No Fly zones over Libya?

If certain acts of violation of treaties are crimes, they are crimes whether the United States does them or whether Germany does them. And we are not prepared to lay down the rule of criminal conduct against others which we would not be willing to have invoked against us. We must never forget that the record on which we judge these defendants is the record on which history will judge us tomorrow. To pass these defendants a poisoned chalice is to put it to our own lips as well.
 
little grey rabbit said:
Its not my decision.

I would also like to bring to the rule of law and wipe out corruption in America and Australia, but I don't feel at the time is right to call in air strikes.


Yet.
Click to expand...

Two countries noted for their respective populations getting a choice every few years. Feel free to post Lybian electrol results from anywhere in the last 30 years
 
William Parcher said:
Well, there are some clear photos of the jet in various positions. Could the origin be identified by somebody? Are rebels and pro-Gaddafi using identical jets?
Click to expand...


I had the impression they're using the same jets, as in ... if a Qaddafi pilot decides to join the rebels he takes the jet with him.

I don't think they decided to start rebelling a few weeks ago and then went out jet shopping.
 
MG1962 said:
Two countries noted for their respective populations getting a choice every few years. Feel free to post Lybian electrol results from anywhere in the last 30 years
Click to expand...

Don't get me wrong. Libya is marginally worse than the America and Australia in terms of corruption and the rule of law. But we are talking a matter of degree - a quantitative difference, not a qualitative difference.
.
 
little grey rabbit said:
Don't get me wrong. Libya is marginally worse than the America and Australia in terms of corruption and the rule of law. But we are talking a matter of degree - a quantitative difference, not a qualitative difference.
.
Click to expand...

Where's the smilie, because this post can't possibly be serious.
 
JihadJane said:
Wrong empire (as you know, presumably).
Click to expand...

France launched their first attacks and has been the most vocal in getting to the current situation. Who else's empire matters?
 
quadraginta said:
I had the impression they're using the same jets, as in ... if a Qaddafi pilot decides to join the rebels he takes the jet with him.

I don't think they decided to start rebelling a few weeks ago and then went out jet shopping.
Click to expand...

So I see. So there is no confirmation of what happened (other than a jet shot down)?

I suppose there are no real rules in the civil war situations. But isn't there some NATO restriction against flying the colors of your enemy? Or, like wearing your enemy's uniform to trick them.
 
little grey rabbit said:
If certain acts of violation of treaties are crimes, they are crimes whether the United States does them or whether Germany does them.
Click to expand...

Relax. Under international law the current airstrikes are legal.

And we are not prepared to lay down the rule of criminal conduct against others which we would not be willing to have invoked against us. We must never forget that the record on which we judge these defendants is the record on which history will judge us tomorrow. To pass these defendants a poisoned chalice is to put it to our own lips as well.
Click to expand...

I'm failing to see a downside.
 
JihadJane said:
"Look what our government is doing to its own people," said Dr. Mohammed Surmi, gesturing to a dead young man wrapped in a red blanket at his feet. "We need help to fight for our freedom. We need help from America."

- Yemen.

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/mar/13/world/la-fg-yemen-protests-20110313
Click to expand...

Would you support airstrikes against the Yemeni government, if it had international and Arab backing?

Answer honestly.

My guess is that you wouldn't and if it did happen, you'd still be accusing the US of imperialism and accusing them of going for their oil. So your opinion really doesn't matter, as it is always the same, no matter what the circumstance.
 
Last edited:
Apologies for breaking Lenten Lurk.

President Obama has just said this to dear old Colonel Que Daffy:

"All your Air Defense are belong to us."

Ronald Reagan is smiling, up there in that great big B movie in the sky.

:)
 
William Parcher said:
So I see. So there is no confirmation of what happened (other than a jet shot down)?

I suppose there are no real rules in the civil war situations. But isn't there some NATO restriction against flying the colors of your enemy? Or, like wearing your enemy's uniform to trick them.
Click to expand...

Err NATO do not have the legal authority to declare that.

I think you are refering to the Third Geneva Convention where it's a bit messy. The rebels would probably be be considered inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces. They are not required to have a distinguishing mark as long as they carry their arms openly. In practice the odds of you being able to spot the distinguishing mark on a fighter jet are limited.
 
little grey rabbit said:
So was slavery. It didn't stop Sherman marching through Georgia though
Click to expand...

Questionable. International law didn't really exist at that point beyond some accepted conventions. So by the time of the civil war Britian was quite prepared to capture any slave ship it could catch up with.
 
geni said:
Questionable. International law didn't really exist at that point beyond some accepted conventions. So by the time of the civil war Britian was quite prepared to capture any slave ship it could catch up with.
Click to expand...

A rather pendantic interpretation of the analogy.

Suffice to say, slavery was legal in the Confederacy, yet we do look back at slaveholders as upright citizens enforcing their legal rights. History judges them badly, at it so happened nemesis came down very swiftly on them as well - notwithstanding the legality of the practice.

Nemesis doesn't always or even often descend, but when and if it does, defences of legality usually mean little.
 
Pardalis said:
As soon as their population show sign of an uprising.
Click to expand...

So you will only defend peoples "inalienable freedoms, rights and yadayadayada" when the government is on the brink of collapsing and unable to defend itself?

So much for the whole "we won't compromise freedom with stability" rhetoric. Apparently peoples "rights" are only worth something when it's convenient and just worthless ink on a paper otherwise. That's supposed to be the moral superiority of liberal-democratic nations, I've heard.
 
geni said:
France launched their first attacks and has been the most vocal in getting to the current situation. Who else's empire matters?
Click to expand...

The Empire of Oil.

~~~~~~~~

"Why is Obama in Rio when he's starting a war in Libya. He should really be at home polishing that peace prize." - Tweet via adamkokesh
 
Arcade22 said:
So you will only defend peoples "inalienable freedoms, rights and yadayadayada" when the government is on the brink of collapsing and unable to defend itself?
Click to expand...

And you want to let the oppressors stay in power forever, and never intervene?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom