Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

We have no right to interfere in a civil war.

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU
 
Dangerman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-20-11 04:09 PM
Original message
We have no right to interfere in a civil war.
Look, say what you will about Kaddafi. The US and its' allies has absolutely NO RIGHT to get involved in a civil war, even WITH "U.N. Authorization".

I heard an interview of an American official on AlJazeera that he said that the US cannot change every government no matter what the situation is, that was a BOLD FACED LIE! If the uprising in a Arab country which is oil-rich, it would interfere. Why can't the UN put a no-fly zone in Egypt, Tunsia or for that matter, Gaza? Why Libya of all nations, because it has oil? Not because a "brutal dictator" killed his own people? Remember when Hosnhi Mubarak slaughtered 300 protesters through his police, the US has done diddly squat to overthrow that moron!

Did the US learn its' lesson from Vietnam that it's not right to intervene in someone else's civil war? And look what happened. And besides, Libya, like Iraq before it, never attacked us nor was a threat to us.

I've been reading reports that slapping a no-fly zone on a country is an act of war, and they would be consequences.

Now the US got involved in three unnecessary wars in three defenseless Arab nations on false pretenses. And you still don't know why the "terrorists" hates us? :mad:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-20-11 04:11 PM
Response to Original message
1. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator.
 
The Wielding Truth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-20-11 04:12 PM
Response to Original message
2. We were faced with the massacre of too many innocents. They needed help and that is why we are there
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
L. Coyote Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-20-11 04:15 PM
Response to Reply #2
5. The Onion called.
They want to hire you :rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Deep13 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 12:46 PM
Response to Reply #5
34. That is not an argument. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bobbolink Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 01:14 PM
Response to Reply #5
46. Massacres and genocides are hilarious. Got it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BobbyBoring Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-20-11 04:15 PM
Response to Reply #2
6. Then why
haven't we been in the Congo, Darfur, or the countless other places where MILLIONS have died with out as much as a tear from most Americans?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joshcryer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-20-11 04:26 PM
Response to Reply #6
15. R2P wasn't implemented then.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joshcryer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-20-11 04:26 PM
Response to Reply #6
16. BTW, we tried Burma but China and Russia said no.
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
anarch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 12:54 PM
Response to Reply #16
40. well, maybe we need to try again, since everyone is in such a humanitarian frame of mind
Let's put an end to all oppression everywhere, with the use of military force! North Korea, I'm looking at you...

Hell, let's take it to the next step, and have the U.N. move in on, I dunno, say, the three countries with the top per capita prison populations, b/c it just seems prima facie wrong to have a lot of people locked up. Let's roll!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sabrina 1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-20-11 04:33 PM
Response to Reply #2
18. I know. We are so altruistic, aren't we? That was the same reason
we went to Iraq, to 'liberate' the Iraqi people. To save them from torture! Who could ever doubt our motives? So what if we only try to save people in Oil Rich countries? Why are people so cynical? :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Wielding Truth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 12:33 PM
Response to Reply #18
28. Only one of the reasons and it was not the same as this. We are responding
now in Libya to the last throws of a dictator who has proclaimed decimation of his countrymen. Saddam did not have a growing movement inside his country strong enough to depose him. Libya has. We are protecting them. We are not in this case yet bombing an occupied city only Qaddafi's air force.We are not in this as retaliation for any reason against us. We are not lying about a far flung terroristic threat against us. It is different. Qaddafi has mortally squashed his own people from striving for their democratic rights. (Who will save us from losing ours?)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bobbolink Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 01:16 PM
Response to Reply #28
48. Another fact we keep forgetting... Iraqis did NOT ask for intervention from the UN.
Libyans did.... for weeks. Loudly.

Major difference we keep ignoring.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sabrina 1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 03:05 PM
Response to Reply #28
59. Well, if that is the only reason we are there, what about the
Edited on Mon Mar-21-11 03:06 PM by sabrina 1
people on the Ivory Coast? They are being slaughtered by a man who was voted out of office but has refused to leave and this has been going on for months now.

What about Yemen, that is a particularly brutal situation, with just this past week, over 40 protesters shot by government snipers.

And of course there's Bahrain, people there have a movement and are being shot and killed by their government.

I mean there are so many places around the world that cry out for assistance, the list is long, and some are far worse than Libya, yet we chose this one to go to.

The Congo eg, is heartbreaking and that really is a genocidal, murderous situation where women are being raped as a weapon of war, and children forced to be soldiers among other atrocities. I have wished for years that someone would help those poor people.

And then, we who claim to care about protecting civilians, are murdering civilians in Afghanistan and Pakistan every other day. Have you seen the demostrations in Afghanistan protesting the murder of their loved ones? Pakistan too has had many peaceful demonstrations condemning the slaughter by drone of their civilians?

And now in Iraq, peaceful protesters were mowed down by OUR new 'democratic' government when they went out like the Egyptians to protest wrongs being done to them in their country. The U.S. excused those killings for some reason.

So, I'm afraid I don't buy that a coalition that is currently engaged in the brutalization of civilians in other countries which they are illegally occupying and care nothing for the civilian populations (how many did we slaugher in Iraq, Afghanstan?) can be trusted to protect a different population of civilians from anyone. Sorry, there is something enormously hypocritical about using that as the reason considering what they are up to elsewhere.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Wielding Truth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 04:06 PM
Response to Reply #59
62. Do they have a substantial rebellion on going in the Ivory Coast?
I see that as the main reason we are in Libya.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sabrina 1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 04:23 PM
Response to Reply #62
63. Of course, supporters of the elected president are rebelling
against the ousted president who refuses to go and still has control of the country.

Again, if we are there for humanitarian reasons, why are WE still killing people in Afganistan, Iraq (where 29 protesters were killed last week by the Iraqi Govt) in Pakistan. How can countries that themselves are engaging in gross violations of human rights, even pretend to be on a mission to save civilian lives?

That would be like Qadaffi going to Yemen to protect the protesters there. Why are Americans so blind to this hypocrisy when the rest of the world points it out every, single day? Are you avoiding the question, do you have any comment on our brutality to civilian populations in at least three countries right now while at the same time claiming to be on a humanitarian mission?

Sorry, either we are totally schizophrenic as a nation, or we are NOT there for humanitarian reasons.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paulk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 09:25 PM
Response to Reply #28
77. Libya did not have
Edited on Mon Mar-21-11 09:29 PM by paulk
"a growing movement inside his country strong enough to depose him"...

The revolution was about to be crushed, and crushed quite easily, by Gaddafi's forces.


ed for sp.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PurityOfEssence Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-20-11 04:44 PM
Response to Reply #2
19. What "innocents"? This is now an armed rebellion.
Qaddafi's troops are going after the armed forces of the rebellion in an attempt to quash the revolt. There was a time a month ago when peaceful civilians were being killed--and in VERY small numbers, lest it be overlooked--but that time is past; now it's an armed conflict, and we're intervening on a gamble that the insurgents will be better for us.

It's not genocide, and it's not the willy-nilly murder of innocent civilians; the firepower is being trained on those who have taken up arms. Those are no longer "innocents", regardless of the righteousness of their cause.

This is a bullshit argument promulgated by many well-meaning people, and many whose egos are so wrapped up with their public stance that they cannot see beyond their stated beliefs and are consumed with melodramatic chest-thumping when they either don't understand or are misrepresenting the situation. It also reeks of the recklessness of the self-proclaimed downtrodden, where, once wronged, they no longer need to adhere to facts or rules of comportment or anything.

Mercenaries who were fighting openly for the regime and were captured by the rebels should have been treated as prisoners of war. They weren't; they were executed. Two Policemen suspected of firing earlier on protesters were publicly hanged without trial. Well, Qaddafi's a beast, so this is all perfectly fair. It isn't to me; it's brought this down to a grubby, ugly internal dispute, not the "machine-gunning of civilians" or "shelling and bombing of civilians" I repeatedly hear here. There does not seem to be ANY instance of the latter, certainly not that I can find; ordinance is being used against rebels. If we "liked" this government, they'd be called traitors and subject to execution themselves. Qaddafi's not pussycat; I'm sure captured rebels DO get killed, at least in some instances. He's also a military man, so he knows that the armed forces against him are the real problem.

It's about national sovereignty, and we have no right to be there, regardless of the proclamation of SOME members of the UN. One third of the Security Council abstained on this Resolution, and they're not insignificant countries, they're Russia, China, India, Brazil and Germany.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Wielding Truth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 12:17 PM
Response to Reply #19
24. These rebels would not be armed had they not been attack by Qaddafi.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PurityOfEssence Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 05:46 PM
Response to Reply #24
65. But they are now. Now they're not innocent, vulnerable non-combatants
Like it or not, that's the reality. Whether we prefer them or they're justified is a different set of questions. If the appeal is to protect the undefended, innocent people who are being exterminated by a cruel leader for having the temerity to question his authority, then that's one thing, but to play favorites in an armed conflict within a sovereign nation is completely different. If that's what we're being asked to do, then that's what we should ask to do.

The wholesale misrepresentation of EVERYONE being a civilian is a distortion I don't like to see given precedent.

The rebels should also encourage civilians to get out of a war zone like Benghazi, because if they don't at least recommend evacuation of militarily contested areas, then they're at least somewhat using the civilians as human shields themselves. Just because Qaddafi's bad doesn't mean that releases his opponents from playing fair.

One has at least a bit of moral responsibility when starting a revolution of making sure that there's a reasonable chance of success and that those who wish to remain neutral are given a chance to get out of the way. The rebels have some responsibility too, otherwise they're telling the civilians that their safety means nothing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joshcryer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 07:45 PM
Response to Reply #19
73. Yemen's largest miitary force defected illegally. If there are clashes...
...which side will you support? The side of the protesters or the side of Saleh defending his government from an armed insurgency?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PurityOfEssence Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 09:24 PM
Response to Reply #73
76. I feel that we should not intervene
As elsewhere in these situations, my sympathies are almost always with the insurgents, but I don't know enough about the different groups, and wouldn't support attacking even if I did, unless there were terrible human rights abuses that were either already happening or about to.

One of the reasons I supported Kosovo was my general dislike/fear of religion and the massive bloodshed that happens in its name. That part of the world had had a very obvious history of religious/sectarian bloodshed, and was hurtling toward more of the same.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Riftaxe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-20-11 05:41 PM
Response to Reply #2
23. Truth is we hardly ever cared about genocide before
or is it we only discount it in sub Saharan Africa? I wonder what the difference in population and resources are that would all the sudden make the US give a shit about "massacre of to many innocents"?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Alamuti Lotus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 12:25 PM
Response to Reply #2
26. Then why hasn't the US/NATO intervened in the US/NATO occupation of Afghanistan?
I mean, if it's the "slaughter of innocents" that you're worried about, what about kids killed in airstrikes while they were watering fields or gathering firewood? Does that make your bleeding heart skip a beat, or is it only an issue when others do it?


(note: intentionally dense/paradoxical subject phrasing)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Wielding Truth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 12:35 PM
Response to Reply #26
29. We are mending and leaving the mistake and mess of Afghanistan.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Alamuti Lotus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 12:49 PM
Response to Reply #29
38. mending what?? "surge" means escalation, not "mending and leaving"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Wielding Truth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 01:06 PM
Response to Reply #38
41. The surge is over. Isn't it? Aren't we withdrawing now?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Alamuti Lotus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 01:16 PM
Response to Reply #41
50. ...No.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Wielding Truth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 01:28 PM
Response to Reply #50
55. Okay. It's on it's way. But Repubs are contesting. Of course.
U.S. President Barack Obama confirmed on Thursday U.S. intentions to start withdrawing troops from Afghanistan in July 2011.http://en.rian.ru/world/20100624/159565583.html


The House overwhelmingly defeated on Thursday a nonbinding resolution to withdraw all U.S. troops from Afghanistan by the end of the year. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/17/afghanistan-wi...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Alamuti Lotus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 01:32 PM
Response to Reply #55
57. Talk from American politicians is cheap, particularly when actions betray aforementioned "talk"
Edited on Mon Mar-21-11 01:33 PM by Alamuti Lotus
War crimes continue to be committed by the occupation forces on a regular basis and the original point remains unattacked -- should US/NATO forces be forcibly prevented by the "international community" from committing their criminal activities? Civilians are being killed at an alarming rate at the hands of US/NATO forces in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Should these civilians be protected, or are some powers just 'special' and exempt from the very same principles they use as a pretext to bomb others?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Wielding Truth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 03:52 PM
Response to Reply #57
60. It's crazy. I agree with you, yet I see this as a real option to this situation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pokerfan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 12:31 PM
Response to Reply #2
27. Then Bahrain must be next
Edited on Mon Mar-21-11 12:46 PM by pokerfan
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Wielding Truth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 12:43 PM
Response to Reply #27
31. If the resistance is strong enough, many are being killed and the
mission can be accomplished. There are too many factors to compare all acts of defense or accepted assistance aggression. This one is a defensive step to prevent use of heavy force against a democratic uprising. I see the justice in it as of now. I would hope that democracy in Libya is given the chance it needs to come into its own.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pokerfan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 12:48 PM
Response to Reply #31
36. Bull shit
We are not going to do a damn thing about Bahrain and you know it. The reason is their monarchy is friendly to us. This is all about empire or at least hegemony.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joshcryer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 07:43 PM
Response to Reply #27
72. Yemen is currently a better example, 60% of the military defected, illegally.
If Yemen escalates to the level Libya has I guarantee there will be calls for intervention.

But I don't see that happening as the Saleh appears to be stepping down, unlike Gaddafi.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
shanti Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 12:50 PM
Response to Reply #2
39. what are we, freaking superman or something??
:grr: no more war!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
originalpckelly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-20-11 04:12 PM
Response to Original message
3. Psst...
That "revolution" of ours was a civil war, I mean the colonists were British subjects after all.

Tories and the Patriots: two factions in the same country = civil war.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jwirr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-20-11 04:16 PM
Response to Reply #3
7. And if I am not mistaken the French gave us a bit of help. That said
I do not want our troops on the ground nor do I want us to occupy Libya.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
originalpckelly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-20-11 04:24 PM
Response to Reply #7
11. Fine for our country, but not their's?
Ah, we see how it is.

And who said that it is even being considered to do that?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tierra_y_Libertad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 01:14 PM
Response to Reply #3
47. And, the French and Brits almost "helped" again in the other civil war..the South that is.
In fact they did help. They supplied arms and ships to the Confederacy. And, the "noble", "freedom loving", rebels were begging them to intervene more forcefully.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
L. Coyote Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-20-11 04:14 PM
Response to Original message
4. Noone bothers to read the UN Charter, it seems. Usurping the UN
is no excuse to wage war. Even having a no-fly resolution does not mean the bombs must drop within the hour!! That is not in keeping with the spirit of the UN Charter either.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hosnon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-20-11 04:26 PM
Response to Reply #4
13. Yes it is. Inter- and intranational conflicts have historically sucked in the larger world. nt.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Spider Jerusalem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-20-11 04:17 PM
Response to Original message
8. Not a right, an obligation. Pursuant to Chapter VII, Articles 39-51 of the UN Charter.
Edited on Sun Mar-20-11 04:20 PM by Spider Jerusalem
CHAPTER VII: ACTION WITH RESPECT TO THREATS TO THE PEACE, BREACHES OF THE PEACE, AND ACTS OF AGGRESSION


Article 39

The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security.

Article 40

In order to prevent an aggravation of the situation, the Security Council may, before making the recommendations or deciding upon the measures provided for in Article 39, call upon the parties concerned to comply with such provisional measures as it deems necessary or desirable. Such provisional measures shall be without prejudice to the rights, claims, or position of the parties concerned. The Security Council shall duly take account of failure to comply with such provisional measures.

Article 41

The Security Council may decide what measures not involving the use of armed force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions, and it may call upon the Members of the United Nations to apply such measures. These may include complete or partial interruption of economic relations and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio, and other means of communication, and the severance of diplomatic relations.

Article 42

Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations.

Article 43

1. All Members of the United Nations, in order to contribute to the maintenance of international peace and security, undertake to make available to the Security Council, on its call and in accordance with a special agreement or agreements, armed forces, assistance, and facilities, including rights of passage, necessary for the purpose of maintaining international peace and security.
2. Such agreement or agreements shall govern the numbers and types of forces, their degree of readiness and general location, and the nature of the facilities and assistance to be provided.
3. The agreement or agreements shall be negotiated as soon as possible on the initiative of the Security Council. They shall be concluded between the Security Council and Members or between the Security Council and groups of Members and shall be subject to ratification by the signatory states in accordance with their respective constitutional processes.

Article 44

When the Security Council has decided to use force it shall, before calling upon a Member not represented on it to provide armed forces in fulfilment of the obligations assumed under Article 43, invite that Member, if the Member so desires, to participate in the decisions of the Security Council concerning the employment of contingents of that Member's armed forces.

Article 45

In order to enable the United Nations to take urgent military measures, Members shall hold immediately available national air-force contingents for combined international enforcement action. The strength and degree of readiness of these contingents and plans for their combined action shall be determined within the limits laid down in the special agreement or agreements referred to in Article 43, by the Security Council with the assistance of the Military Staff Committee.

Article 46

Plans for the application of armed force shall be made by the Security Council with the assistance of the Military Staff Committee.

Article 47

1. There shall be established a Military Staff Committee to advise and assist the Security Council on all questions relating to the Security Council's military requirements for the maintenance of international peace and security, the employment and command of forces placed at its disposal, the regulation of armaments, and possible disarmament.
2. The Military Staff Committee shall consist of the Chiefs of Staff of the permanent members of the Security Council or their representatives. Any Member of the United Nations not permanently represented on the Committee shall be invited by the Committee to be associated with it when the efficient discharge of the Committee's responsibilities requires the participation of that Member in its work.
3. The Military Staff Committee shall be responsible under the Security Council for the strategic direction of any armed forces placed at the disposal of the Security Council. Questions relating to the command of such forces shall be worked out subsequently.
4. The Military Staff Committee, with the authorization of the Security Council and after consultation with appropriate regional agencies, may establish regional sub-committees.

Article 48

1. The action required to carry out the decisions of the Security Council for the maintenance of international peace and security shall be taken by all the Members of the United Nations or by some of them, as the Security Council may determine.
2. Such decisions shall be carried out by the Members of the United Nations directly and through their action in the appropriate international agencies of which they are members.

Article 49

The Members of the United Nations shall join in affording mutual assistance in carrying out the measures decided upon by the Security Council.

Article 50

If preventive or enforcement measures against any state are taken by the Security Council, any other state, whether a Member of the United Nations or not, which finds itself confronted with special economic problems arising from the carrying out of those measures shall have the right to consult the Security Council with regard to a solution of those problems.

Article 51

Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.


And you've apparently forgotten Kosovo and Somalia.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wtmusic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-20-11 04:22 PM
Response to Reply #8
10. Thank you
This is why we have a UN.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hosnon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-20-11 04:24 PM
Response to Reply #8
12. Yep. Ironically for the OP, what we have is more than a right...
Edited on Sun Mar-20-11 04:24 PM by Hosnon
By "we", I mean the U.N.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Deep13 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 12:47 PM
Response to Reply #8
35. +1
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
randr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-20-11 04:22 PM
Response to Original message
9. As a life long pacifist, this Libyan thing has me in a spin
Edited on Sun Mar-20-11 04:24 PM by randr
I watched the uprising in Egypt in awe as a people claimed their freedoms with non violent demonstrations. I cheered as they gained victory. I even went so far as to think we had a hand in it by the fact that we helped broadcast it to the world, staying the heavy hand of the overlords by shining an eye. I was anticipating the same would occur in many countries as the people rose up and gathered to protest. When I see an injustice take place in front of me I respond automatically, if I can. I feel the same sense of obligation to help a people once they have stood up and displayed the nerve to confront their oppressors, especially when I see the cruelties inflicted to stop such protest. I sense this obligation to the people of Libya today. I am conflicted as to how I would like my country to respond to the other areas where similar repressions are a daily reality.
My only resolve is that I feel a greater sense of obligation once a people have risen, in a non violent manner, and are being killed for the attempt at freedom. Coming to their rescue, I think, should be a universal response.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
originalpckelly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-20-11 04:26 PM
Response to Reply #9
14. Exactly.
This is no war in Iraq. No one seems to have planned this in advance. It's not in our interests as a nation to have the instability of revolutions in that region. The powers at be want a smooth ride. And that's what they were getting.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bobbolink Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 01:22 PM
Response to Reply #14
54. Again, a major difference... the Iraqis did NOT ask the UN for a no fly zone.
The Libyans did... over and over for weeks.

That is a huge difference that we are overlooking.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bobbolink Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 01:20 PM
Response to Reply #9
52. Thank you for your honest and reasonable reply! We are ALL conflicted.
Some of us are in pain over this, and some are verbally attacking others.

This is an agonizing situation for those of us who have protested war since the days of Vietnam, and have watched these valiant people fight for their freedom.

Thank you. :yourock:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 01:32 PM
Response to Reply #9
56. Same feelings -- by the time things reach this point, many options are gone ....
Wish we could have simply "covered" the protesters as they went --

maybe bombing Gaddafi's planes/air fields?

Gaddafi is a monsters -- armed by the international community!

Once Gaddafi decided to use that power to attack his own people, impossible

for them to defend against.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joshcryer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 07:30 PM
Response to Reply #9
68. Almost 700 people were murdered in Egypt, if it escalated to the level Libya has...
...I highly doubt that DU would be supporting Muabrak's right to defend his country against an "armed rebellion."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
reggie the dog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-20-11 04:28 PM
Response to Original message
17. Egypt and Tunisia
are 2 countries in which the people won by protesting, the protesters in libya were massacred by ghadaffi and that is why we are there, the multi national oil companies were already there so this war is not about opening markets.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Iterate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-20-11 04:50 PM
Response to Original message
20. If indeed it was a civil war,
though I must admit Gadaffi and company seem to be doing their best to make it one.

Just a few short weeks ago, nearly every city and town had peaceful mass demonstrations for a return to democracy and many began setting up local governments. They were gunned down and the cities were shelled.

I'm trying to get a source, but just an hour or so ago a representative from Libya Human Rights Watch estimated on BBC World News that the anti-Gadaffi support throughout Libya was about 90%. When I can get a source for the quote (rather than just seeing it) I'll post it. There have been no elections or polls.

Plenty of people may be trying, for their own purposes, to convince you that it is a civil war, but that doesn't make it one. And I don't really care if people don't want to protect a democratic uprising from massacre, just don't call it a civil war when they get shot at.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Northerner Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-20-11 04:58 PM
Response to Original message
21. And what results is something the CIA termed "blowback"
Edited on Sun Mar-20-11 05:02 PM by The Northerner
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FLPanhandle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-20-11 04:59 PM
Response to Original message
22. We do. Unless you are Bolton and want to dissolve the UN
Frankly, I'm glad we have an effective UN.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stinky The Clown Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 12:21 PM
Response to Original message
25. I completely agree
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Catherina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 12:43 PM
Response to Original message
30. Nope. None of us
Edited on Mon Mar-21-11 12:46 PM by Catherina
France murdered over a million and a half people in Algeria. Italy murdered over a million Libyans and committed war crimes so atrocious that last year they finally agreed to pay 5 billion Euros in compensation. We're murdering Afghans, Iraqis, Yemenis, Pakistanis and now we've all suddenly become humanitarian?

Western countries have no right to reinvade and reoccupy North Africa under the pretense that we're helping the underdog whose first act was to go seize oil fields for the West.

The intervention isn't new. It's just coming out into the open now. Trace this thing back to all the money the NED has been spending on Libya, the orignal PNAC plan to go after Iraq, Libya, Syria and Iran, the recent PNAC letters to Obama, BP's 50 Billion Pound financial investment that was being inconvenienced by Gaddafi and shit starts adding up fast.

Libya, for its oil, has suffered enough at the hands of the West. And we, we need to be ending wars not starting new ones by getting our accomplices at the UN to bless a joint colonial venture.

Why Libya Commemorates the "Black Day" Like most of the peoples of the Third World, the people of Libya have suffered, and are still suffering, great injustices from the Western powers. The history of the Libyan people is a history of blood, tears and broken bones. The people of Libya have been terrorised and victimised for many decades by the various European powers. They are still being terrorised. With the tacit approval of the British and French governments, Italy declared war on Libya on September 12, 1911, under the excuse that the Ottoman Turks who were then ruling Libya were subject to insults and maltreatment for which they were in danger! On September 17, 1911, the Italians invaded Tripoli and Benghazi. The Italians expected that their invasion of Libya would be easily accomplished. But, to their horror, their aggression was courageously and strongly resisted by the Libyan people. For 20 terrible years Arab Libyan resistance fighters and guerrillas fought against Italian fascists with sweat and blood. The courage of the Libyan martyrs was epitomised by Sheikh Omar al Mukhtar. Italian Fascist Terrorism The Italian aggression against Libya was extremely brutal. Thousands of innocent men, women and children were killed. Their homes were burnt down, their crops destroyed, their wells filled with cement, and copies of their Koran stepped upon. Many women were raped. Thousands of other Libyans were detained in concentration camps in the hot desert. Their properties were confiscated. Thousands of others perished under the most repressive conditions. On October 26, 1911, the Italian fascist invaders shipped thousands of Libyan men, women and children to some small and remote Italian islands. It was a black day for Libya. To this very day, nobody knows about the fate of these human beings: how many have died and under what circumstances: how many still survive and where they are and how they are. Up to this very day, the Italian authorities have refused to furnish the full list of these Libyan victims to the Government and People of Libya. Italy is continuing with its crimes against humanity. Furthermore, the Italians, during their years of terrorism in Libya, had laid about 170,000 landmines all over Libya. These landmines have killed and are continuing to kill many Libyans. Italy has refused to furnish maps showing where these landmines were laid. This is the true measure and colour of human rights in the Italian 'civilization'. When Benito Mussolini, the Italian fascist dictator, was carrying on his terrorism against the Libyan people, he was highly praised by British, French and American politicians, business leaders and the press. For instance, on a visit to Mussolini in 1927, Winston Churchill told journalists that Italian fascism "has rendered a service to the whole world." In 1933 American President Franklin Roosevelt himself termed Mussolini "that admirable Italian gentleman."

...

http://mayomo.com/19130-italian-fascist-terrorism-in-li...


These are the humanitarians? Nay, these are western powers seeking to reconquer a very resource rich part of the world they've been fighting over for centuries.

Rec'd

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Deep13 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 12:45 PM
Response to Original message
32. U.N. authorization creates that right.
And with Kaddafi allowing other Arab dictators to send him reinforcements, it is not exactly a civil war.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Wielding Truth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 01:09 PM
Response to Reply #32
42. I agree.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BzaDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 12:46 PM
Response to Original message
33. Says who? You? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
meow mix Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 12:48 PM
Response to Original message
37. im glad the UN and arab league is more sane than you
fucking pathetic
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tierra_y_Libertad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 01:11 PM
Response to Original message
43. But..but..it worked ever so well in Vietnam and is working ever so well in Afghanistan.
And, they love us for our humanitarian interventions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JNelson6563 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 01:11 PM
Response to Original message
44. Amen! Fuck those unarmed civilians!
If they were smart they'd buy guns! Maybe those who survive the slaughter of Kaddafi's forces will have the wisdom to get a 2nd amendment and an NRA.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Wielding Truth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 01:18 PM
Response to Reply #44
51. Hey. You forgot the sarcasm icon.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JNelson6563 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 01:43 PM
Response to Reply #51
58. Hoped I didn't need it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dipsydoodle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 01:12 PM
Response to Original message
45. The no fly zone
Edited on Mon Mar-21-11 01:13 PM by dipsydoodle
helps creates the time necessary for it to become a civil war.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Wielding Truth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 01:16 PM
Response to Original message
49. I can see it that way too,but we are here to help too. Maybe not with a
no fly zone. Maybe more covert, yet that would take too long. I don't think, perhaps too naively, that this is for the oil.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 01:22 PM
Response to Original message
53. Libya isn't a "civil war" -- it's an uprising of the people to get rid of a dictator ....
Edited on Mon Mar-21-11 01:22 PM by defendandprotect
A dictator long propped up by US -- didn't Bush "normalize" relations with Libya --

leading to our recent sales of military equipment to Kaddafi?



Nor was VN a "civil war" -- it was an effort by the nation and it's leader -- acknowledged

by the United Nations -- to free itself from colonialism -- and French!

US financed the war by the French -- and then continued it when French dropped out!!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hannah Bell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 03:53 PM
Response to Reply #53
61. "long propped up by the US" = lol.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joshcryer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 07:40 PM
Response to Reply #61
70. It's very well known that Gaddafi was kept in power by the CIA.
Gaddafi just annointed himself the ruling power and when the king wanted to form an arm resistance to oust him the CIA put the hammer down.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hannah Bell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 08:21 PM
Response to Reply #70
74. indeed?
link?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robdogbucky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 05:05 PM
Response to Reply #53
64. "...Libya's ``cooperation on intelligence is strong and getting stronger,..''
Libya to Be Dropped From List of Sponsors of Terror (Update4)
By William McQuillen - May 15, 2006 17:56 EDT

"...``When countries make a decision to adhere to international norms of behavior, they will reap the concrete benefits,'' Welch said in Washington, referring to Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi's decision in 2003 to abandon weapons programs...

...An assistant secretary of state in arms-control affairs, Paula DeSutter, told reporters that items Libya has shown the U.S. demonstrated what Pakistani nuclear scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan was selling on the illicit international market, and gave an idea of what Iran might have been able to buy. DeSutter didn't offer details...

...The shift in U.S. policy toward Qaddafi's government allowed oil companies such as Occidental Petroleum Corp. and ChevronTexaco Corp. to begin or resume exploration in Libya. Countries on the terrorism-sponsorship list face U.S. trade restrictions and bans on arms sales and economic aid...

...Libya is attractive to oil companies given the quality of its oil, recovery costs as low as $1 per barrel and the country's proximity to European markets. The U.S. could also benefit from Libya's oil reserves, which are estimated as the ninth largest in the world, Lugar said in a statement. Shokri Ghanem, chairman of Libya's National Oil Corp., said yesterday that the country would this year invite companies including Exxon Mobil Corp. and Occidental Petroleum to compete for exploration rights. Libya, as Africa's biggest holder of untapped oil, seeks to double reserves and production capacity amid rising prices..."


http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 06:36 PM
Response to Reply #64
67. Thank you -- this was Bush administration "normalizing" relations with Libya and more -- !!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joshcryer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 07:40 PM
Response to Reply #67
71. +1
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
David__77 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 05:51 PM
Response to Original message
66. I agree.
The US does what it sees fit to further its power ambitions. One day's friends or the next's enemies are the next's friends.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joshcryer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 07:33 PM
Response to Original message
69. Would you say the same if Egypt or Yemen escalated to the same level Libya has?
That is, if Egypt or Yemen wound up having factions fighting one another. Would you be defending Mubrack's right to defend his country from a rebellion without outside interfence, likewise would you defend Saleh the same right?

I bet you wouldn't.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
unkachuck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 09:08 PM
Response to Original message
75. if we did nothing....
....and gaddafi made it to Benghazi and a bloodbath ensued, it would have been a green light to all of the ME tyrants that it was now open-season on civilians, protesters and rebels because the US is mainly concerned about oil not the democratic awakening of the ME people....

....if you believe that this isn't a staged military/corporate event and that we can somehow help push the ME and its' people down the road to a more democratic prosperous 21st century, then many of our current and future ME problems will disappear....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Oct 19th 2018, 06:43 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC