Happy Atheist Forum

...So the UN finally got somewhere, authorizing "all the means necessary" to "prevent further civilian casualties".

And yet...

As far as I understand, the Libyan rebels took up arms against their legitimate (however dislikeable) and internationally recognised government, but the countries currently leading the operation have sided with the named rebels, officially or otherwise, and not with that legitimate government. Is that how the UN is supposed to be used? To bring democracy to the world at the point of a cruise missile, however indirectly the intent is worded?

If you are the UN, you dislike the evil dictator and therefor can not do the lawfully right thing and support him in ending the rebellion, and if you STILL mean to go in with military force, is it not better to delegate the military part to a party which doesn't give a rat's ass about who takes control as long as civilian casualties are kept at minimum?

I have no love for crazy dicators, but neutrality should be... Neutral.

 

Freedom is the only way, yeah!

I like the democratic republic in which I live, the concept is very well thought out and can work very well to protect the freedoms of everyone. However as has been seem several times, trying to remove another form of government and force people into democracy has yet to produce a lasting change. I don't expect Iraq to be any different unless US soldiers remain there permanently to help enforce it. Anyway, that's just my speculation and tiny rant.

Oh, I like my democratic government too, but I wouldn't presume to tell another souvereign state how to govern itself or how to deal with armed rebels within its bloody borders. And I sure as hell would not side with those rebels - directly or otherwise. Protecting non-combatants is well and good - the rest is an internal affair.

That's how I see it.

No more respect for the UN here. None at all.  

It makes more sense if you ignore the moralistic hot air expelled by most of the windbags comprising the international community. They all have their own agendas, which is why certain places (Zimbabwe for example) get ignored, while others get invaded and democratised with extreme prejudice. Having no expectations of sensible behavior helps me to avoid disappointment.

French jets are whacking tanks which is OK by me, I haven't forgotten Lockerbie.  France's murder of an innocent and the sinking of a civilian boat in a friendly country hasn't been forgotten either.

@Asmodean: From the limited knowledge I have of the situation, that is my conclusion as well. Also with current little respect for the U.N..

@SSY: I agree, the trend since WWII seems to be that we must democratise all nations. An irony is that the U.S. who is a big supporter of democracy everywhere, in the great red with hunts stated that they needed to fight communism everywhere because communists wanted to wipe out and take over all free nations. Because who could possibly conceive of a free government invading other countries and destroying governments? I find that reading up on history also removes ones optimism for a governments altruistic invasion intentions and meddling in other countries bidness.

@The Magic Pudding: It's good to not forget a governments (and peoples for that matter), biggest mistakes. It's not likely one can remember all mistakes, but the big ones should be avoided in the future.

Quote from: "Asmodean"As far as I understand, the Libyan rebels took up arms against their legitimate (however dislikeable) and internationally recognised government, but the countries currently leading the operation have sided with the named rebels, officially or otherwise, and not with that legitimate government. Is that how the UN is supposed to be used? To bring democracy to the world at the point of a cruise missile, however indirectly the intent is worded?

UN Resolution 1970 (Feb., 2011) recognized that there's outrageous violence being perpetrated by Muammar Quaddafi and his government on his people and demanded there to be ICC investigations. What started out as peaceful protest in Libya only became violent due to the Quaddafi government suppressing through violence dissent against his government. The Libyan government has, during this conflict and before, been responsible for arbitrary detentions, enforced disappearances, torture, and summary executions. While this is clearly a Libyan civil war, part of the reason the UN exists is to globally protect human rights. In short, this is a gray area, but the UN is erring on the side of human rights at the expense of not recognizing Libya's national sovereignty.

Quote from: "Will"UN Resolution 1970 (Feb., 2011) recognized that there's outrageous violence being perpetrated by Muammar Quaddafi and his government on his people and demanded there to be ICC investigations.

Except, of course, the violence doesn't seem to be all that outrageous from what I can dig up. Somewhat... Boring for a mad dictator, I'd say.

QuoteWhat started out as peaceful protest in Libya only became violent due to the Quaddafi government suppressing through violence dissent against his government.

What I have seen in the media, slightly simplified, is the following: Peaceful demonstrations with a lot of fist shaking > The government says "NO." > Armed rebellion.

QuoteThe Libyan government has, during this conflict and before, been responsible for arbitrary detentions, enforced disappearances, torture, and summary executions. While this is clearly a Libyan civil war, part of the reason the UN exists is to globally protect human rights. In short, this is a gray area, but the UN is erring on the side of human rights at the expense of not recognizing Libya's national sovereignty.

...And because it is a gray area, I'm ok with the UN being there - just not with who is doing the damned thing. In the interest of neutrality, I'd at the very least keep France as far out of it as I could for being openly partisan. For instance, would the French attack a rebel force if they were putting civilian lives in danger? Would the US? Great Britain? If no, then they are technically not so much there protecting the civilians as fighting the regime, yes?

Quote from: "Asmodean"...And because it is a gray area, I'm ok with the UN being there - just not with who is doing the damned thing. In the interest of neutrality, I'd at the very least keep France as far out of it as I could for being openly partisan. For instance, would the French attack a rebel force if they were putting civilian lives in danger? Would the US? Great Britain? If no, then they are technically not so much there protecting the civilians as fighting the regime, yes?

I am interested in how far this will go, particularly whether this will turn out to be a regime change.

I am also really surprised the DC has committed British forces to this effort. The Afghan an Iraqi wars are like political poison over here. The last thing he wants to do is send in ground troops.

I personally feel that the UN is assuming a lot based upon what is obviously not a great human rights record on Gaddafi's part.  What if the rebels are really the ones who started the violence this time, and Gaddafi is just trying to quell the rebellion to save innocent lives?  While that seems very unlikely, I think it just speaks to the fact that the international community is sticking its nose into Libyan affairs because they like democracy and cheap oil.  In other conflicts, the UN is more interested in humanitarian assistance and less interested in armed intervention, especially on the African continent.  Also, I understand China is a really big nation with a really powerful military, but the UN's protests at China's human rights record (much worse than Gaddafi could dream of) is no more than a quiet whisper so as not to offend Beijing too much, else they fly off the deep end and start dumping the world's bonds on the market.

As an American service member who continues to give up my time with family to protect American interests abroad, something I'm proud to do, I look at the situation in Libya and I think that perhaps we see the coming drawbacks in Afghanistan and fear not having a war to fight somewhere.

Oh yes, and with the French on our side I wonder how long before we surrender.

Quote from: "fester30"Oh yes, and with the French on our side I wonder how long before we surrender.

I just hope they get their noses bloodied for their trouble. A couple of French fighter jets shot down would appease me a little  

If the protesters did turn violent, why would Gaddafi need to use Libyan fighter jets to put down the protesters?  Wouldn't the police or maybe conventional ground forces be enough?

Maybe a no fly zone, wouldn't be such a bad thing.  Its not like the protesters have their own air force right?

Quote from: "Jolly Sapper"If the protesters did turn violent, why would Gaddafi need to use Libyan fighter jets to put down the protesters?  Wouldn't the police or maybe conventional ground forces be enough?

Maybe a no fly zone, wouldn't be such a bad thing.  Its not like the protesters have their own air force right?

Air Force makes things easier for ground forces.  Rebel forces have control over a couple main cities in the east of the country.  The air forces can knock out electrical power, bridges, major highways, and rebel strongholds before the ground forces get there to occupy it.  Gaddafi would want to regain power quickly before the rebellion can spread to territory that is, at this point, loyal to him.  There's no quicker way for him to crush the rebellion than to get his entire armed forces in on the act.

Quote from: "fester30"

Quote from: "Jolly Sapper"If the protesters did turn violent, why would Gaddafi need to use Libyan fighter jets to put down the protesters?  Wouldn't the police or maybe conventional ground forces be enough?

Maybe a no fly zone, wouldn't be such a bad thing.  Its not like the protesters have their own air force right?

Air Force makes things easier for ground forces.  Rebel forces have control over a couple main cities in the east of the country.  The air forces can knock out electrical power, bridges, major highways, and rebel strongholds before the ground forces get there to occupy it.  Gaddafi would want to regain power quickly before the rebellion can spread to territory that is, at this point, loyal to him.  There's no quicker way for him to crush the rebellion than to get his entire armed forces in on the act.

Assuming that the Gaddafi Air Forces stuck to attacking infrastructure only.  Does anybody think that Gaddafi would hold his Air Force back to killing infrastructure only and not protesters?

My 2cts. Are we betting on the right guys? I remember that in the 80's, we supported the Muhadjedin in Afghanistan.  They turned out to be not the kind of people, you'd like to have as your neighbours. So, it might well be, that we are now supporting the next generation of Osama Bin Ladens in Libya.

Quote from: "Tom62"My 2cts. Are we betting on the right guys? I remember that in the 80's, we supported the Muhadjedin in Afghanistan.  They turned out to be not the kind of people, you'd like to have as your neighbours. So, it might well be, that we are now supporting the next generation of Osama Bin Ladens in Libya.

We have sort of a mixed track record when it comes to regime change.  Sure, there are examples like Castro and the Taliban where we supported a person or people who wound up not liking us.  However, there are also examples like Panama, where the country is both better off and kinder to us after we arrested Noriega.  Then there are the Baltics, where we got rid of Milosevic, and the Baltics are certainly more peaceful now, but the underlying problems haven't gone away permanently, so perhaps not much net change.

Quote from: "Asmodean"...So the UN finally got somewhere, authorizing "all the means necessary" to "prevent further civilian casualties".

And yet...

As far as I understand, the Libyan rebels took up arms against their legitimate (however dislikeable) and internationally recognised government, but the countries currently leading the operation have sided with the named rebels, officially or otherwise, and not with that legitimate government. Is that how the UN is supposed to be used? To bring democracy to the world at the point of a cruise missile, however indirectly the intent is worded?

If you are the UN, you dislike the evil dictator and therefor can not do the lawfully right thing and support him in ending the rebellion, and if you STILL mean to go in with military force, is it not better to delegate the military part to a party which doesn't give a rat's ass about who takes control as long as civilian casualties are kept at minimum?

I have no love for crazy dicators, but neutrality should be... Neutral.

 

Oh yeah?

Quote"Our mission is not to support any opposition forces." -U.S. General Carter Ham, Commander of Africa Command

Here's the LINK (http://ebird.osd.mil/ebird2/ebfiles/e20110322810267.html).

EDIT:

And here's another LINK (http://www.newsfrommiddleeast.com/?xstart=b&new=76116).

Quote from: "terranus"Oh yeah?

Actually, no, I love crazy dictators  

QuoteLinks which don't exactly speak louder than actions

Oh yeah?

Quote from: "Tom62"My 2cts. Are we betting on the right guys? I remember that in the 80's, we supported the Muhadjedin in Afghanistan.  They turned out to be not the kind of people, you'd like to have as your neighbours. So, it might well be, that we are now supporting the next generation of Osama Bin Ladens in Libya.

Of course not!

"We", and by that I mean our glorious governments, are betting on democracy in places where it can not survive long because there is ALWAYS an asshole with a cruise missile to scare people into submission. Here is a simplified explanation of the pattern:

Good dictator with western support > Genocide > Evil dictator without Western support > Riot > Glorious Western military sent by their idiot governments > No more evil dictator > Democracy > People vote for secular-looking islamists who wipe the secularism off their faces nearly the same minute they get the power > If "we" are lucky, some lunatic comes along, gets military on their side and saves the country and the people and gets all the chicks > Repeat until done...

My point is, as it always was, that if they want to make a terrible mess of their countries, LET THEM. Up until today, us westerners have ever only made shit worse.

Quote from: "Tom62"My 2cts. Are we betting on the right guys? I remember that in the 80's, we supported the Muhadjedin in Afghanistan.  They turned out to be not the kind of people, you'd like to have as your neighbours. So, it might well be, that we are now supporting the next generation of Osama Bin Ladens in Libya.

My enemies, enemy is my friend, until our mutual enemy is defeated at which point all bets are off! This is very much like the allied powers during WWII, the alliance against the Nazis's was the lesser of two evils. Politics is the art of pragmatics!

Quote from: "Asmodean"Up until today, us westerners have ever only made shit worse.

The west often makes things worse, but not always.
Pressure was applied to Indonesia not to take a heavy hand with East Timor, and they grudgingly allowed them independence, the UN has been involved and I think the East Timorese are pleased with how things have turned out.  Indonesia is an example of a Muslim country which has moved past dictators to democracy, not thanks to any western help though.  The fact the world is watching is probably a major factor in dictators bowing out peacefully with their billions, and not resorting to slaughter.

The Muhadjedin in Afghanistan don't look good for western intervention, but wasn't Afghanistan a factor in the demise of the USSR?  If it contributed to the end of the cold war that is something of a plus.
The occupation of Japan turned out OK I think.
Commentary on the Regional Assistance Mission to Solomon Islands is mostly positive.
I don't know how keen Europe is on accepting Libyans escaping Gadaffi's reprisals, some action to avoid this is worth considering.
The Curds in Iraq I think are happy to have some autonomy and no longer being the subject of Iraqi target practice.

Quote from: "The Magic Pudding"The west often makes things worse, but not always.

In the long run..? In Africa and Middle East..?

QuotePressure was applied to Indonesia not to take a heavy hand with East Timor, and they grudgingly allowed them independence, the UN has been involved and I think the East Timorese are pleased with how things have turned out.

Indonesia is interesting, but, as we see below,

QuoteIndonesia is an example of a Muslim country which has moved past dictators to democracy, not thanks to any western help though.

QuoteThe fact the world is watching is probably a major factor in dictators bowing out peacefully with their billions, and not resorting to slaughter.

On the other hand, when the world freezes them billions and directs rockets at the named dictator... Well, if I was one, I'd go out in flames. Something to remember with dread for decades to come... But that may be just me... And Ghadaffi... And that other guy... And those three...  

QuoteThe Muhadjedin in Afghanistan don't look good for western intervention, but wasn't Afghanistan a factor in the demise of the USSR?  If it contributed to the end of the cold war that is something of a plus.

A factor..? Yes. An important one..? I wouldn't say so, really.

That said, is an average Russian better off now with their pseudo-democracy? I wouldn't say that either. And where was the UN when Russia bombed the crap out of Chechnya? Were those people not more entitled to military support than the Libyan rebels?

QuoteThe occupation of Japan turned out OK I think.

And how would Japan of today be worse if the country was not invaded?

QuoteCommentary on the Regional Assistance Mission to Solomon Islands is mostly positive.

Hm... True enough.

QuoteI don't know how keen Europe is on accepting Libyans escaping Gadaffi's reprisals, some action to avoid this is worth considering.
The Curds in Iraq I think are happy to have some autonomy and no longer being the subject of Iraqi target practice.

How long will it last? You put people who don't want to co-exist together and the thing WILL explode, as history shows. Let us remember while we are at it that Libya is actually a UN creation... As is Israel for that matter, and that one is, in my private personal opinion, one of the most morally bankrupt states out there.

Quote from: "Tom62"My 2cts. Are we betting on the right guys? I remember that in the 80's, we supported the Muhadjedin in Afghanistan.  They turned out to be not the kind of people, you'd like to have as your neighbours. So, it might well be, that we are now supporting the next generation of Osama Bin Ladens in Libya.

I'm not sure there are "right guys" to support.

I think the UN must respect the sovereignty of Libya, in accordance to the time-honored principle par in parem non habet imperium.
This brings to mind SOAD's Prison Song line:
[spoiler:1s9j0a2a]"Now you police the globe."[/spoiler:1s9j0a2a]

Quote from: "Asmodean"Oh, I like my democratic government too, but I wouldn't presume to tell another souvereign state how to govern itself or how to deal with armed rebels within its bloody borders. And I sure as hell would not side with those rebels - directly or otherwise. Protecting non-combatants is well and good - the rest is an internal affair.

That's how I see it.

No more respect for the UN here. None at all.  :bananacolor:

Quote from: "KebertX"Excuse them for realizing that they don't need to obey a psychopathic dictator. They deserve to exert their power to govern their own lives. I see that as a human right. So I would side with those rebels. They have rights, and I am damn proud of them for acting like it. Violence can be used to achieve an ultimate good.

Agreed. When whoever represents the government feels they can violate a social contract by imposing themselves and their rule on others, then it's time for people to fight, even if that means taking up arms. Ghadaffi doesn't want to acknowledge that he's overstayed his welcome...I hope things don't turn out well for him.

Quote from: "KebertX"Excuse them for realizing that they don't need to obey a psychopathic dictator. They deserve to exert their power to govern their own lives. I see that as a human right. So I would side with those rebels. They have rights, and I am damn proud of them for acting like it. Violence can be used to achieve an ultimate good.

I've really been loving the Arab Spring. DOWN WITH QADDAFI! :rant:

Let internal affairs, which a rebellion is, be internal.  

I have conflicting viewpoints.  On one hand, I think we should continue to destroy Al Qaida until the world decides on a single spelling for Al Qaeda.  On the other hand, I think we should force the world to find a single spelling for Gaddafi until we allow anyone to intercede against Qadhafi.

Quote from: "Asmodean"Let me see... I'm in opposition to the current government in my country. For that reason, I am justified in taking up arms and having Zimbabwe side with me and bomb the government forces trying to end my rebellion, yes..?

Yes if the government is killing it's people or you can offer us some cheap oil.  I don't think Norway's killing exceeds accepted spoilage and breakage levels.  But you do have oil so we may be able to arrange something.

Quote from: "The Magic Pudding"Yes if the government is killing it's people or you can offer us some cheap oil.  I don't think Norway's killing exceeds accepted spoilage and breakage levels.  But you do have oil so we may be able to arrange something.

We do have oil. And our government is overpricing it.   Revolution is in order, yes?

Quote from: "The Magic Pudding"

Quote from: "Asmodean"Let me see... I'm in opposition to the current government in my country. For that reason, I am justified in taking up arms and having Zimbabwe side with me and bomb the government forces trying to end my rebellion, yes..?

Yes if the government is killing it's people or you can offer us some cheap oil.  I don't think Norway's killing exceeds accepted spoilage and breakage levels.  But you do have oil so we may be able to arrange something.

Norway can look to Yugoslavia for an example of a country that hosted a winter Olympics, then later turned to inner armed conflict.

QuoteOn the other hand, when the world freezes them billions and directs rockets at the named dictator... Well, if I was one, I'd go out in flames. Something to remember with dread for decades to come... But that may be just me... And Ghadaffi...

Pretty sure that his assets were only frozen and rockets aimed at him AFTER he started bombing and killing his own people. You seem to be forgetting that small factoid in your reasoning. Using your logic, I suppose we should have let him murder his fellow countrymen. Good for reducing the overall human population, bad for promoting responsible government.

Quote from: "terranus"Pretty sure that his assets were only frozen and rockets aimed at him AFTER he started bombing and killing his own people.

Armed rebels. Calling them people does not change THAT little factoid. As the head of state, his response to an armed rebellion was reasonable enough.

QuoteUsing your logic, I suppose we should have let him murder his fellow countrymen. Good for reducing the overall human population, bad for promoting responsible government.

Yes, we should. It is an internal affair. And what exactly is a "reasonable" government? Because I think there are as many answers to that question as there are people if you go deep enough into detail and for some, "reasonable" may very well include using the military against rebel forces. It's not an uncommon tactic, really.

You may dislike the regime all you want, but the UN's way of trying to remove it is still disgustingly dishonest... "Protecting civilians" yeah, right! I'm yet to hear about the UN bombing the rebels who put civilian lives in danger.

Quote from: "Asmodean"Let me see... I'm in opposition to the current government in my country. For that reason, I am justified in taking up arms and having Zimbabwe side with me and bomb the government forces trying to end my rebellion, yes..?

How is that right, exactly?  :rant:

QuoteArmed rebels. Calling them people does not change THAT little factoid.

They didn't start off "armed rebels", they started off as civilians staging a peaceful protest. After Gaddhafi got violent, then they had no choice but to fight fire with fire.

Quote from: "terranus"They didn't start off "armed rebels", they started off as civilians staging a peaceful protest. After Gaddhafi got violent, then they had no choice but to fight fire with fire.

There is another truth floating around: There were peaceful protests with minor clashes with the police and other security forces with some use of sharp ammunition here and there. (That did not begin until the protestors got a "no" from the regime, but wouldn't take a hint) Then the protestors realised that they were shouting at a wall and, pissed off at their own ineffectiveness, they grabbed some AKs.

However, regardless of how it started, they are now armed rebels and are their government's problem, not the UNs. Unless of course Ghadaffi invited the UN over to help get things in order, which he didn't.