Was it morally right for Britain, Canada, France and the USA to airstrike Libya?

ascanbe · 21-03-2011 01:04AM

Nijmegen wrote: »

The facts as far as Libya is concerned:
Pro-democracy uprising in the country

Nobody doubts that Gadaffi is a nut who will and has murdered innocents

Counter-attacked by loyalist forces, some of whom are foreign mercenaries

Leader of country says various things about hunting down rebels and killing them wherever they are

Loyalist forces kill civilians

Gadaffi says he will honour a ceasefire to comply with UN resolution. Promptly proceeds to attack a rebel held city

Gadaffi is a liar, a murderer, and a madman, and the UN resolution lays out clear grounds to put an end to his bloody romp across Libya.

Yes, there are arguments to be made around other countries. But if I were a Libyan freedom fighter coming under attack from superior government forces, I wouldn't particularly mind that today. It's better, as a Guardian op-ed observed, to be idealistic some of the time than cynical all of the time. Real Politik.

As for Libyan oil, I didn't see that there was much trouble with Western oil contracts in the country before now. Indeed, the US had to be dragged to the table on this one.

And there wasn't oil in Yugoslavia, so saying that western powers only interfere where there's oil is not true.

Fact is, if you're a pacifist your biggest trouble in life is when you meet people like Gadaffi who aren't similarly minded. You meet fire with larger, more accurate fire, in cases like this.

Who are the pacifists in this?

robinph · 21-03-2011 01:08AM

No

Lincoln Drab Radiotherapy wrote: »

What's happening is a civil war. We like most western countries had ours too and while it is devastating to see loss of life, I can't help thinking that maybe a country needs their own personal tragedies like this to develop as they should, particular to their own set of circumstances without any foreign interference. The rebels seem to be doing well and if they have enough popular support then they should win.

But there's also support for Gaddafi and, as walshb said, if there are people who support him then that's their business, however abhorrent that might seem to us. (I'd lovbe to see him hammered and gone btw)
For all we know there could be a majority who are happy with the regime...

I think in the absence of a genocide or any racial or religious conflict then domestic affairs are just that. Domestic.

But the likes of the Irish civil war did not have one side fighting with jets and heavy artillery against another who had "pointy sticks". A civil war is never particularly civil, but when one side is vastly overpowering the other then it's really a not going to work out well for the pointy stick side however many of them there are.

baldbear · 21-03-2011 01:09AM

Sega Mega Drive

Oil is a great incentive.

Why havn't they bombed Robert Mugabe out of it or The Congo. Ivory Coast or Burma???

SafeSurfer · 21-03-2011 01:09AM

Sega Mega Drive

galwayrush wrote: »

Sega megadrive beating the bleeding hearts...:pac::pac:

You will probably be able to see lots of bleeding in "Operation Libyan Freedom" availble for Pc Mac Playstation X Box and Sega megadrive available at all good games shops coming soon.

doopa · 21-03-2011 01:10AM

Sega Mega Drive

What every happened to the concept of sovereignty of nations:

UN wrote:

Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United
Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic
jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such
matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall
not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter Vll.

Now I know they passed a resolution saying it was alright to bomb libya but we have in the past held that the UN was never supposed to allow such things. It seems post 9-11 that sovereignty is a dead concept with regard to the UN. However, it does raise questions about the legality, which in international relations was always a fairly shaky idea. What does legality mean in an international context? The charter is pretty clear and it was never amended to say its ok to disregard the concept of soverienty if your name is France.

Personally I feel the loss of the idea of sovereign nation states is a bad idea. Civil war is still a sovereign matter.

SafeSurfer · 21-03-2011 01:10AM

Sega Mega Drive

robinph wrote: »

But the likes of the Irish civil war did not have one side fighting with jets and heavy artillery against another who had "pointy sticks". A civil war is never particularly civil, but when one side is vastly overpowering the other then it's really a not going to work out well for the pointy stick side however many of them there are.

So civilwars are only fair if the sides are evenly matched?

strobe · 21-03-2011 01:11AM

Lincoln Drab Radiotherapy wrote: »

What's happening is a civil war. We like most western countries had ours too and while it is devastating to see loss of life, I can't help thinking that maybe a country needs their own personal tragedies like this to develop as they should, particular to their own set of circumstances without any foreign interference. The rebels seem to be doing well and if they have enough popular support then they should win.

But there's also support for Gaddafi and, as walshb said, if there are people who support him then that's their business, however abhorrent that might seem to us. (I'd lovbe to see him hammered and gone btw)
For all we know there could be a majority who are happy with the regime...

I think in the absence of a genocide or any racial or religious conflict then domestic affairs are just that. Domestic.

Hmmm, I'm not so sure man.

Think of it as a family that lived in a house down the end of your road. The Ma is bashing the kids. So then a couple of the kids say "nah we aren't having this sh1t anymore" and stand up to her. But she has the keys to the shed and breaks out a chainsaw to threaten them into submission with. Would it not be your responsibility to grab the chainsaw off of her if you could? Regardless of the fact that one of the kids wanted to team up with her and help her bash the rest of the kids? I mean, in the absence of her actually chopping them up with the chainsaw or picking on just the ginger kid then household affairs are just that. Household.

denballs · 21-03-2011 01:14AM

No

I,ll end this now shall i, america, etc are protecting the innocent.....there was thousands of civillians {people who wanted no part of the fighting, just wanted to live there lives} being killed.....for no reason...........if america..etc...........step in...the only people who die are those who chose to fight for whatever they believe in....neither side will be right or wrong...but they will have consented to risk their lives for what they want......

so obviously, yes...morally....it is correct for them to step in.........

I think a better question woulld/will be......how they deal with it in the comeing months......like.....now that its all over should there be elections and should they leave......

epgc3fyqirnbsx · 21-03-2011 01:14AM

robinph wrote: »

But the likes of the Irish civil war did not have one side fighting with jets and heavy artillery against another who had "pointy sticks". A civil war is never particularly civil, but when one side is vastly overpowering the other then it's really a not going to work out well for the pointy stick side however many of them there are.

The rebels aren't that badly off, they have weapons and they shot down a fighter jet. That's not to say that they are nearly as well equipped though....
But the thing that oft happens in civil wars is that the army/airforce/guard/whatever have no appetite to fight against rebels, whom they may share ideals with or learn to, and they put down arms or join them.
In the absence of this happening you have to wonder if the rebellious opinion is popular opinion?
Why are we assuming it's popular, just because it's in libe with ours?
Again I stress that I would love to see the rebels victorious but I dont know if the west has any call to be going in at this stage of a relatively young rebellion

strobe · 21-03-2011 01:17AM

doopa wrote: »

What every happened to the concept of sovereignty of nations:

"Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United
Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic
jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such
matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall
not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter Vll.[/I]"

Now I know they passed a resolution saying it was alright to bomb libya but we have in the past held that the UN was never supposed to allow such things. It seems post 9-11 that sovereignty is a dead concept with regard to the UN. However, it does raise questions about the legality, which in international relations was always a fairly shaky idea. What does legality mean in an international context? The charter is pretty clear and it was never amended to say its ok to disregard the concept of soverienty if your name is France.

Personally I feel the loss of the idea of sovereign nation states is a bad idea. Civil war is still a sovereign matter.

UN Declaration of Human Rights. http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml If you don't play by the rules you can't then complain that people aren't playing by the rules when things go against you......

newmug · 21-03-2011 01:17AM

No

walshb wrote: »

I think it is obscene that the French, UK and U.S. are bombing this country.
It's nothing but games and target practice to them. They couldn't give a flying fcuk about Libyan people. The Colonel obviously has supporters; Libya is a sovereign country, an independent country, and just because the yanks and brits don't agree with Gadaffi ruling, what ****ing right does that give them to attack the country. Pure terrorism.

So, what would happen if several thousand Irish people protested against the government here and demanded change thru force; would that be ok for the westerners to bomb and attack?

Same in Palestine. Hamas rule there because Hamas have support. That is their choice, their right
and their people. The Brits and U.S need to stop ****ing interfering with other countries rulers and rulings.
These countries will sort their problems.

Lincoln Drab Radiotherapy wrote: »

What's happening is a civil war. We like most western countries had ours too and while it is devastating to see loss of life, I can't help thinking that maybe a country needs their own personal tragedies like this to develop as they should, particular to their own set of circumstances without any foreign interference. The rebels seem to be doing well and if they have enough popular support then they should win.

But there's also support for Gaddafi and, as walshb said, if there are people who support him then that's their business, however abhorrent that might seem to us. (I'd lovbe to see him hammered and gone btw)
For all we know there could be a majority who are happy with the regime...

I think in the absence of a genocide or any racial or religious conflict then domestic affairs are just that. Domestic.

But thats the point, there IS genocide and tribal wipe-em-out-ism going on! Egypt had a protest, it lasted 18 days, but they finally got their dictator out bloodlessy - Great! Same happened in a few other middle-eastern countries, peaceful protest followed by bloodless change - Great!

The people of Lybia protest peacefully, their dictator sends the army to kill them. Then he declares that he'll go door-to-door and murder anyone who doesnt support him, and then actually starts doing that. See the difference? The peaceful protestors had no option but to fight back, kill or be killed. And WalshB, would you agree with the UN helping the Irish people there recently if FF told the army to go out and kill anyone who voted for FG?

mikemac · 21-03-2011 01:18AM

Sega Mega Drive

It's a civil war, there are Libyan citizens there that support both sides.
It's not for other countries to put their personnel at risk in missions in somebody else's civil war.

And if they want to do so good they would have done something in Darfur. You don't even need jets there, just troops and resources on the ground.

But Darfur got ignored and now these nations will appoint themselves as policemen with their no fly zone in a civil war that has nothing to do with them

SafeSurfer · 21-03-2011 01:18AM

Sega Mega Drive

Lincoln Drab Radiotherapy wrote: »

The rebels aren't that badly off, they have weapons and they shot down a fighter jet. That's not to say that they are nearly as well equipped though....
But the thing that oft happens in civil wars is that the army/airforce/guard/whatever have no appetite to fight against rebels, whom they may share ideals with or learn to, and they put down arms or join them.
In the absence of this happening you have to wonder if the rebellious opinion is popular opinion?
Why are we assuming it's popular, just because it's in libe with ours?
Again I stress that I would love to see the rebels victorious but I dont know if the west has any call to be going in at this stage of a relatively young rebellion

Yes and it was the rebels fighter jet, so they also have air power to attack Gadaffi loyalists.

Pete M. · 21-03-2011 01:20AM

Sega Mega Drive

I do wonder about people's morals these days.

epgc3fyqirnbsx · 21-03-2011 01:24AM

strobe wrote: »

Hmmm, I'm not so sure man.

Think of it as a family that lived in a house down the end of your road. The Ma is bashing the kids. So then a couple of the kids say "nah we aren't having this sh1t anymore" and stand up to her. But she has the keys to the shed and breaks out a chainsaw to threaten them into submission with. Would it not be your responsibility to grab the chainsaw off of her if you could? Regardless of the fact that one of the kids wanted to team up with her and help her bash the rest of the kids? I mean, in the absence of her actually chopping them up with the chainsaw or picking on just the ginger kid then household affairs are just that. Household.

That's a decent point but then maybe we should interfere in all such regimes and install our form of greedom everywhere. But we don't know if people will want that, that's why perhaps they should find their own balance.

I'm not saying we should or shouldn't btw, I really don't know, just unsure as to whether or not the west should be involved at all

doopa · 21-03-2011 01:24AM

Sega Mega Drive

strobe wrote: »

UN Declaration of Human Rights. http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml If you don't play by the rules you can't then complain that people aren't playing by the rules when things go against you......

That doesn't trump the charter does it? Cos if it did the UN would pretty much have to invade everyone.

epgc3fyqirnbsx · 21-03-2011 01:26AM

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Yes and it was the rebels fighter jet, so they also have air power to attack Gadaffi loyalists.

I wasn't sure when I typing that. Then surely this suggests that the rebles are doing fine...
Why western interference?

newmug · 21-03-2011 01:27AM

No

Lincoln Drab Radiotherapy wrote: »

The rebels aren't that badly off, they have weapons and they shot down a fighter jet. That's not to say that they are nearly as well equipped though....
But the thing that oft happens in civil wars is that the army/airforce/guard/whatever have no appetite to fight against rebels, whom they may share ideals with or learn to, and they put down arms or join them.
In the absence of this happening you have to wonder if the rebellious opinion is popular opinion?
Why are we assuming it's popular, just because it's in libe with ours?
Again I stress that I would love to see the rebels victorious but I dont know if the west has any call to be going in at this stage of a relatively young rebellion

What are you on about? 2 pilots already defected from Gadaffi's side when he told them to bomb the (then) unarmed protestors! The weapons the rebels have are form army stores, a whole pile of unarmed protestors didnt just walk into a barracks and take them! Obviously some army personnel had a part in distributing them! The few army people left on Gadaffi's side are a handful of hardcore loyalists and mercinaries! OF COURSE the rebelious opinion is the popular one!

doopa · 21-03-2011 01:31AM

Sega Mega Drive

newmug wrote: »

The few army people left on Gadaffi's side are a handful of hardcore loyalists and mercinaries! OF COURSE the rebelious opinion is the popular one!

Then why not pay off the mercenaries - gotta be cheaper than a whole reck of cruise missiles ($600,000 a pop)? And then let the rebels take on the remaining handful of hardcore loyalists?

strobe · 21-03-2011 01:36AM

Lincoln Drab Radiotherapy wrote: »

That's a decent point but then maybe we should interfere in all such regimes and install our form of greedom everywhere. But we don't know if people will want that, that's why perhaps they should find their own balance.

I'm not saying we should or shouldn't btw, I really don't know, just unsure as to whether or not the west should be involved at all

Well I think 'we' should interfere in all such regimes, but lose the greed. 'We' don't know if people will want that, but 'we' can ask them. Democracy is a bit sh1t, but it has it's uses.

newmug · 21-03-2011 01:37AM

No

doopa wrote: »

Then why not pay off the mercenaries - gotta be cheaper than a whole reck of cruise missiles ($600,000 a pop)? And then let the rebels take on the remaining handful of hardcore loyalists?

I dont know why. They could I suppose. But generally speaking goodies dont use mercenaries, you have to be a baddie like Gaddafi to have the contacts. Anyway, they wont need to now with the UN

strobe · 21-03-2011 01:40AM

doopa wrote: »

That doesn't trump the charter does it? Cos if it did the UN would pretty much have to invade everyone.

In my opinion they should. If the invasion would be in defence of the UNDHR, then yes, 'we' should invade. Humans rights abuses shouldn't be tolerated anywhere and if people need to die and sh1t needs to be blown up to prevent it from happening then what has to be done has to be done.

partyatmygaff · 21-03-2011 01:40AM

No

walshb wrote: »

It's nothing but games and target practice to them. They couldn't give a flying fcuk about Libyan people. The Colonel obviously has supporters

It's nothing to do with him having support or not. He has said that he will systematically cleanse each and every house in Libya from those that oppose him.

So, what would happen if several thousand Irish people protested against the government here and demanded change thru force; would that be ok for the westerners to bomb and attack?

The Irish government doesn't launch full scale wars against its citizens. As flawed as Fianna Fáil may have been they didn't call the people drugged rats and bacteria who need to be cleansed.

Duiske wrote: »

Gadaffi's residencial compound has come under missile attack tonight, apparently from a british submarine in the med. Seem's they have now gone from being enforcers of a no-fly zone to becoming active participant's in a civil war.

An administrative building inside one of his many residential compounds was attacked.

SafeSurfer · 21-03-2011 01:40AM

Sega Mega Drive

strobe wrote: »

Hmmm, I'm not so sure man.

Think of it as a family that lived in a house down the end of your road. The Ma is bashing the kids. So then a couple of the kids say "nah we aren't having this sh1t anymore" and stand up to her. But she has the keys to the shed and breaks out a chainsaw to threaten them into submission with. Would it not be your responsibility to grab the chainsaw off of her if you could? Regardless of the fact that one of the kids wanted to team up with her and help her bash the rest of the kids? I mean, in the absence of her actually chopping them up with the chainsaw or picking on just the ginger kid then household affairs are just that. Household.

I don't think your analogy is accurate.

How about the beaten kids grab knives and hold half the house, the mother picks up a chainsaw and drives them back to one room in the house, a neighbour comes in with a shotgun, blows the chainsaw out of the mother's hands, arms the kids with slashhooks, trains the gun on the mother and says he will shoot if she defends herself against the kids as they take over the house.

SafeSurfer · 21-03-2011 01:43AM

Sega Mega Drive

strobe wrote: »

In my opinion they should. If the invasion would be in defence of the UNDHR, then yes, 'we' should invade. Humans rights abuses shouldn't be tolerated anywhere and if people need to die and sh1t needs to be blown up to prevent it from happening then what has to be done has to be done.

Even in Israel, Saudia Arabia? What about the US human Rights record in Guantanamo Bay etc.

doopa · 21-03-2011 01:54AM

Sega Mega Drive

newmug wrote: »

I dont know why. They could I suppose. But generally speaking goodies dont use mercenaries, you have to be a baddie like Gaddafi to have the contacts. Anyway, they wont need to now with the UN

Check out the number of Private Military Contractors in Iraq at the moment. Or just the size of most Western PMC companies and you'll get an idea of just how often the 'good guys' use soldiers of fortune.

Or is this another case of freedom fighters/terrorists?

strobe · 21-03-2011 01:56AM

SafeSurfer wrote: »

I don't think your analogy is accurate.

How about the beaten kids grab knives and hold half the house, the mother picks up a chainsaw and drives them back to one room in the house, a neighbour comes in with a shotgun, blows the chainsaw out of the mother's hands, arms the kids with slashhooks, trains the gun on the mother and says he will shoot if she defends herself against the kids as they take over the house.

lol.....this analogy is about to be stretched to breaking point.

How about the beaten kids grab knives (after being beaten senseless) and hold half the house, the mother picks up a chainsaw and drives them back to one room in the house, a neighbour comes in with a shotgun, blows the chainsaw out of the mother's hands, arms the kids with slashhooks, trains the gun on the mother and says he will shoot if she defends herself against the kids as they take over the house. But if she drops her switchblade and agrees to ask all the kids what they want to happen and adhere to it then everything will be cool in school. If the kids agree to let her keep running the house then she will keep running the house but if they want to be emancipated and have the Ma move out as they are the ones who have been paying for the house for the last x years then she moves out and leaves them to it.

?

strobe · 21-03-2011 01:58AM

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Even in Israel, Saudia Arabia? What about the US human Rights record in Guantanamo Bay etc.

Yes, even in Israel, Saudi Arabia and in Guantanamo Bay.......

Did you think I was suggesting something different?

(How could I possibly defend my stance if I was???)

Xivilai · 21-03-2011 02:00AM

No

the groutch wrote: »

if they have all those bombs, they've got to use them on someone

:eek: Bomb mass-production is the cause of war and not the other way round. Who'd have thunk it

WakeUp · 21-03-2011 02:21AM

Sega Mega Drive

I no more want to see innocent people die in Libya than anybody else, but it really irks me when the US/British/French leaders stand on stage in front of the world and start talking about "protecting people" "spreading freedom" we are doing this "for the people", all that sh!te. They are in their bollox taking this action to "protect people", in my opinion. I think the question in the original OP should be changed to- "Is it morally right for Britain, Canada, France and the USA to airstrike Libya- for their own self interest's". I think that would be a more accurate description myself.

Was it morally right for Britain, Canada, France and the USA to airstrike Libya?

Comments