U.S. launches airstrikes on Libya

[BigSqwert]

We should help the Ivory Coast. The UN has failed there completely, as has the Obama administration.

They haven't completely failed. They have 7K troops in a country with a population over 20 million. That should do it!

[Soxbadger]

That's the problem. Neither the UN or the US seem to really care about what's going on in the Ivory Coast. I had people quoted as asking for more help in my previous posts yet where is that help they are requesting?

 

From your articles:

 

The AP reports some 11,000 UN peacekeepers are in the country and many protect Ouattara against fighters loyal to the hold-over president, Laurent Gbagbo; he won't give up power even though he lost last year's election.

 

But the UN's Ivory Coast mandate doesn't cover military air attacks to protect Ivorian civilians. The peacekeepers are to monitor the situation and disarm militias. Civilians are to be protected 'under imminent threat of physical violence, within (UN peackeepers') capabilities and areas of deployment'.

 

If that isnt being done, then the UN has some serious questions to answer. The problem is that not one article has actually shown "IMMINENT" threat that would need to be responded to with a No Fly Zone. Ive read that there maybe heavy armor, but so far it appears to have not been used.

 

Conversely, it was only AFTER Gaddafi used heavy armor that the UN voted to enforce the No Fly Zone.

 

Im not saying that what we are doing is right in Ivory Coast, or that maybe we should be doing more. But every single fact suggests that the UN is acting in a similar manner in Ivory Coast as it is in Libya. The difference is that a No Fly Zone is more spectacular in the media, than peacekeepers on the ground.

 

If I saw a single article that suggested that tanks in Ivory Coast were marching on towns, I think wed have a much different argument, but from what I can tell, the Ivory Coast and Libya are 2 different scenarios.

[BigSqwert]

The UN Operation in Ivory Coast (UNOCI) said it was "extremely concerned about the increased use of heavy weapons, including machine guns and mortars, by the Special Forces loyal to President Laurent Gbagbo's camp against the civilian population in Abidjan."

via

 

The key here is "increased use of heavy weapons" which means it has already begun and they are concerned that it will increase.

[BigSqwert]

Nigerian President Goodluck Jonathan urged the United Nations on Wednesday to take more decisive action to end a political crisis in Ivory Coast, saying instability posed a threat to the security of West Africa.

 

...

 

"I believe we can pass a resolution to request the United Nations to take a little more serious steps in the Cote d'Ivoire situation," he said at a the meeting attended by 12 of the 15 ECOWAS heads of state.

 

via

[BigSqwert]

Foreign Minister Odein Ajumogobia charged the international community with watching while hundreds of people were murdered in Ivory Coast since the disputed November 28 election.

 

"The contradictions between principle and national interest that seem to be at core of international law and politics -- have enabled the international community to impose a no-fly zone over Libya ostensibly to protect innocent civilians from slaughter, but to watch seemingly helplessly as seven innocent civilian women and hundreds of other men, women and children (were) slaughtered in equally, even if less egregious violence," he said according to a prepared copy of his speech.

 

via

[Soxbadger]

You can bring as many articles as you want, they all say the same thing:

 

1) Heavy armor and heavy weaponry are not the same thing. Heavy armor refers to tanks, etc. While mortars and machine guns are bad, they are not heavy armor.

 

2) The articles misstate the facts, look at the quote, not at the article:

 

"I believe we can pass a resolution to request the United Nations to take a little more serious steps in the Cote d'Ivoire situation," he said at a the meeting attended by 12 of the 15 ECOWAS heads of state.

 

He did not spell out what stronger action he wanted the world body to take.

 

First, the quote clearly states that they have to pass a resolution to ask for more serious steps in Ivory Coast. This has not happened. Second, this is an article from March 23, 2011, which means that as of today, they have not passed the resolution to ask for more UN intervention.

 

So until they actually come up with a resolution that specifically asks the UN for involvement, how can the UN act?

 

What the headline of the article says is not really truthful.

 

From the same article:

 

But with uprisings in the Middle East and North Africa diverting world attention, West African nations -- in particular Nigeria with a U.N. Security Council seat -- must take the lead in pushing for any firmer action, diplomats say.

 

Oh so as it turns out, the African nations have been hemming and hawing over what to do, with some of them actually supporting Gbago (Angola).

 

Seems that everyone is telling the African nations to ask the UN for more help, but the African nations are reluctant to do it.

 

So people are trying to make the UN bad guys for the Ivory Coast, but up until recently no one wanted more than what the UN was already doing.

Edited March 23, 2011 by Soxbadger

[BigSqwert]

Pleading ignorance here. The Libyan rebels were very specific with their requests? They asked for continued airstrikes and no ground troops? When were these requests made?

[Soxbadger]

Yes they actually did.

 

On March 8, the spokesman for the Benghazi Council asked for No Fly Zone: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-03-14/l...at-qaddafi.html

 

“We have asked the United Nations to impose a no-fly zone,” Abdel Hafiz Ghoga, spokesman and deputy head of the Libyan opposition’s Benghazi-based Interim Transitional National Council, said at a news conference on March 8. “We expect them to do it. They can do it to stop the carnage.”

 

On March 12, the Arab League asked for a No Fly Zone (im just pulling the first articles I find): http://www.boston.com/news/world/middleeas...one_over_libya/

 

In Saturday's statement, the Arab League asked the "United Nations to shoulder its responsibility ... to impose a no-fly zone over the movement of Libyan military planes and to create safe zones in the places vulnerable to airstrikes."

 

On March 17, (9 days after officially being asked for a No Fly Zone) the UN voted to approve a No Fly Zone.

 

So these requests were made prior to the UN involvement, and the UN basically limited involvement to that which was requested by the revolutionaries.

Edited March 23, 2011 by Soxbadger

[Cknolls]

 

 

While we're in the neighborhood maybe we can take a right at the Suez and head past the Bekaa valley....After all this would fall under humanitarian concerns, no?

 

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/ml_syria

[Texsox]

At what point is it morally justified to ignore another human's suffering?

[NorthSideSox72]

At what point is it morally justified to ignore another human's suffering?

Everyone ignores other humans' suffering. Do you spend your entire day mourning for every person suffering, somewhere?

 

[Texsox]

Everyone ignores other humans' suffering. Do you spend your entire day mourning for every person suffering, somewhere?

 

We're risking lives to arguably save lives. Some people have raised the moral issue of not helping the rebels. I'm starting to come around to the side that it is right to intervene, I'm just wondering when y'all believe it is ok to sit on your hands and watch a dictator kill his people.

[Soxbadger]

I would say that it is never okay to allow dictators to kill innocent people.

 

But the reality is that we cant intervene in every situation for a variety of reasons.

 

 

[Texsox]

I would say that it is never okay to allow dictators to kill innocent people.

 

But the reality is that we cant intervene in every situation for a variety of reasons.

 

Right there is the crucial concept. Every country has harsh penalties for treason, yet every country has different definitions of treason. We accept protests and petitions as a right, many other countries do not. Most countries do not have the death penalty, yet imagine our shock and awe if France sent in jet fighters to keep the Governor of Texas from executing someone?

 

We see them as innocent protesters, their government sees them as treasonous rebels.

[Soxbadger]

Sovereignty is a tricky issue, if Libya was not part of the UN, I think you would have a great argument that Libya has the right to treat criminals however they want. But once Libya voluntarily joined the UN and accepted the Geneva Convention, they were bound to that rule of law. In essence they voluntarily contracted away their rights to certain sovereignty issues.

 

Thus when the UN passes a binding resolution on Libya, Libya is bound by their own agreement with the UN. Once Libya refused to accept the terms of the UN, the UN was free to enforce the terms as it saw fit.

 

Here is an article about one of the new cabinet members for the revolutionaries, Ali Tarhouni http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/24/world/af...tml?_r=1&hp

 

That is one of the first articles that has come out about who will be part of the new Libyan govt. Obviously we must look at it with a little suspicion, as Im sure they wanted their first representative to seem extremely West friendly.

 

But it seems hopeful that if Libya can successfully bring down Gaddafi, that they have a chance for a freer future.

[Jenksismyhero]

Sovereignty is a tricky issue, if Libya was not part of the UN, I think you would have a great argument that Libya has the right to treat criminals however they want. But once Libya voluntarily joined the UN and accepted the Geneva Convention, they were bound to that rule of law. In essence they voluntarily contracted away their rights to certain sovereignty issues.

 

Thus when the UN passes a binding resolution on Libya, Libya is bound by their own agreement with the UN. Once Libya refused to accept the terms of the UN, the UN was free to enforce the terms as it saw fit.

 

Here is an article about one of the new cabinet members for the revolutionaries, Ali Tarhouni http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/24/world/af...tml?_r=1&hp

 

That is one of the first articles that has come out about who will be part of the new Libyan govt. Obviously we must look at it with a little suspicion, as Im sure they wanted their first representative to seem extremely West friendly.

 

But it seems hopeful that if Libya can successfully bring down Gaddafi, that they have a chance for a freer future.

 

Interesting since this is precisely what happened in the Iraq war. Resolutions were past, Saddam continued breaking them, and the UN failed to enforce anything until Bush decided enough was enough. We learned later that he had gotten rid of most of the WMD's we (and others) thought he had, but that's hindsight for you. [note: that's not an argument for/against the war, so lets not open that bag]

 

As to your question Tex, my biggest problem is that we somehow feel justified in going half way across the world to intervene in a civil war in the name of saving innocent lives, spending billions in the process, yet we fail to respond in a similar fashion to our own internal wars here at home. Why not spend some of those resources going into the ghettos in just about every metro area and finally rid society of gangs, which are probably the cause of more murders than Ghadaffi?

 

 

[Texsox]

Interesting since this is precisely what happened in the Iraq war. Resolutions were past, Saddam continued breaking them, and the UN failed to enforce anything until Bush decided enough was enough. We learned later that he had gotten rid of most of the WMD's we (and others) thought he had, but that's hindsight for you. [note: that's not an argument for/against the war, so lets not open that bag]

 

As to your question Tex, my biggest problem is that we somehow feel justified in going half way across the world to intervene in a civil war in the name of saving innocent lives, spending billions in the process, yet we fail to respond in a similar fashion to our own internal wars here at home. Why not spend some of those resources going into the ghettos in just about every metro area and finally rid society of gangs, which are probably the cause of more murders than Ghadaffi?

 

 

 

Great point.

[Soxbadger]

Well the difference in Iraq was that the UN didnt authorize the use of force (whether or not that was a good or bad thing can be debated).

 

Why not spend some of those resources going into the ghettos in just about every metro area and finally rid society of gangs, which are probably the cause of more murders than Ghadaffi?

 

Id be in favor of massively cutting the Defense budget so that we had a lot more money for social programs.

 

But if we have a massive Defense budget, we may as well use it for good. Tomahawk missiles and F-15s arent going to stop gangs, or feed the hungry. Those are entirely different issues that (imo) need to be solved in entirely different ways, many of the solutions involving policy changes, not throwing more money at the situation.

[StrangeSox]

Did jenks just ask why we don't send the military into US cities?

[Balta1701]

Interesting since this is precisely what happened in the Iraq war. Resolutions were past, Saddam continued breaking them, and the UN failed to enforce anything until Bush decided enough was enough. We learned later that he had gotten rid of most of the WMD's we (and others) thought he had, but that's hindsight for you. [note: that's not an argument for/against the war, so lets not open that bag]

Let's be 100% specific...he was declared in material breach of resolution 1554 because the U.S. was given the right to declare him in material breach for virtually anything...including not having complete enough documentation that it had destroyed its weapons.

 

Iraq was required to hand over all of its documents regarding its weapons programs and submit to full inspections.

 

In early December 2002, Iraq handed over somewhere over 10,000 documents. Based on the fact that those documents were incomplete and did not show things that U.S. intelligence believed to be true, Iraq was declared in breach of 1554.

 

However, Iraq was declared in breach of resolution 1554 based on U.S. intelligence...intelligence that was false. The way the resolution was written, the U.S. alone was given the right to determine whether Iraq was in material breach of the resolution, and no other country was given the right to challenge that determination. The U.S. made that determination before the inspectors hit the ground, based on the fact that Saddam's document declaration did not show things that U.S. intelligence *Knew* to be true about Iraq's weapons program. In other words, the U.S. declared Iraq in breach of 1554 based on false intelligence.

 

The inspectors hit the ground in early 2003 and were in fact given unfettered access to Iraq's weapons sites. They found nothing that hadn't been declared before and that the items sealed when the 1998 inspectors were moved out had not been touched and were covered with 5 years of dust. They did find some missiles that were in breach of treaty obligations, and Iraq allowed the inspectors to destroy those missiles. The inspectors reported, repeatedly, that they had a complete record of compliance from the Iraqis, they found no evidence Iraq had restarted its weapons programs, and they found no evidence of Iraqi storage of older banned weapons.

 

Iraq was declared in breach of 1554 based on U.S. intelligence statements. Iraq was judged to be deceiving the inspectors based on U.S. intelligence estimates. Those estimates could not be reviewed by any outside group or challenged by Iraq. The declaration that Iraq was in breach, and the full invasion, was motivated by intelligence that was complete B.S. Iraq did not continue defying resolution 1554, except in the sense that the U.S. was allowed to declare that they were defying it.

[Soxbadger]

Im sure the implication was that instead of spending $1bil on Libya, why not spend $1bil on the US.

 

 

[StrangeSox]

Let's be 100% specific...he was declared in material breach of resolution 1554 because the U.S. was given the right to declare him in material breach for virtually anything...including not having complete enough documentation that it had destroyed its weapons.

 

Iraq was required to hand over all of its documents regarding its weapons programs and submit to full inspections.

 

In early December 2002, Iraq handed over somewhere over 10,000 documents. Based on the fact that those documents were incomplete and did not show things that U.S. intelligence believed to be true, Iraq was declared in breach of 1554.

 

However, Iraq was declared in breach of resolution 1554 based on U.S. intelligence...intelligence that was false. The way the resolution was written, the U.S. alone was given the right to determine whether Iraq was in material breach of the resolution, and no other country was given the right to challenge that determination. The U.S. made that determination before the inspectors hit the ground, based on the fact that Saddam's document declaration did not show things that U.S. intelligence *Knew* to be true about Iraq's weapons program. In other words, the U.S. declared Iraq in breach of 1554 based on false intelligence.

 

The inspectors hit the ground in early 2003 and were in fact given unfettered access to Iraq's weapons sites. They found nothing that hadn't been declared before and that the items sealed when the 1998 inspectors were moved out had not been touched and were covered with 5 years of dust. They did find some missiles that were in breach of treaty obligations, and Iraq allowed the inspectors to destroy those missiles. The inspectors reported, repeatedly, that they had a complete record of compliance from the Iraqis, they found no evidence Iraq had restarted its weapons programs, and they found no evidence of Iraqi storage of older banned weapons.

 

Iraq was declared in breach of 1554 based on U.S. intelligence statements. Iraq was judged to be deceiving the inspectors based on U.S. intelligence estimates. Those estimates could not be reviewed by any outside group or challenged by Iraq. The declaration that Iraq was in breach, and the full invasion, was motivated by intelligence that was complete B.S. Iraq did not continue defying resolution 1554, except in the sense that the U.S. was allowed to declare that they were defying it.

 

That was an excellent bit of circular logic in 1554.

 

We also know how hard the administration pushed for this war from the beginning and how the intelligence community was forced to throw together anything they could scrape from the bottom of the barrel for Cheney's group to "re-analyze."

[Balta1701]

But some of those same tactics appear to be creeping into the efforts of the opposition here as it seeks to stamp out lingering loyalty to Kadafi. Rebel forces are detaining anyone suspected of serving or assisting the Kadafi regime, locking them up in the same prisons once used to detain and torture Kadafi's opponents.

 

For a month, gangs of young gunmen have roamed the city, rousting Libyan blacks and immigrants from sub-Saharan Africa from their homes and holding them for interrogation as suspected mercenaries or government spies.

 

Over the last several days, the opposition has begun rounding up men accused of fighting as mercenaries for Kadafi's militias as government forces pushed toward Benghazi. It has launched nightly manhunts for about 8,000 people named as government operatives in secret police files seized after internal security operatives fled in the face of the rebellion that ended Kadafi's control of eastern Libya last month.

LAT

[StrangeSox]

[Jenksismyhero]

Let's be 100% specific...he was declared in material breach of resolution 1554 because the U.S. was given the right to declare him in material breach for virtually anything...including not having complete enough documentation that it had destroyed its weapons.

 

Iraq was required to hand over all of its documents regarding its weapons programs and submit to full inspections.

 

In early December 2002, Iraq handed over somewhere over 10,000 documents. Based on the fact that those documents were incomplete and did not show things that U.S. intelligence believed to be true, Iraq was declared in breach of 1554.

 

However, Iraq was declared in breach of resolution 1554 based on U.S. intelligence...intelligence that was false. The way the resolution was written, the U.S. alone was given the right to determine whether Iraq was in material breach of the resolution, and no other country was given the right to challenge that determination. The U.S. made that determination before the inspectors hit the ground, based on the fact that Saddam's document declaration did not show things that U.S. intelligence *Knew* to be true about Iraq's weapons program. In other words, the U.S. declared Iraq in breach of 1554 based on false intelligence.

 

The inspectors hit the ground in early 2003 and were in fact given unfettered access to Iraq's weapons sites. They found nothing that hadn't been declared before and that the items sealed when the 1998 inspectors were moved out had not been touched and were covered with 5 years of dust. They did find some missiles that were in breach of treaty obligations, and Iraq allowed the inspectors to destroy those missiles. The inspectors reported, repeatedly, that they had a complete record of compliance from the Iraqis, they found no evidence Iraq had restarted its weapons programs, and they found no evidence of Iraqi storage of older banned weapons.

 

Iraq was declared in breach of 1554 based on U.S. intelligence statements. Iraq was judged to be deceiving the inspectors based on U.S. intelligence estimates. Those estimates could not be reviewed by any outside group or challenged by Iraq. The declaration that Iraq was in breach, and the full invasion, was motivated by intelligence that was complete B.S. Iraq did not continue defying resolution 1554, except in the sense that the U.S. was allowed to declare that they were defying it.

 

Since most, if not all, of what you say is completely wrong, read this:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nation...Resolution_1441

 

As to what Blix ACTUALLY said (and what they found) :

 

On December 7, 2002, Iraq filed its 12,000-page weapons declaration with the UN in order to meet requirements for this resolution. The five permanent members of the Security Council received unedited versions of the report, while an edited version was made available for other UN Member States. On December 19, Hans Blix reported before the United Nations and stated in regards to Iraq's December 7 report (unedited version): "During the period 1991-1998, Iraq submitted many declarations called full, final and complete. Regrettably, much in these declarations proved inaccurate or incomplete or was unsupported or contradicted by evidence. In such cases, no confidence can arise that proscribed programmes or items have been eliminated." By March, Blix declared that the December 7 report had not brought any new documentary evidence to light.

 

Iraq continued to fail to account for substantial chemical and biological stockpiles which UNMOVIC inspectors had confirmed as existing as late as 1998. Iraq claimed that it had disposed of its anthrax stockpiles at a specific site, but UNMOVIC found this impossible to confirm since Iraq had not allowed the destruction to be witnessed by inspectors as required by the pertinent Resolutions. Chemical testing done at the site was unable to show that any anthrax had been destroyed there.

 

Hans Blix and Mohamed ElBaradei presented several reports to the UN detailing Iraq's level of compliance with Resolution 1441.[2] [3] [4]. On January 27, 2003 Chief UN Weapons Inspector Blix addressed the UN Security Council and stated "Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance -- not even today -- of the disarmament, which was demanded of it and which it needs to carry out to win the confidence of the world and to live in peace."[5] Blix went on to state that the Iraqi regime had allegedly misplaced "1,000 tonnes" of VX nerve agent—one of the most toxic ever developed.[6]

 

Also, this nonsense about the US intelligence being the only intelligence used is bulls***. But continue your revisionist history. Most of the world thought THAT portion (WMD) of the case for war was accurate. I have no problem with you saying the pretense for war based on some Al Qaeda link was weak, but you're simply wrong here.

 

The entire point is that the UN passed these stupid resolutions as if they mean anything. They don't, unless the "adults" decide that the "kids" have gone too far.