http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5jiR8GvGATAwbXGncnlF9D0VN3Vlw?docId=N0218741298949061323A
Form the article: 'His intervention came after Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov dismissed David Cameron's call for plans to be drawn up for a no-fly zone, saying that the idea was "superfluous".'
So, preventing wanton killing is pointless, since it won't change the outcome? This has to be politics at its most cynical. In case we're keeping score, here's the US, as if war crimes are 'business as usual'.
This is a direct intervention into the domestic affairs of a sovereign country and thus constitutes a "casus belli", declaration of war.
AntwortenLöschenAs sithan proposed we should impose a no-fly zone over the US - to protect the global civilian population from reoccurring brutal crackdowns ^_^
AntwortenLöschenWe could apparently go ahead without the backing of the United Nations.
sure such action would be sanctioned by a resolution of the UN Security Council, but as the US claims it is not essentially necessary.
Is the US simply daring the world to attack it directly? Don't they see what they are doing
the US is playing a dangerous blackmail game (our way or the highway) as direct strikes or implementation of no-fly-zones over the US are out of the question...(who wants to be nuked....)
No wonder they are so scared of terrorism (they choose to be scared)
But you are right it would be a declaration of war.
Libya already considers itself at war with the world, so crossing a formal line will make no difference.
AntwortenLöschenWe should, however, take care: putting troops on the ground should be avoided, not least to avoid resentment from the new regime. The furthest that we should go is arming the insurgents. Since we already arm the region, this should make little difference to our status, but could bring the conflict to an end more swiftly.
No it doesn't ... The US is telling us that they (Libya) are at war with the world.
AntwortenLöschenLibya isn't using the tone of war. The US is.
Any news from within Libya is totally different.
If the US arms the insurgents, you can expect two mayor oil players in Libya being China and even India to support who ever supports their cause and thx to your proposed politics they would have a civil war (in Afghanistan when Russia was there the US did the same thing...and inherited an ongoing civil war in which it tried to drag the whole world)
Americans now a days only think corporate (business like) and on very short term what really happens is that other players are buying the energy away in the long term.
short term planning is the root of all evil
I'm more surprised that we don't get much info from within Libya, the borders are open, and the only major reporting i saw: BBC world doing interviews with the Libyan leader etc.asking about weapons of mass destruction which it gave up years ago...
Where are the reporters doing what they did in Egypt...etc?
http://dissidentvoice.org/2011/03/unverified-misreporting-on-libya/
AntwortenLöschenThis is unlikely. The only countries to have come out in support of Qaddaffi are of the lunatic left on the basis of inverting US 'propaganda' and Qaddaffi being a nominal leftie. Russia and China have opposed intervention on the basis that they do not care, and don't wish to set a precedent, rather than interest in the country. Your 'Realpolitik' is outdated. Civil war will be what you have if Qaddaffi's force is too strong relative to the insurgents.
AntwortenLöschenOkay, Qaddaffi hasn't declared war, but he is insane, spinning events fantastically regardless. To a rational entity, legal norms matter. To someone insane, delusion erases all norms.
I agree that declaring war (in effect) is significant, but its significance is to the rest of the world. For Libya, the important thing is to ensure that the insurgents can reasonably claim victory for themselves. This means no troops on the ground, and that the insurgents themselves do the fighting.
Interesting, but paranoid. However, it does point to a danger: that of being on the ground risks creating the dynamics for dictatorship. Hence indirect intervention (notably a no fly zone) is called for.
AntwortenLöschenAs for the analysis, yes, media outlets are individually biased, but there is also direct citizen reporting. Western entities know that the era of supporting tyrannies is over and find a real interest in peace.
What I find sad is that radical thinking have so shaped their analysis as to undermine the real interests of the downtrodden. Real-world causation is physical, not 'world-historic'.
Let me explain, lest I appear too naive. The one way to be sure of creating foes now, in the era of 'asymmetric warfare', is to act in a way clearly contrary to the populous. New democracies and reformed dictatorships throughout the region will have to respond to the popular will.
AntwortenLöschenDirect intervention would be insane, I agree, but supporting operations could actually win some forgiveness. Not to act would not only be to sanction further killing by a madman, but also be a lost opportunity for peace.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wound_healing
AntwortenLöschenis a good example of how nature does it.