UN authorises military action against Gaddafi

[babybird67]

hi Bob

But does it? Have a dozen of the largest countries in the world say it’s ok. But what about all the small countries? If you added them all up I guarantee you that there are more countries who did not give the OK than did.

Yes maybe that is wrong Bob...but I suppose you have to look at how progressive each country is. It tends to be the bigger ones with the most influence, whether that is right or wrong.

Personally I don’t give a damn about international consensus. If something is right it’s right no matter how many or how few people say it is.

I agree. It was right to invade Iraq for human rights issues. My point is, this wasnt the reason we invaded them, otherwise why haven't we invaded Zimbabwe? My view is that human rights issues should guide our actions, not need for oil or whatever else motivated the invasion of Iraq (sorry I don't believe Tony Blair).

If you look back to WWII there was no International consensus then to stop Hitler, in fact for quite a while we were alone, so according to your reasoning we shouldn’t have done anything.

Not at all. It was completely right. But I am talking about the new world with nuclear capabilities and horrific potential consequences if we get things wrong. Also there is a difference in that Hitler was invading other countries. This is us deciding to go into a country keeping itself to itself. So the more consensus we can manage the safer for everyone, in international terms. I am trying, perhaps unsuccessfully, to marry morals with pragmatism. I personally think there should be international regulations allowing action to be taken against any nation which murders its own people. If we could act under that, it would be good.

The only thing wrong with the Iraq war, second version, is that we let Hussein get away with it for so long. The first war ended in a ceasefire not a cessation, the first time an Iraqi said no to our inspection teams they should have been blasted into sand. Instead we let him mess us about for years while all the time he was smuggling his weapons technology out of the country. Where to? Well guess whose nuclear programme has come on by leaps and bounds since the end of the first Iraq war?

I agree. And I am totally against arms sales (told you I was idealistic!).

I find your comment about the Iraq war very strange. You say you are against it because it was not supported by the International community. But you should support action because it is right. What you are saying is that if a few more countries sidled up to you and say “Well ok we support you” you would change your mind and go to war. So in other words you would be committing yourself to war on what others think or say.

I was against it for the reasons it was done...i don't believe Tony Blair went in there to free the Iraqi people. I believe he went in there to secure oil. I believe if we are going to invade countries to liberate civilians, it should be an internationally supported goal, and should be applied to all countires across the board, not selectively when our econmoic interests appear to co-incide with the invasion. If we were justified to do it for the Iraqi citizens, why are we so disinterested in those being murdered in Zimbabwe?

I'm sure my thinking is muddled, because as I say I try to marry morals with pragmatism and what is possible in terms of international relations. But hope that clears some of what I said up.

Jen

[Limehouse]

But does it? Have a dozen of the largest countries in the world say it’s ok. But what about all the small countries? If you added them all up I guarantee you that there are more countries who did not give the OK than did.

Personally I don’t give a damn about international consensus. If something is right it’s right no matter how many or how few people say it is.

If you look back to WWII there was no International consensus then to stop Hitler, in fact for quite a while we were alone, so according to your reasoning we shouldn’t have done anything.

The only thing wrong with the Iraq war, second version, is that we let Hussein get away with it for so long. The first war ended in a ceasefire not a cessation, the first time an Iraqi said no to our inspection teams they should have been blasted into sand. Instead we let him mess us about for years while all the time he was smuggling his weapons technology out of the country. Where to? Well guess whose nuclear programme has come on by leaps and bounds since the end of the first Iraq war?

I find your comment about the Iraq war very strange. You say you are against it because it was not supported by the International community. But you should support action because it is right. What you are saying is that if a few more countries sidled up to you and say “Well ok we support you” you would change your mind and go to war. So in other words you would be committing yourself to war on what others think or say.

You would blast thousands and thousands of innocent people into sand because they would not let inspectors look for something that was not there? We had nuclear weapons for decades before disarming them. How would you view it if Iraq had decided to invade us then because they did not agree with our defence policies?

The invasion of Iraq was about oil and about pandering to the Americans in revenge for 9/1. The claim about nuclear weapons was an excuse.

I am not in favour of shelling Libya if it means killing civilians. We have a very hypocritical approach to dealing with Gadafi. It is not all that long since we were returning the Lockerbie bomber to his homeland on the pretence that he was at death's door. What was all that about? Another oil deal?

[jason_c]

You would blast thousands and thousands of innocent people into sand because they would not let inspectors look for something that was not there? We had nuclear weapons for decades before disarming them. How would you view it if Iraq had decided to invade us then because they did not agree with our defence policies?

The invasion of Iraq was about oil and about pandering to the Americans in revenge for 9/1. The claim about nuclear weapons was an excuse.

I am not in favour of shelling Libya if it means killing civilians. We have a very hypocritical approach to dealing with Gadafi. It is not all that long since we were returning the Lockerbie bomber to his homeland on the pretence that he was at death's door. What was all that about? Another oil deal?

So why bomb Libya if we were already getting oil from Gaddafi? If the supply of oil was more important to us then we would be bombing the rebels into the stone age, not Gaddafi.

[Bob Hinton]

Certainly I would. Under the terms of the ceasefire they were to allow unrestricted access to anywhere the inspectors wanted to go, they didn't keep to the agreement so the war is on again.

Where do you get the idea that any bombing of an enemy nation involves killing thousands of innocent people? Weapons are too expensive to waste on innocent people, they are usually directed against military targets.

If the invasion of Iraq was all about oil why didn't we invade during the first war? Why wait for the best part of a decade? Were we waiting for the oil to mature or what?

[Errata]

If the invasion of Iraq was all about oil why didn't we invade during the first war? Why wait for the best part of a decade? Were we waiting for the oil to mature or what?

It's possible we were waiting for the well fires to die out. I always thought we left rather quickly after the oil wells were torched by the Iraqi army. Whatever the reason, we abandoned the Kurds in an impossible position and we let Hussein commit genocidal attacks on them for a decade. Maybe we did go in for the wrong reason. We should have gone in to stop the attack on the Kurds who WE screwed over. But quite frankly, as long as we stopped the genocide, which hopefully we did, I don't care why we went in.

[Natalie Severn]

But the Turks have committed just as much genocide on the Kurds as did S H and his henchmen in Iraq ,so why did we not bomb the Turks as well? The 150,000 + of civilians killed since the war against Iraq began might have appreciated having been consulted about whether they and their babies wanted to be bombed and killed-----ever seen the tiny shoes of those Iraqi babies peeping from under their makeshift shrouds alongside their young mothers -what about their human rights?

Regarding other Middle East protests:The Saudis are now in Bahrain at the invitation of the king of Bahrain and Saudi troops are killing the protesters there ....so why are we not defending these protesters who are fighting for democratic rights and freedom in Bahrain?

[jason_c]

Saddam Hussein killed cute little babies too. In fact he'd still be killing them
given half the chance.

[Natalie Severn]

Saddam Hussein killed cute little babies too. In fact he'd still be killing them
given half the chance.

.... hardly an excuse for liberators of the Kurds to go in and kill tens of thousands more -----in "collateral damage " is it?

[Limehouse]

So why bomb Libya if we were already getting oil from Gaddafi? If the supply of oil was more important to us then we would be bombing the rebels into the stone age, not Gaddafi.

We were keeping Gaddafi sweet - keeping the oil prices down. We can't keep him sweet now because his people have risen up against his regime so we have to get tough and side with them. Gaddafi could cut off the oil supply.

[Errata]

But the Turks have committed just as much genocide on the Kurds as did S H and his henchmen in Iraq ,so why did we not bomb the Turks as well? The 150,000 + of civilians killed since the war against Iraq began might have appreciated having been consulted about whether they and their babies wanted to be bombed and killed-----ever seen the tiny shoes of those Iraqi babies peeping from under their makeshift shrouds alongside their young mothers -what about their human rights?

We didn't bomb the Turks because we did not in fact go in to stop a genocide. We never go in to stop genocide. We can barely be trusted not to start one.

War violates everyone's human rights, from soldier to civilian. All anyone can do is try to minimize the harm. And it would be much simpler if I believed that all wars are wrong. I think most wars are wrong. Some I think are just wars (if not exactly right). But in every war I have ever studied there has been at least one positive consequence. And I admit it's a bias, but having been a beneficiary of one of those positive consequences it is very hard for me to say that no positive consequence is worth a war. Do I regret the lives lost defeating the Nazis? I do very much. Can I think of any other way for the Jews of Europe to be saved? I can't. Was that the point of the Allied war? Not in the slightest.

With the Kurds it was even worse. During Desert Storm we convinced them to fight. We gave them weapons and just enough training to not accidently kill each other. We promised them we would take care it and that they would be safe. And we didn't. And we left them there. And we didn't even try to get them out. Not even when the gas attacks started. We screwed up. We left them to die horribly in miserable little Iraqi controlled camps. Getting them out was the right thing to do. Even if it was an afterthought in an ill planned poorly executed sham of a war. Civilian casualties are a high price to pay for that. But I have Kurdish friends, and there is no way I could look them in the eye and tell them they weren't worth it. But to be fair, there is no way I could look an American general in the eye and tell them that they handled the situation as best they could.

[The Good Michael]

The Turks have also been an ally for a while now. It's not good to bomb the few allies one has. I've hated them since the almost total annihilation of the Armenians, but, live and let live.

Mike

[jason_c]

We were keeping Gaddafi sweet - keeping the oil prices down. We can't keep him sweet now because his people have risen up against his regime so we have to get tough and side with them. Gaddafi could cut off the oil supply.

Gaddafi wouldnt and couldnt cut off the oil supply. He needs our money more than we need his oil. He has a military to supply, and his state enforcers to pay off. You think his hold on power was financed by selling camels?

No oil money for Libya = Gaddafi's downfall.

[Natalie Severn]

The Turks have also been an ally for a while now. It's not good to bomb the few allies one has. I've hated them since the almost total annihilation of the Armenians, but, live and let live.

Mike

Well GM, I don"t hate the Turks.In fact I found Istanbul gorgeous and thought the Turkish people I met were among the kindest and nicest I had met----but the behaviour mentioned towards the Kurds ..... unforgiveable....

[Natalie Severn]

Gaddafi wouldnt and couldnt cut off the oil supply. He needs our money more than we need his oil. He has a military to supply, and his state enforcers to pay off. You think his hold on power was financed by selling camels?

No oil money for Libya = Gaddafi's downfall.

Well there you have it Jason----he would not still be in power if our money hadn"t enabled it.
As far back as the murder of one of our policewoman during the course of her duty,we have known what he was.

[jason_c]

Well there you have it Jason----he would not still be in power if our money hadn"t enabled it.
As far back as the murder of one of our policewoman during the course of her duty,we have known what he was.

Our money, Chinese money, South American money, he sells it to whoever he can. I dont know about the UK but the US certainly had oil import sanctions against Libya during the 80's and 90's.

And it didnt take the murder of Yvonne Fletcher to tell us what kind of beast he was. He had been supplying arms to the IRA since the early 1970's.