Bad punster. No rimshot.
That was not a pun. It was a smart ass remark.
The UN resolution does not ban troops on the ground. It only bans a foreign occupation force.
So here, ten troops does not equal an occupation force. Not because of the number of the troops, but because their role is n the actual fighting or advising the fighters, and it’s not a role in administering the country/cities where fighting is not occurring.
I have a cousin who was sent by the US government as an ‘advisor’ into Vietnam in the early 1960’s. Remember how that turned out? It did involve an ‘army or something’ before the end. That’s partly why other countries have been very careful about sending soldiers into Libya.
I understand the hesitancy but I don’t agree that the situations are in any way comparable other than that both conflicts at one point had a small group of military advisers at the beginning of the conflagration.
Sure they are, as the Good Guys say t their benefactors, “we’ll be sure they get killed.”
A very fair point, but “ten advisors” really means, well, ten advisors (as opposed to “a few thousand advisors”, which means reinforcements).
Commissar, the use of the term “Christendom” to refer to mainly secular countries is both offensive (to Christians and European countries alike) and absolutely bizarre. Your Marxist ideology is cute, and it has usually described the third world acceptably well, but it fails pretty badly in the current Middle Eastern uprisings, which have (as earlier mentioned) been largely opposed to the interests of Europe and the US. Realistically, the West had every interest in Qaddafi killing every single person in the uprising within a couple days. Like it or not, the moral sensibilities of Western leaders and the public that elects them have played an overwhelming role in forcing the current intervention.
I also remember that there were two Vietnams: the Democratic Republic of Vietnam and the State of Vietnam (renamed as the Republic of Vietnam in 1955). An actual country with a actual government requested military assistance.
On another note, just for fun I checked the Wiki’s list of Christianity by country and its list of NATO members. From that fun exercise, I get the following information:
ALBANIA-35.00% (MINORITY)
BELGIUM-48.00% (MINORITY)
Bulgaria-84.00%
Canada-77.10%
Croatia-92.60%
CZECH REPUBLIC-28.9% (MINORITY)
Denmark-82.00%
ESTONIA-27.8% (MINORITY)
France-53.50%
Germany-59.90%
Greece-98.00%
Hungary-74.40%
Iceland-89.30%
Italy-91.10%
Latvia-57.20%
Lithuania-84.90%
Luxembourg-87.00%
NETHERLANDS-43.4% (MINORITY)
Norway-85.60%
Poland-95.70%
Portugal-86.70%
Romania-97.50%
Slovakia-71.40%
Slovenia-57.80%
Spain-77.20%
TURKEY-0.09% (MINORITY)
United Kingdom-71.80%
United States-78.40%
So, there are six countries with a Christian minority in NATO. That’s approximately one fifth of the membership. And, of course, it’s laughable to call Turkey–TURKEY!–part of Christendom.
On yet another note, Marxism isn’t cute.
I’m not buying your tortured semantical argument, my friend. What is an occupation if not the presence of armed military personnel, in their military capacity, in a foreign nation, against the explicit will of the government of the foreign nation? As you admitted, numbers don’t matter. This may not be a major occupation yet, but it is an occupation nonetheless. As such, it flagrantly violates both the spirit and the word of the relevant UN resolution.
Excellent point. Western escalation tends to be a slippery slope; one day they’re “enforcing a no-fly zone,” the next they’re sending in “military advisers.” Then you wake up one day and they’re napalming the natives and carpet-bombing the countryside with horrific chemical agents.
For those that think that, against all odds, the West will actually show decent human restraint this time… Nope. Within hours of the British declaration of occupation, the French and Italians decided to join in on the fun. So, yes: it took less than 24 hours to triple the size of the occupying force. How very nice, not to mention hauntingly familiar…
That’s an interesting way of seeing it. You really don’t realize that this is largely Christian nations attacking a largely Muslim nation, once again? You would think that, were religion irrelevant, they’d go pick on Myanmar or something for a change… But, no. For some strange reason, they only ever seem to want to kill Muslims these days (or other Europeans, but that’s a different phenomenon).
Actually, Marxism describes this situation perfectly. Wild capitalist imperialism - check. Representative democracies breeding hatred and aggression - check. Murder on religious grounds - check (there’s a reason we tend to be staunch atheists, you know). Innocent third-world victims bearing the brunt of it all - check. Looks like exactly the kind of situation my philosophy tends to predict.
How many bombs are Albania and Turkey dropping on Libya? None? Then I’m obviously not referring to them when I speak about Christendom’s crusade against Libya. NATO does not equal Christendom, as there are nations that I would include in one and not the other, and vice versa. The nations actually bombing the Libyans (Italy, UK, US, France) are pretty much the main bastions of Christendom. My point stands.
Effective control of that nation’s government. Sorta lacking right now, innit? Got any reason to think that’s even the intention?
No. The attack is on a regime, a person really, who by no means exemplifies Islam. The attack is on behalf of the people of a nation who happen to be largely Muslim. :rolleyes:
Religion is irrelevant, but geography isn’t. NATO has the ability to operate an effective military campaign to assist the rebels (Libyan Arab Muslim people, since you need reminding) who are attempting to overthrow a brutal military dictator in Libya. NATO even has a responsibility to do so adjacent to its own home and its own neighborhood. A Myanmar military operation is simply infeasible, not least because there is no organized, effective domestic opposition to support militarily.
It’s *really *time to get a fucking grip, dude.
I don’t discount your version. Seriously. However, the UN Resolution, perhaps deliberately, is confusing. Here’s the relevant text from the resolution:
So, anything goes to protect civilians except a foreign occupation force. What we need to agree on first, is what does “occupation” mean?
Your version, and correct me if I misstate it, is any foreign troops on Libyan soil against the will of the Gadhafi government’s wishes. That’s honestly a pretty logical version.
Generally, you’ll find the internationally accepted defined version of “Occupation” as it relates to warfare in the Hague Regulations on Land Warfare and the Geneva Convention IV. Article 42 of the Hague Regulations states an occupation begins when a hostile (NAT0/Great Britian) army penetrates into territory under sovereignty of another state (Libya) and begins to exercise effective and exclusive control over it.
So, I think we could possibly agree that a foreign army penetrated into Libyan territory, but I don’t think those 10 British officers are exercising exclusive control over any Libyan territory. Which the Hague Regulations appear to require for a foreign army to occupy a foreign nation.
That’s why I disagree this is an occupation. Or that using ground forces in general is inherently an occupation. That’s why I’d disagree a larger amount of troops, as long as they did not exercise effective and exclusive control over the territory (ie, immediately it turned it over to Libyan control) would amount to an “occupation force.” Which the UN Resolution bans.
Having said that, if you think the Libyan rebels are themselves “foreign,” then my argument does not stand. Further, it has to be “rebel” territory once Gadhaf is no longer in control of it, so that the “rebels” are exercising control of it, and not NATO/foreign forces.
For the record, I understand where you are coming from: for example…rebels controlling Benghazi thanks to NATO ground “help” is a foreign occupation because it’s not controlled by the Libyan (Gadhafi) government; I just don’t agree with it. But only barely.
Again and again, you make (unsupported) statements using a calculus known only to you. What you would include and how you define words are not the way the basis of actual communication. Why are you even here? I mean, other than to complain about America at the drop of a hat or to categorically condemn anything at all that you see as not anti-American? You’re certainly not here to elucidate the interests of the Libyan people.
:rolleyes:
Please explain where the NATO charter defines overthrowing brutal military dictators in its own neighborhood as a responsibility.
Speaking of actual communication, my post above should read:
Please. They’e also the military arm of the combined nations of most of the developed democracies. It’s a human responsibility as well as a responsibility of those governments to their own nations.
Have you always been a hardcore isolationist, or is that simply a situational principle applicable to anything that reminds you of Bush in any way? Can you at least try to be a little more responsible than our friend Commissar?
CoolHandCox -
That is a perfectly valid and plausible interpretation of the resolution’s language, but not one that I can endorse.
From what I have heard about the process leading up to the resolution, it seems that the “no occupation” language was the price that the gung-ho West had to pay in order to secure even lukewarm Chinese and Russian acquiescence. I think we can safely assume that this limitation actually means something, and is not just a surplus clause…
That’s the problem. Under your interpretation, the clause becomes absolutely meaningless. Christendom could send in 100,000 ground troops tomorrow, and as long as they let the rebels do the “governing” of seized regions, that would be perfectly acceptable under your definition (whereupon no direct control equals no occupation).
I maintain that this is precisely the type of scenario that two of the Security Council’s permanent members wanted to avoid. It seems far more plausible to me that the “no occupation” language is meant to prohibit all foreign ground troops per se while allowing for limited exigent circumstances (for example, a military team sent into Libya to recover a downed pilot). Thus, under my interpretation, this current escalation is very much illegal.
The Libyan mission is creeping, no doubt
No worse blindman than one who refuses to see.
This was inevitable. You can’t do “regime change lite” and prevent civilian casualties. I can’t believe people actually thought this was going to stay antiseptic air campaign. We drop some bombs, the rebels win, bingo! These rebels are disorganized amateurs. I wish them well* and all, but they’re just no match for Khadaffi.
*I think I wish them well, but I really don’t even know who they are or what their goals are.
Bibliovore? You wanna take this one?