# Libya too?! **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 16, 2011, 4:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libya-too/571595 "2011-02-16T16:37:56Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 43
**Author:** ![Ibn\_Warraq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e19b73/32.png) [@Ibn\_Warraq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ibn_Warraq)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2011, 6:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libya-too/571595/841 "2011-03-21T06:42:49Z")
> [@gonzomax](#): > > Apparently he has lots of supporters. Reporters say they are being attacked by his backers for not showing the truth about him. He has been hit by a coalition of several countries, yet his soldiers are standing. I read nothing about soldiers running away. > Libya has its share of America and western haters. It has some Al Qeada too. > [http://www.euronews.net/2011/02/23/supporters-back-gaddafi-as-he-vowes-to-die-a-martyr/](http://www.euronews.net/2011/02/23/supporters-back-gaddafi-as-he-vowes-to-die-a-martyr/) Having some supporters hardly means that he’s popular. The Apartheid government of South Africa had supporters but was obviously hated by the overwhelming majority of its people as was Gorbachev’s Soviet government of that same time period. Beyond that, when a country’s “leader” is forced to rely on foreign mercenaries to stay in power, he clearly doesn’t have too many local supporters. ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2011, 8:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libya-too/571595/842 "2011-03-21T08:56:08Z")
> [@Commissar](#): > > Interesting. The West is so bloodthirsty and its actions so brutal that it took it less than a day to alienate its Arab allies in the endeavor. Go, savages. He’s candidate for the Egyptian presidency. IMHO, he wants all his bases covered. He the operation is a success, he supported it. If it’s a bloodbath, he has said early that western countries were acting beyond their mandate. ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2011, 9:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libya-too/571595/843 "2011-03-21T09:06:35Z")
> [@Declan](#): > > Well they do have a frigate sitting off the coast of libya, supposedly the first time that China has deployed to the med. Which may explain why the coalition did not kick off the offensive with electronic jamming this time around. > > Declan In fact, it’s only the second time China deploys anything outside its waters (first time was off the Somalia coast to fight pirates). I’m not sure it’s this one, but the Chinese recently began to parade around a modern heavy frigate, apparently to show that they also intend to develop a blue water navy. So, I suspect it’s only a show-off and probably also a training for the crew and testing for the ship (since there are plenty of subs, planes, missiles, etc… in the area). ---
**Author:** ![E-Sabbath](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e19adc/32.png) [@E-Sabbath](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-Sabbath)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2011, 10:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libya-too/571595/844 "2011-03-21T10:18:01Z")
> **[Ideas Are Immortal](https://bigthink.com/articles/ideas-are-immortal/)** > > By creating ideas, humans achieve immortality. Yemen is about to come apart. ---
**Author:** ![WreckingCrew](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wreckingcrew/32/4080_2.png) [@WreckingCrew](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WreckingCrew)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2011, 1:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libya-too/571595/845 "2011-03-21T13:50:46Z")
> [@Commissar](#): > > Are you claiming that Gaddafi’s forces are about to use anti-aircraft weapons to fire upon their own civilians? If not, then the category doesn’t fit, and my argument that said bombing violates the clear language of the resolutions stands. Tiny nitpick; there are reports of mounted anti-aircraft weapons being used by Gaddafi’s forces in their assaults. Which is very common in any military. You have them there to protect your forward forces from air assault, but they often get used to support actions by ground troops. ---
**Author:** ![Alessan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alessan/32/465_2.png) [@Alessan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alessan)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2011, 2:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libya-too/571595/846 "2011-03-21T14:06:40Z")
> [@E-Sabbath](#): > > [Ideas Are Immortal - Big Think](http://bigthink.com/ideas/31670) > Yemen is about to come apart. Things are getting interesting in [Syria](http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/21/world/middleeast/21syria.html?hp), too. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2011, 2:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libya-too/571595/847 "2011-03-21T14:53:37Z")
> [@Commissar](#): > > Amid reports of massive civilian casualties caused by indiscriminate Western bombardment, the Arab League has come out in condemnation of the airstrikes. > > ‘“What is happening in Libya differs from the aim of imposing a no-fly zone, and what we want is the protection of civilians and not the bombardment of more civilians,” said Arab League Secretary General Amr Moussa.’ > > [Libya air strikes: Gaddafi vows 'long war' - BBC News](http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12798568) > > Interesting. The West is so bloodthirsty and its actions so brutal that it took it less than a day to alienate its Arab allies in the endeavor. Go, savages. That “report” was clearly in error: [Arab League’s Amr Moussa defends its support for UN no-fly zone resolution](http://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsContent/2/8/8259/World/Region/Arab-Leagues-Amr-Moussa-defends-its-support-for-UN.aspx) > [@](#): > > “We respect the U.N. resolution and there is no conflict with it, especially as it indicated there would be no invasion but that it would protect civilians from what they are subject to in Benghazi,” said Moussa. > > This came in response to a question about statements issued by Moussa showing concern about airstrikes that may target civilians in Libya. > > Moussa’s reply came in a joint press conference between Secretary General of the Arab League and UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon on Monday. > > Moussa added that the Arabl League’s position was stern and clear, that it would not accept any massacres or unnecessary bloodshed, which is the reason why the Arab League banned Libyan delegations and suspended Libya’s membership. > > Moussa mentioned that the Arab League called for the imposition of a no-fly zone in order to prevent attacks on civilians. You have claimed that there has been “carpet bombing” and that there has been a lot of “civilian” blood shed by the UN forces. Where is your citation that this is anything more than either Qadhafi propaganda or your own imagination? ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2011, 3:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libya-too/571595/848 "2011-03-21T15:18:05Z")
> [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](#): > > And they’ll be just as wrong as those who think the Jews are out to take over the world. Who thinks that? ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2011, 3:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libya-too/571595/849 "2011-03-21T15:21:24Z")
> [@Ibn\_Warraq](#): > > Having some supporters hardly means that he’s popular. The Apartheid government of South Africa had supporters but was obviously hated by the overwhelming majority of its people as was Gorbachev’s Soviet government of that same time period. > > Beyond that, when a country’s “leader” is forced to rely on foreign mercenaries to stay in power, he clearly doesn’t have too many local supporters. His soldiers are still standing. How many is too many? He has successfully taken back almost all the land the rebels took. He apparently has enough loyal soldiers to take back the country. ---
**Author:** ![humanafterall](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/humanafterall/32/19654_2.png) [@humanafterall](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/humanafterall)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2011, 4:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libya-too/571595/850 "2011-03-21T16:21:00Z")
AFAIK, The whole US Economy is based on bloodshed. Why should that change? It’ll fix everything if Congress just declares war. We had such huge war spoils from WW2, that we had a budget surplus. We may be able to fix the deficit with the spoils from a war with Qaddafi. ---
**Author:** ![Peremensoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ce7236/32.png) [@Peremensoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peremensoe)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2011, 5:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libya-too/571595/851 "2011-03-21T17:26:44Z")
> [@humanafterall](#): > > We had such huge war spoils from WW2, that we had a budget surplus. I imagine the surpluses of 1947-1949 can be attributed to the fact that revenues shot up enormously during the war along with spending, and didn’t drop off as quickly when the fighting was over. What “war spoils” exactly are you thinking of? ---
**Author:** ![El\_Kabong](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/el_kabong/32/496_2.png) [@El\_Kabong](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/El_Kabong)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2011, 5:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libya-too/571595/852 "2011-03-21T17:36:52Z")
> [@humanafterall](#): > > AFAIK, The whole US Economy is based on bloodshed. Why should that change? Well, now that you mention it, I guess quite a lot of the economy is indeed tied up in the slaughtering of animals for meat. Surely not the _whole_ economy, though. > [@](#): > > It’ll fix everything if Congress just declares war. We had such huge war spoils from WW2, that we had a budget surplus. We may be able to fix the deficit with the spoils from a war with Qaddafi. The US has mostly shown a degree of reluctance to get involved in Libya, and the relevant UN resolution specifically excludes the possibility of an invasion by ground troops, so I have to confess I have no clue what you are going on about. ---
**Author:** ![Dick\_Dastardly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c4cdca/32.png) [@Dick\_Dastardly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dick_Dastardly)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2011, 5:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libya-too/571595/853 "2011-03-21T17:54:40Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > You were off topic. I did not jump on you for a single off-topic post, (which I recognize does happen a lot), but because you insisted on keeping your topic bubbling to the surface for no better reason than that you wanted a fight with Finn. > > This discussion is closed. Take it to ATMB. > > [/Moderating] You’re just making stuff up here. I didn’t want a fight wirth anybody, I wanted an explanation of a double standard directly related to the subject of this thread, and I’d given up trying to get an explanation when you butted in. I have no idea what ATMB is. ---
**Author:** ![Sailboat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sailboat/32/461_2.png) [@Sailboat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sailboat)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2011, 6:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libya-too/571595/854 "2011-03-21T18:18:41Z")
> [@humanafterall](#): > > We had such huge war spoils from WW2, that we had a budget surplus. Can you describe what you’re talking about? The Marshall Plan was the opposite of what you’re talking about, a massive outflow of American money to rebuild much of Europe. The Americans took home some technology and some scientists (as did the Soviets) but it’s not like Werner von Braun produced an agricultural surplus. ---
**Author:** ![CoolHandCox](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/coolhandcox/32/16233_2.png) [@CoolHandCox](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CoolHandCox)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2011, 6:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libya-too/571595/855 "2011-03-21T18:41:46Z")
> [@El\_Kabong](#): > > The US has mostly shown a degree of reluctance to get involved in Libya, and the relevant UN resolution **specifically excludes the possibility of an invasion by ground troops** , so I have to confess I have no clue what you are going on about. (bolding mine) Does it exclude ground troops, though. Specifically, it allows taking all necessary measures to protect civilians “while excluding a foreign\* occupation\* force of any form on any part of Libyan territory.” (I italicized that). To me, that allows ground forces, just as long as they don’t occupy any territory after the civilians have been protected. Or, immediately turning over control of the territory to the Libyans. Obama of course has stated US troops wouldn’t be used, though. ---
**Author:** ![Commissar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/c68b51/32.png) [@Commissar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Commissar)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2011, 7:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libya-too/571595/856 "2011-03-21T19:26:25Z")
> [@CoolHandCox](#): > > Here, I’ll just agree with **straight man** , bombing air-defenses to enforce a no-fly zone is acceptable. The take all necessary measures to enforce a no-fly zone is justification in the resolution. If this wasn’t a hot war, then I’d agree with you. > > My list is just a dumbed-down version of the resolution. The resolution uses language used in all resolutions authorizing force: “take all necessary measures.” That means, and has always meant, whatever it takes to successfully, and safely, carry out the resolution. That implies protecting yourself. If they wanted to limited it to your view, they very well could have. Just like they limited the protecting civilians part by taking all necessary measures, _except_ no occupation is allowed in carrying that out. But they did not. > > And my only point with the list was to show the resolution is not just about a no-fly zone. It authorizes much more. So when tanks are targeted and blown up (clearly not related to no-fly zone), it’s authorized through the “protecting civilians” part, not the no-fly zone part. That’s an exceedingly broad reading of the resolution. By this logic, anything and anyone remotely related to the conflict and not explicitly protected by the resolution is fair game. Thus, the aggressors can target the air defenses, the people manning the air defenses, the ones giving commands to the air defenses, etc. Unfortunately, your argument is undermined by the fact that the aggressors have themselves admitted that the resolution does not authorize a direct attack on Gaddafi: [Gaddafi 'not targeted' by strikes - BBC News](http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12802939) 'On Sunday UK Defence Secretary Liam Fox said targeting Col Gaddafi could “potentially be a possibility”. However, on Monday Britain’s Chief of Defence Staff, Gen Sir David Richards, said targeting Col Gaddafi was “not allowed under the UN resolution”. And Prime Minister David Cameron told MPs that while he still wanted Col Gaddafi to go, the UN resolution was “limited in scope” and “explicitly does not provide legal authority for action to bring about Gaddafi’s removal from power by military means”.’ Your position logically leads to the conclusion that the commanders are acceptable targets. There is no higher up commander than Gaddafi. Western leaders admit that they have no legal grounds to target Gaddafi. This indicates to me that your broad reading of the resolution is off the mark. ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2011, 7:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libya-too/571595/857 "2011-03-21T19:31:57Z")
> [@Alessan](#): > > Things are getting interesting in [Syria](http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/21/world/middleeast/21syria.html?hp), too. I noticed it. But unfortunately, I don’t believe a real rebellion will take place there, let alone succeed. However, I’ve been proven wrong again and over again about these revolutions. ---
**Author:** ![straight\_man](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/straight_man/32/3027_2.png) [@straight\_man](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/straight_man)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2011, 7:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libya-too/571595/858 "2011-03-21T19:57:08Z")
> [@Commissar](#): > > However, on Monday Britain’s Chief of Defence Staff, Gen Sir David Richards, said targeting Col Gaddafi was “not allowed under the UN resolution”. > > And Prime Minister David Cameron told MPs that while he still wanted Col Gaddafi to go, the UN resolution was “limited in scope” and “explicitly does not provide legal authority for action to bring about Gaddafi’s removal from power by military means”.’ > > Your position logically leads to the conclusion that the commanders are acceptable targets. There is no higher up commander than Gaddafi. Western leaders admit that they have no legal grounds to target Gaddafi. This indicates to me that your broad reading of the resolution is off the mark. You are misreading Cameron’s point —that the _purpose_ of the military involvement is “limited in scope”. As for Sir David Richards, a) he’s not a legal authority, b) trying to kill the head of the regime starts to look bad in regard to purpose, so there’s a fuzzy line there, c) it’s clearly an issue over which people can disagree, since Britain’s defence minister has said the exact opposite, and d) this has nothing to do with having your own personnel operate in safety. ---
**Author:** ![CoolHandCox](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/coolhandcox/32/16233_2.png) [@CoolHandCox](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CoolHandCox)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2011, 8:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libya-too/571595/859 "2011-03-21T20:00:13Z")
> [@Commissar](#): > > That’s an exceedingly broad reading of the resolution. By this logic, anything and anyone remotely related to the conflict and not explicitly protected by the resolution is fair game. Thus, the aggressors can target the air defenses, the people manning the air defenses, the ones giving commands to the air defenses, etc. > > Unfortunately, your argument is undermined by the fact that the aggressors have themselves admitted that the resolution does not authorize a direct attack on Gaddafi: [Gaddafi 'not targeted' by strikes - BBC News](http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12802939) > > 'On Sunday UK Defence Secretary Liam Fox said targeting Col Gaddafi could “potentially be a possibility”. > > However, on Monday Britain’s Chief of Defence Staff, Gen Sir David Richards, said targeting Col Gaddafi was “not allowed under the UN resolution”. > > And Prime Minister David Cameron told MPs that while he still wanted Col Gaddafi to go, the UN resolution was “limited in scope” and “explicitly does not provide legal authority for action to bring about Gaddafi’s removal from power by military means”.’ > > Your position logically leads to the conclusion that the commanders are acceptable targets. There is no higher up commander than Gaddafi. Western leaders admit that they have no legal grounds to target Gaddafi. This indicates to me that your broad reading of the resolution is off the mark. I don’t think I’m reading it broadly, I think it’s broadly written. Below is paragraph 4 of the resolution. It’s an authorization paragraph, meaning it’s one of the paragraph’s that authorizes the use of military force by member states and in what capacity: > [@](#): > > “**Protection of civilians > \*\* > “4. Authorizes Member States that have notified the Secretary-General, acting nationally or through regional organizations or arrangements, and acting in cooperation with the Secretary-General, to**take all necessary measures\*\*, notwithstanding paragraph 9 of resolution 1970 (2011) [an arms embargo],**to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack in the Libya**n Arab Jamahiriya, including Benghazi, while excluding a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory, and requests the Member States concerned to inform the Secretary-General immediately of the measures they take pursuant to the authorization conferred by this paragraph which shall be immediately reported to the Security Council; Basically, take all necessary measures to protect civilians under threat of attack, but you can’t use a foreign occupation force to accomplish that goal. This is the meat of the resolution. It’s broadly written. Civilians don’t even have to be under attack, just “threat” of attack, for military force to be used. So yes, if Gadhafi was attacking, or threatening to attack civilians, he would be a legitimate target under the resolution to protect civilians. And no, if Gadhafi was not attacking or threatening to attack civilians, he would not be a legitimate target under the resolution. I’m not sure what’s going on, but the resolution, while broad, is fluid. Gadhafi could be a target one day, and not the next. It’s written to put the UN as defenders, unless Gadhafi forces their hand. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2011, 10:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libya-too/571595/860 "2011-03-21T22:32:34Z")
If airstrikes aren’t enough to destroy Gaddafi’s power on the ground but are (as appears to be the case) enough to keep him from taking Benghazi, then we can expect a Korean-War-like situation with a fluctuating front, east to west, for some time – weeks or months or even years. But, unlike Korea, only one side can expect any material outside help. That also distinguishes this war from the Spanish Civil War, to which I recently heard an Arab prof on CNN compare it. Hitler and Mussolini supported Franco, Stalin supported the Republic, but nobody is going to support Gaddafi. (Hugo Chavez might put in a word for him, but he won’t be sending troops or arms or even money. Couldn’t if he wanted to.) For that reason, a Korean-like resolution where an armistice leaves Gaddafi indefinitely in uncontested control of the west is unlikely. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libya-too/571595.md?page=42) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libya-too/571595.md?page=44)