Libya No-Fly Petition to UN (23)

The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power.

That seems a fair enough position to take on grounds of pragmatism and thank you for responding.

I guess my own position is that we define who we are as much by how we express our values and views as by whether imperfect institutions are likely to respond.

I am not sure our own government is very much more amenable to our views though (although in the case of the no-fly zone they appear to be for it but are blocked by other countries with their own agendas).

I suspect there is some kind of inverse-square law that applies to influence, i.e.

The amount of influence we can exert over the government is inversely proportional to the square of the time until the next General Election!

In other words, the closer an election gets the more the government is inclined to have an interest in what the electorate wants.

Edited 11 Mar 11, 2:27 PM by e_male

The best action I've seen anybody take was the French, who have recognised the rebel government as legitimate. They did the same thing with the USA during their revolution. This might well lead to direct support and is entirely the right thing to do.

I think the reality of the situation however is that we're going to see carnage no matter who wins at this point. If the rebels win I can't see them swapping shirts with the loyalists and saying, "Good game," or vice versa. Whichever side wins is going to slaughter the other.

The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power.

I think we are agreed, then, that the UN is the key here. The US position as most recently stated by Hillary Clinton (although the US does appear to be in some turmoil over precisely what its position is....nothing new for the Obama administration there, then) is that they will support UN-led action but will not act unilaterally...thus the focus on achieving a UN Resolution.

It seems that what you and I have expressed a different view on is whether we achieve anything by voicing our views to the UN. Perhaps we have arrived at different conclusions because(and I apologise if I haven't understood your position precisely on this) your criteria appear to be based on likelihood of success whereas I am suggesting that to stay silent because we think no one will listen, diminishes who we are as well as denying an opportunity to show our support (however disempowered some might thnk we are) to those fighting for their lives right now.

With regard to what will happen in Libya in the aftermath, if Gaddafi prevails I think most reasoable people would not be surprised if there was a programme of state-organised bloody and merciless reprisals.

If the uprising does succeed, I wouldn't for one moment suggest that 41 years of systematic repression, torture and murder of innocent people will not leave relatives of the dead looking to exact personal revenge on the individuals they know to have been involved or responsible.

However, I believe you will see a new State emerge rapidly in which there will be a strong spirit of reconciliation. This is already evidenced in the East of the country where the free Libyans have been in control for several weeks and have displayed a great deal of dignity and maturity in the way they are governing themselves.

The only thing the UN is key to, is a policy of not doing anything. Everyone knows that China/Russia veto military intervention into internal affairs, so anyone else saying that they'll send the boys round 'just as soon as the UN approves' is a lying cock end.

And all men kill the thing they love, By all let this be heard, Some do it with a bitter look, Some with a flattering word, The coward does it with a kiss, The brave man with a sword!

• The rationale for the no-fly zone appears to be the desire to ensure that the civil war is a "fair fight", after some of the rebels complained on camera that Gaddafi had planes but they didn't (remember how little traction the idea had last week?). I have a fundamental moral objection to this, which is simply that a civil war in which the two sides are evenly matched lasts much longer, and ultimately has a much higher body count, than one in which they are not.
• In addition, there is simply the contempt for all the people who thought that military adventures with the aim of "regime change" were A Bad Thing and who have now discovered that they're not such a bad idea after all. One wonders how many of them will still think that as the zone enters its tenth year, as the one in Iraq did. Though at least if it lasts that long, we might actually have some carriers and aircraft to contribute to it
• Col Gaddafi is, not to put too fine a point on it, winning the civil war. If he goes on to win, then he's likely to gain much more influence in the OAU, and as we know, he is a man who holds grudges. For the EU to go out of its way to annoy him now seems pointless.

I wouldn't be so sure. Russia lost a $4bn arms deal when Libya was embargoed, and where there is oil under the ground all the major powers prefer stable, pliable nations above it. It looks like all the bridges to Gaddafi's Libya are burned now, so he's got to go. Russia and China won't get their hands dirty but I can't see either of them stalling the process.

The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power.

1. It's not about a fair fight. The Libyan planes have been, and are, bombing civilians. Mostly civilians who hate Gaddafi, but civilians nonetheless. And they have been for weeks. Fair fight on the ground or not it would certainly be sweet natural justice for the Libyan air force to be ripped out of the sky and stamped on for the murderous fuckers they are.

2. The Libyans can change the regime fine on their own. I don't think they want NATO soldiers on the ground in their country. There is vaguely successful precedent for intervention from the air, as happened in Serbia. A no fly zone need not involve troops on the ground at all, or even bombing.

3. Gaddafi isn't winning, he's already lost. The reports of victories by his forces are coming from the rebel towns which have been under attack from the entire Libyan military, air and tanks, the works. It's taken weeks and they aren't getting very far. Huge swathes of the country turned, indeed most of the country has. No way Gaddafi is in shape to win this war. It's taken this long to gain even small victories, there's a whole country to secure, and those mercenaries charge by the hour. A Gaddafi win would take years, the rebels could win it comparatively easily.

4. Regarding grudges. Gaddafi is to the Lockerbie bombing what Osama Bin Laden was to 9/11. He authorised it, planned it, made it happen. The mug we let out of prison took the rap for it but nobody has ever seriously denied that it was done under Gaddafi's orders. Plus he now has thousands of civilian deaths under his belt. This is as good a chance as any to put the fucker down.

One of the lessons we should have learned from the last twenty years of history or so dealing with Iraq is that when circumstances give you a shot at one of these clownish psychopath dictators, you take it. If the UN had put Saddam out of business in 1991, when the country was in the midst of revolt against him, job done, and the war of 2003 never happens. Gaddafi has provided casus belli, and while we should as a nation always go through the proper channels with this kind of thing, I think it would be an awful wasted opportunity not to kill him now.

The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power.

Edited 11 Mar 11, 5:30 PM by Doghouse_Reilly

replace rationale with excuse and you may be on to something. If anyone joins in its to ensure Gadaffi loses.

I take your other point. I wasn't against the bush wars because of their duration- had we invaded Iraq when he started gassing the Kurds, no problem, when he invaded Kuwait, no problem. Waiting a decade, and then making stuff up, ignoring the appointed inspectors, ignoring the electorate, ignoring the intelligence, and twisting the arm of your lawyer, because you've got bored with policing it (and you want to suck Bush cock) is seriously shit. Oh and then executing everyone before there is a chance for the wests' complicity in the original crimes to be exposed- genius. Our reason for Afghanistan was never regime change - we never cared about that - it was to get Osama (fail) and dismantle the alleged base of al-quaeda operations (fail). Any democratisation and feeling sorry for the badly done to women folk was pure spin.

I see the problem in Libya right now as being a result of what were protesters, now being armed. Previously there were only modest scale attacks on civilians and significant defections. Now they've picked up guns - which is quite natural - I am sure the remaining libyan army feels more comfortable shooting at the 'treasonous rebel army' en mass.

And all men kill the thing they love, By all let this be heard, Some do it with a bitter look, Some with a flattering word, The coward does it with a kiss, The brave man with a sword!

Doghouse...you put it how I would not have, but I think you are spot-on! *smiles*

Ian_2007....this is a spontaneous uprising by a vast proportion of the Libyan people. It is no coincidence that the areas where we have not seen mass uprisings happen to be the ones where Gaddafi's tanks are parked! What IS pretty astounding, however, is that even in some of those areas in the west of Libya, there have been uprisings nevertheless.

I think when you have civilians with machine guns prepared to take on tanks, jetfighters and heavily armed regular soldiers it must give you some indication of just how desperate these people are.

In the areas Gaddafi has retaken (albeit mostly only temporarily) large numbers of people have been rounded up and removed...their fate is currently unknown but their loved ones hope they are being kept as human shields rather than finding their way into mass graves.

So, the question of a 'fair fight' (as you put it) being a bad idea is one that I hope you will reflect upon. Indeed, as unfair a fight as possible in favour of the population of Libya and against Gaddafi, would be highly preferable.

With regard to yor comment that Gaddafi is winning, I am in complete agreement with Doghouse again. His heavily armed militia, backed by air strikes and surface to surface missiles is struggling to advance against a bunch of people with anti-aircraft guns strapped to the back of pick-ups. Further, as has been demonstrated over and over throughout the past 2 weeks, once Gaddafi starts to move his forces away from any area, the people retake it. This is the mark of an army of occupation, not one of liberation!

One last point on the battles; The regular Libyan army that supports the rebels is dug in firmly to defend Benghazi. Gaddafi has not come up against them yet and will find them somewhat more of a challenge than the civilians he is fighting right now. The free Libyan army knows that it has more chance while defending than attacking and holds a strategically sound position where it protects all the major population centres of Eastern Libya as well as the oil fields Gaddafi depends upon.