(Is anyone else finding this “Libyan military calls for cease-fire” headline on CNN bloody hilarious?)
Timing matters —the AL and Russia and China condemnations came after the French/US/etc. had made their intentions clear, but before actual action happens. That way, you can blame your opponents for taking an action to which you explicitly assented (or, in the Arab League’s case, actively encouraged.) Seriously, don’t look for moral guidance there.
The UNSC resolution explicitly said “all necessary measures”, with the caveat of disallowing “foreign occupation” —the no-fly zone was authorized through “all necessary measures”. IOW, UN members don’t need to restrict themselves to a no-fly zone anyway.
Secondly, would you care to cite a single case of a no-fly zone that has not included bombing anti-air defence? Militaries do not leave their own assets in the line of fire, and bombing anti-air defence has been a standard part of the doctrine since long before this debacle —nobody except you has had any doubt as to what a no-fly zone means at any point of this affair.
And they’ll be just as wrong as those who think the Jews are out to take over the world.
He hardly needs to “hide behind moderation” when he engages in the sort of sarcasm that is customary around here while you resort to explicit name-calling insults.
Dial it back.
[ /Moderating ]
Do not accuse other posters of trolling oputside The BBQ Pit.
[ /Moderating ]
You reach the right result, but this is technically not right. It’s not just about the no-fly zone, even though pre-resolution a no-fly zone was suggested as a possible course of action…and it’s now being reported as enforcing a no-fly zone. However, the resolution is not just about a no-fly zone. There’s basically four different, and separate, parts to the resolution. Member states are authorized to:
(1) Protect Libyan civilians by all means necessary (except no occupation).
(2) Enforce a no-fly zone (ie, restrict all unauthorized flights in Libyan airspace)
(3) Arms embargo (ie, no selling or giving Libya weapons)
(4) Freeze Assets
From that, you can see how eliminating parts (2)-(4) would still leave a full scale war in place until pacification. It also means you can shoot tanks (or anything) that is threatening civilian life, and not just planes and anti-air defenses, ect. So, it’s not about the reality of enforcing a no-fly zone, it’s more about what it takes to “protect civilians by all means necessary.” That’s extremely broad and open-ended. Gadhafi has to wave the white flag to make the full force of the UN stop.
False claim.
Every No-Fly zone that has been maintained in the last forty years has included military action against air defense weaponry and radar. You might want to make up definitions for terms, but when your definition fails to match the meanings of the words that are already in the public vocabulary, then your definition is merely idiolectic nonsense.
As, I suspect, is any actual evidence that any “carpet-bombing” has occurred. Posters are prohibited from calling other posters “liar” in this forum, so if you continue in this vein, I will have to conclude that you are trolling by attempting to lure them into such an accusation.
I now have a cite, as again, the rest of the world catches up.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/2011/03/20/2011-03-20_action_in_libya_has_gone_too_far_arab_league_and_russia_complain_as_civilian_cas.html
We’re up to 64 claimed civilian casualties, 150 wounded. Unclear as to what caused the casualties and wounds.
On CNN, Nic Robertson reporting from Tripoli, lotsa gunfire audible. A missile hit Gaddafi’s compound, not clear whom if anyone it killed.
I must say it’s encouraging, if a military action ever can be encouraging, to see a military action where the U.S. and France are on the same side, again. We should always be friends and allies. And we should always consider that any military action we can’t both agree on might not be worth doing.
It’s a fair list — but note, the resolution (full text available straight from the UN) allows “all necessary measures… to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya” — so not just “civilians”, but “civilian populated areas”. At that point, it’s a) about purpose, not method; and b) so vague as to justify anything that doesn’t cause disproportionate civilian casualties (which is legally required in war anyway). But this is pure pedantry. And you are correct — the no-flight zone is explicitly authorized in ¶6 anyway: “Decides to establish a ban on all flights in the airspace of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya in order to help protect civilians” — and again invokes “all necessary measures” to enforce the no-flight zone in ¶8.
ETA: A further mea culpa: I had not, in fact, realized the separation of items until I read the actual source text — news sources were just showing relevant quotes.
Nitpick: a wounding is a casualty. “Casualty” =/= “fatality.”
Except that a careful reader would notice that bombing anti-aircraft weaponry cannot be justified by any of the categories on your list. You attempt to address this by assuming that said bombing protects civilians… Could you expand on this? 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.
“But we’ve always done it this way!” is no more of a valid argument for your position than it would be for slavery. Reading a clear statement literally hardly qualifies as “mak[ing] up definitions.” Your position is untenable, and appealing to recent precedent hardly does it any good. Moreover, you’re grasping at straws when you attempt to distill a universal practice from a grand total of two previous situations (Yugoslavia and Iraq, neither of which were authorized by the UN, further undermining your analogy).
Does anyone know: Who are Gaddafi’s supporters on the ground at this point? I mean, beyond those on his payroll, who is sticking by him in Libya, for real? And why?
You are making it up and you are posting nonsense. I made no claim that “we’ve always done it that way” justified anything. I noted that you are basing your argument, (what there is of it), on a specific construction of language that requires a literal reading of the words without context and that your construction of that language is in direct denial of every use of that phrase. (Two occurrences are more than you have provided.)
Quote the specific statement in the UN declaration that you believe has been violated. Otherwise, we must conclude that you are not interested in serious discussion.
I know this and you know this, but this is how it was reported, so I’m using the words as given.
By the way, fun things… apparently the Libyans took reporters to a show funeral, and, uhm… well, the people there weren’t exactly sure or consistent on how the people being buried died. Go figure.
News article on the above.
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.
All necessary measures are explicitly allowed in maintaining a no-fly zone. You can’t maintain a no-fly zone with your planes being shot down*, so you need to eliminate the target’s capability to shoot down your planes. The UN resolution does not say, “Oh, by the way, be it resolved that we expect you to get your pilots killed out of sheer stupidity.”
This is not a difficult concept.
*And remember, the same airplane generally cannot and will not be flying an air superiority and ground attack mission at the same time.
ETA: CoolHandCox said it better and less sarcastically while I was typing.
I wouldn’t hold my breath if I were you, tomndebb. Regarding construction of language, you’re likely to get more of this from him.
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/