Libya no-fly zone, for or against?

Against.

There are a number of reasons discussed in length here:

A Giant Leap into the Dark

One main point for me is that we don’t know who we’re dealing with, as Septicisle says in the article linked

What began, like in Tunisia and Egypt as leaderless, classless uprising against a loathed regime has since then been changed by necessity into something quite different: an uprising spearheaded by two former senior officials in the government, neither of whom should normally be trusted as far as they can be thrown. As incredible it seems, it was less than two weeks ago that we were so cautious about the likes of Mustafa Abdul Jalil and Abdul Fatah Younis that we were sending in spooks masquerading as diplomats protected by the SAS in a bid to make first contact proper with them. Now we’ve agreed to intervene militarily on their side. If this worries our political leaders, then they haven’t shown any sign of it.

Deja vu, anyone?[/url]

Define a sovereign nation. You could pack lots of European countries into Libya. Gaddafi probably controls a similar territory to Napoleon before he was kicked out. Why should “tribes” respect those straight lines on the map?

Presently against if the UN started taking sides. For if they are purely there to protect civillians – not sure how this could be compared to Libya and NI.

Col Gaddafi has promised to retake Benghazi, saying his forces would show “no mercy”.

Gosh, The leader of fighting forces about to embark on a decisive battle talks fighting-talk ………whatever next.

Gaddafi has also offered an amnesty to rebels in Benghazi if they lay down their arms, scaring them increases the chances of that be successful.

One of the reasons why Gaddafi’s forces have been so successful as they have swept through Libya, appears to be precisely because if rebels give themselves up they generally get to live – therefore many have surrendered without a fight.

I wouldn’t say that surrendering will automatically mean you will live of course – war isn’t like that. In Benghazi the rebels murdered over 200 Gaddafi supporters after taking control. Although I’m sure you haven’t heard of that, or that you are prepared to believe that both sides are capable of that sort of stuff.

So, Edukator, you’re entirely confident that two men involved with Gadaffi’s Administration at the highest levels have suddenly embraced the idea of democracy?

You could pack lots of European countries into Libya

There are only about 6 million people in Libya and the vast majority of their country is desert. Most of the population is concentrated into 3 cities on the coast. It is hardly the French Empire under Napoleon now is it?

It’s not often I find myself concurring with Tandem Jeremy (albeit for different reasons). 😆

Its one big game of realpolitik being played out in front of us.

As far as the US is concerned the main threat in the region is Iran.

The US’s major ally in the Gulf – Saudi Arabia is worried about possible Iranian influences in the uprising in Bahrain so will be looking to help crush it. By tacitly supporting action against Libya, Saudi Arabia will be looking for the US to look the other way when it puts down the uprising in Bahrain.

The US who who will be looking to keep their pet despots in Saudi and Bahrain happy and also limit any Iranian influence in that part of the Gulf will probably complain a bit and call for “restraint” and let the Bahrain uprising be put down.

Meanwhile Gaddafi will be ousted, probably going into exile and a friendly “democratic” regime supported by the US can be installed in Libya

I think it’s interesting Lebanon helped draft the plan. Perhaps they’ve got someone in mind when they voted on:

*Authorises member states to “take all necessary measures” to “protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack”

BTW, if the dickhead who put the “Ernie loves Gaddafi” tag wants to argue his point with me, I’m happy to listen to his thoughtful views on the matter.

It’s ok Ernie, I posted a new one to balance it out.

Thanks clubber but I’m fine with it……I just wondered whether they wanted to back up that claim with something a tad more substantial. But I guess the limitations placed on an intellectually challenged halfwit suggests that maybe not.

I like “Colonel Ernie” btw, whoever done that……at least now they’re getting fairly comical 8)

LOL @ the tags – Ernie, where shall we go for our date? Or shall we skip that and just sh@g?

I wouldn’t say that surrendering will automatically mean you will live of course – war isn’t like that. In Benghazi the rebels murdered over 200 Gaddafi supporters after taking control. Although I’m sure you haven’t heard of that, or that you are prepared to believe that both sides are capable of that sort of stuff.

Source?

Well Mr Cameron, what first interested you in supporting the people of the oil rich state Libya?

Personally would have been for, but now it’s probably too late for it to achieve enough to justify the risks. Decision making by delay.

Torminalis – Member

Leave ’em to it I say, what right does any country have to interfere with the internal affairs of a sovereign nation?

Interesting question… First of all you have to consider whether the leadership is legitimate (no) and whether being a sovereign nation gives you the right to do whatever you want within your borders (no). After that, it’s just a matter of degrees.

Spongebob – Member

We have no business interfering with this civil conflict!

The hardware being used wasn’t made in Libya, so you could already say we (rest of world) interfered, by creating the current imbalance of power.

Considering that we always appear to be flogging warplanes to the arab league, you’d think they’d be 1st up to see if their toys work properly.
Surely it would make much more sense to get them to do all the flying, and then after some suitable bribes we could flog em some upgrades.

First of all you have to consider whether the leadership is legitimate (no)

Just because Gaddafi is not a democratically elected leader does not make him any less legitimate. It may fdo in your eyes but that means eff all in the grand scheme of things. He was the head of a popular revolution, has the support of the largest groups of tribes in the country and has been in the same position for 42 years. Certainly no one else who can claim more legitimacy as their leader, least of all us and our god given right to intervene when we choose. Where were we when Mugabe was bulldozing the opposition?

whether being a sovereign nation gives you the right to do whatever you want within your borders (no).

Errr, yeah it does. Do we have a world government? Nope. Who should hold him accountable? The UN, get real! Wasn’t so long ago that the UN were lifting sanctions and allowing the likes of us to arm Gaddafi, I would be interested to hear all about this moral authority you allude to.

1238: Libya’s Foreign Minister says his country is committed to accept the UN Security Council resolution, and so has decided an immediate ceasefire and the stopping of all military operations.

Seems to have done the trick.

seems gaddafi thought it was a bad idea for him .

He heard a Merlin engine…

Torminalis someone had a revolution and remains in control 42 years later you do know what a dictatorship is dont you?

What are you on about with your post that’s sixth on the page, Lifer? I’m used to being misquoted on this forum but there I really haven’t got a clue what you’re on about.

My prediction the previous page about Gaddafi backing off in order to hold on to what power he has seems to have been right though.

Torminalis – Member

Certainly no one else who can claim more legitimacy as their leader

Genius. So he becomes legitimate because he’s destroyed the opposition using executions, assasination and imprisonment.

Torminalis someone had a revolution and remains in control 42 years later you do know what a dictatorship is dont you?

A dictatorship, whilst undesirable to us morally superior westerners, is still a legitimate form of government.

I think you are somewhat missing the point, we have no moral authority to determine how another country governs itself. Why did we not all barge into Thailand during the uprising a couple of years ago? Why do we sponsor the Pakistani military dictatorship? What about Mugabe who we left to systematically torture and abuse the opposition? China? Russia? Egypt? So many more…

Selective intervention with our own best interests in mind has been shown to morally fail more often than not. I can’t think of one intervention we have made where our troops ever got to leave? Can you?

Genius. So he becomes legitimate because he’s destroyed the opposition using executions, assasination and imprisonment.

Yes, that’s exactly the case. Might has always won, even if it is not right. Your desire to set our weapons against the government of Libya is no more morally justified than Gaddafi’s desire to set his weapons against the people he sees as opposing his rule and his sense of what is right. There is no moral absolute, despite what you feel in your heart to be right.

In this instance, I think that we have had distorted media coverage to justify the deployment of our forces into yet another oil rich area with a leader that won’t always tow our line, in an region that has implications far beyond the borders of the country in question. Or should we just take over the whole world so that they all have to do exactly as we say?

I hope I never wake up and find I think like you.

“So in war, the way is to avoid what is strong and to strike at what is
weak.”
“If the enemy is in superior strength, evade him.”
(Sun Tzu Art of War)

Gadaffi is just playing the game and picking his battles.
The right to protect civilians should stretch beyond the right to protect sovereignty.

Ideally, the right to protect civilians should stretch beyond the right of sovereignty.

I agree.

I hope I never wake up and find I think like you.

If you did, you might see through many of the potential pitfalls in trying to implement the above.

I take the ceasefire with a massive dose of salt. It just buys him time, the ‘allies’ can’t take out his SAM sites now and I wouldn’t expect them to exactly be rushing the required logistical support now either. In the meantime he just regroups his forces for a final push on Bengahzi and by the time the world notices he’s broken the ceasefire it will all be over.

A dictatorship, whilst undesirable to us morally superior westerners, is still a legitimate form of government

I would question the use of the term legitimate there. The west is often superior in imposing its morals on others but expecting people to have a say in who governs them seems a reasonable principle – it i snot automatically worng because it is ours is it?. Objecting to the expression of this wish would be illegitimate. I am sure you can see the distinction.
Obvioulsy you are correct in noting we do not apply these principles universally in our foreign policy and I would make no effort to defend it.
I cannot think of a particularily popular example nor a benign version of doctatorship [Tito in yugoslavia??]nor can I answer your question on imposing democracy and withdrawing well not with out being “forced” to leave by the other side.

Edukator – Member
What are you on about with your post that’s sixth on the page, Lifer? I’m used to being misquoted on this forum but there I really haven’t got a clue what you’re on about.

Wasn’t quoting you was asking a question. If Gadaffi is removed who’s going to replace him? Especially with Cameron ‘considering’ arming the rebels, any intervention on one side or another we should be sure of their intentions. Abdul Fatah Younis (ex minister of the interior/general and now leader of the rebel armed forces) was considered Gadaffi’s number 2, for example.

I am sure you can see the distinction.

I do see the distinction and I personally find it abhorrent that any leader would use force against large groups of their own population (or small groups for that matter).

it is not automatically wrong because it is ours is it?

We are one of 86 countries in the world considered to be ‘free’. 114 are not. We actually seem to be in the minority of countries that believe the freedom of the individual trumps the states right do as they choose. Not saying it is right, but I certainly don’t think it is as clear cut as saying that we have a duty to intervene.

If Gadaffi is removed who’s going to replace him? ……. Abdul Fatah Younis (ex minister of the interior/general and now leader of the rebel armed forces) was considered Gadaffi’s number 2, for example.

Firstly if Gadaffi is “removed” it won’t be the end of the fighting imo. Recent events have shown that he still has huge support in much of Libya and I would be surprised if Tripoli readily accepts rule from Benghazi. There is nothing to suggest that Libya wouldn’t be gripped into an endless civil war.

But maybe not …. who knows ? If a “Gadaffi free” Libya or part of Libya is established, it is of course quite possible that figures associated with the old regime will lose their influence. Who would replace them ? Well that again is pure speculation. Which probably helps to at least partly explain, why the US until a day or two ago, was so reluctant to intervene.

I reckon this geezer at least stands a chance though :

Abu Yahya al-Libi ……one of the most high-ranking al-Qaeda leaders in the world, a Libyan, and the leader of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group

Whilst Gadaffi mercilessly clamped down on al-Qaeda activities in Libya and he was hugely successful in doing so – leaving them with very little influence and little power base in Libya, the situation has now changed.

I have no idea how successful al-Qaeda has been in re-organising itself in the parts of Libya that Gadaffi has lost control, and I don’t suppose Western intelligence has either. The recent complete cock-up by British intelligence shows just how confused the situation is. But there is no doubt that al-Qaeda is actively exploiting the situation.

LIBYA: AL QAEDA CALLS ON REBELS TO STRIVE AGAINST GADDAFI

Speculating what will happen in Libya amounts to no more than crystal ball gazing….no one knows. But history has shown us that the West tends to get things terribly wrong on such matters. Wishful thinking is not enough.

When we shoot down all the Libyan jets, blow up all their AA sites, destroy all their radar… there’ll be a very nice sales opportunity once it all settles down again.

I’m all for it. Arms are one of our few exports.

I’m all for it. Arms are one of our few exports.

Subsidised by us!

Who would replace them ? Well that again is pure speculation.

Allow me to speculate. I’m totally unconvinced that the UN would be issuing resoloutions that would, by design, put someone in power that was too radically opposed to the western discourse.

Of course, by allowing a war to be waged against Lybia could always be the catalyst for inspiring a movement radically opposed to the western discourse.

You think the security services of UN member states have sound and reliable information on the matter trailmonkey ?

British intelligence is probably one of the most established and reliable in that part of the world :

Libya: MI6 officer seized in SAS mission fiasco

And we won’t mention western intelligence catastrophic failures in pre-revolution Iran, Afghanistan, Iraq, etc.

Definitely for.

Gadaffi is using superior military hardware against civilians and a band of democracy-seeking rebels. We have a moral duty to intervene – we’ll deal with the issue of setting a precedent later.

The fact that we (the West) have supported or supplied him in the past does not change the fact that he and his regime are murderous suppressors of democracy. Our past behaviour is our own problem, not the people of Libya’s.

I’m delighted to see the UN take this stance – even if it is about 5 days late.