible.

The hilarious part is the one where the US were hesistant to no end about getting involved, and are pretty much there solely because the French and British pushed the matter.

The French and British are fighting a war of aggression. This is something that the US Constitution requires Obama to seek Congressional consent for before he is allowed to send in the military to support them.

[Andaluciae]

I, and a lot of other supporters of R2P have no qualms about selective enforcement for the time being. The interests of powerful states are going to have to be leveraged while a consensus is built up in favor of a broader R2P. We can build a new global consensus, but it takes time.

Above and beyond that, if our choice is between selective enforcement and no enforcement--and the concurrent body counts, I'll take selective enforcement.

And that's where you and I differ. I don't like selective enforcement, and I think it's a piss poor doctrine, that will never be able to generate global consensus.

The journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step. I think all or nothing is a piss poor doctrine for anything. How would you propose we get to an ethical foreign policy in one fell swoop?

I would daresay that the Western democracies are far better off than it was in the past, but there's still a distance to travel.

[Takaram]

The hilarious part is the one where the US were hesistant to no end about getting involved, and are pretty much there solely because the French and British pushed the matter.

The French and British are fighting a war of aggression. This is something that the US Constitution requires Obama to seek Congressional consent for before he is allowed to send in the military to support them.

Legal gray area. Technically, the above cited War Powers Act does give the President the authority to launch military operations without Congressional consent for 30 days. However, whether this is justifiable under that law is questionable.

[UnitedStatesOfAmerica-]

Sho's proposals are solely depending on what western countries do. If they'd waited, he'd now bash them for waiting. But since they intervened, he's now bashing them for intervening. As a consequence, the arguments he's using are somewhat in flux.

That's how he manages to simultaneously bash the west for non-intervention (Rwanda) and intervention (Libya) in the same damn post, as he's now done a few times.

Rwanda and Libya aren't the same country. There's no Genocide going on in Lybia. I believe in a standard: if you commit Genocide, you get an intervention up your ass. If you don't, I'll be very skeptical. I bash countries in NATO for not preventing a Genocide; and I bash countries in NATO for Neo- Imperialist tactics. I firmly believe that you can have a normal country, without Genocide. My apologies for tearing through your Ad Hominem.

I agree. There was never any genocide happening in Libya and there was no danger of it happening.
Although, attacks on civilians, genocide or not, violates human rights. The problem is that France wanted oil and UK wanted Gadaffi gone.
And Obama rushed to war without the permission of his own country.

[EnragedMaldivians]

Unlike other nations, the POTUS is required to get Congressional approval for any aggressive military operations. President Obama did not do so.

Eh; it's not really all that well defined, especially if the president is able to get either a U.N security council, or Nato mandate. See Clinton and Kosovo for example.

[Andaluciae]

Actually, President Obama has thirty days, under the War Powers Act to get the consent of Congress.

Of course, the War Powers Act is blatantly unconstitutional, so any stiff challenge in court should collapse it. God, it would be really cool if President Obama finally killed that fucker off.

[Fiduses and Diuses]

Rwanda and Libya aren't the same country. There's no Genocide going on in Lybia. I believe in a standard: if you commit Genocide, you get an intervention up your ass. If you don't, I'll be very skeptical. I bash countries in NATO for not preventing a Genocide; and I bash countries in NATO for Neo- Imperialist tactics. I firmly believe that you can have a normal country, without Genocide. My apologies for tearing through your Ad Hominem.

I agree. There was never any genocide happening in Libya and there was no danger of it happening.
Although, attacks on civilians, genocide or not, violates human rights. The problem is that France wanted oil and UK wanted Gadaffi gone.
And Obama rushed to war without the permission of his own country.

Yes thats why he waited 3 or so weeks until the rebels had been driven back to only a (few) cities. And do you honestly expect Gadaffi to not systematically kill any and all rebels or anyone he expects to have supported the rebels? In particular in light of his air striking of protesters.

[Caninope]

Actually, President Obama has thirty days, under the War Powers Act to get the consent of Congress.

Of course, the War Powers Act is blatantly unconstitutional, so any stiff challenge in court should collapse it. God, it would be really cool if President Obama finally killed that fucker off.

Plus, add the fact that he's enforcing the UN resolution.

[UnitedStatesOfAmerica-]

Huh? Yes, clearly China and Russia are the ones responsible for selective enforcement by countries that are in NATO

You keep mispelling "UN" as "NATO".

It's not a UN operation. It's 3 nations using the UN to conceal the illegality of what they are doing.

[UnitedStatesOfAmerica-]

So, intervening at the request of civilians who are being massacred by an oppressive dictator is bad, unless it's Ossetians?

They were carrying weapons, hence they are not and were not civilians.

[Fiduses and Diuses]

You keep mispelling "UN" as "NATO".

It's not a UN operation. It's 3 nations using the UN to conceal the illegality of what they are doing.

United Arab Emirates, Norway and Qatar? edit Hmm at least two of those three aren't NATO either...

[Caninope]

You keep mispelling "UN" as "NATO".

It's not a UN operation. It's 3 nations using the UN to conceal the illegality of what they are doing.

It's not illegal if the UN tells them to do it.

[UnitedStatesOfAmerica-]

The US will have to withdraw because Obama did a big no no:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/21/world ... ss&emc=rss



Unlike other nations, the POTUS is required to get Congressional approval for any aggressive military operations. President Obama did not do so.





Obama will be a one term President thanks to his illegal attack on Libya. Illegal because he didn't have Congressional consent to involve US forces.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 47752.html



The coalition strike on the compound killed 200 civilians.



There's the coalition killing babies with Tomahawks.

http://www.allheadlinenews.com/briefs/a ... %20strikes









Obama should be impeached.

Nope, Pres gets 30ish days(provided s/he/it makes sure to talk to congress within 48 hours) to muck about in military operations before needing congress approval for further funding/actions. link. Though considering Republicans and certain member of his own party attitudes as of late, I wouldn't be surprised if Obama doesn't get it.

This is day two of the attacks and he only has a few hours left to address Congress and get their permission. He has not done so, instead he's on vacation in Rio, ordering our forces into combat as if they were toys.

[UnitedStatesOfAmerica-]

Unlike other nations, the POTUS is required to get Congressional approval for any aggressive military operations. President Obama did not do so.

Eh; it's not really all that well defined, especially if the president is able to get either a U.N security council, or Nato mandate. See Clinton and Kosovo for example.

Kosovo was illegal because Congress refused to approve it. Clinton went ahead without consent and paid for the conflict by illegally raiding the social security trust fund.

[Jordsindia]

why does america have to stick their noses into every problem in the world.

[UnitedStatesOfAmerica-]

Actually, President Obama has thirty days, under the War Powers Act to get the consent of Congress.

Of course, the War Powers Act is blatantly unconstitutional, so any stiff challenge in court should collapse it. God, it would be really cool if President Obama finally killed that fucker off.

Only Congress can declare war. It's not just the War Powers Act, its the constitution. Anything involving US military forces engaging in aggressive action against a nation not at war with the US, or which has not attacked the US, requires the approval of the United States Senate.

Libya has not attacked the US, nor are we currently at war with Libya.