Commissar, just to clarify the outer boundaries here, would you please state a hypothetical scenario where country A would be justified in intervening in a civil war in country B? And for what legitimate reasons?
“After experimenting with various forms of government, Ankh-Morpork had finally settled on the form of democracy known as, ‘One Man, One Vote.’ The Patrician was the Man. He had the Vote.”
– The Colour of Magic, Terry Pratchett
I believe that such situations would be very few and far in between.
One exception that I would make is if A and B have extremely close cultural, linguistic, political, economic, historical, etc. ties that effectively make them almost the same state, albeit with different borders and governments. This almost always requires that A and B be recent splinter states of a larger entity that encompassed both in the recent past. Under this exception, for example, Syria’s intervention in Lebanon’s civil war was perfectly acceptable.
Failing such close ties, I would only allow an intervention in cases in which there is a clear violation of an applicable treaty, the violation is committed by a signatory state, and the treaty explicitly authorizes military intervention as a remedy. For example, A and B draft a treaty saying, “We reject genocide and hereby covenant with each other to allow either party to use military force to stop genocide from occurring in the other party’s territory.” 10 years later, A begins slaughtering its ethnic Lilliputian minority. B can now legally intervene in this purely domestic affair. To the best of my knowledge, there are no such treaties in existence at this time.
Well, what about the “glorious Soviet Union” interfering in the self-determination of the German people, the Ukrainian people, the Hungarian people, the Latvian people, the Belarussian people, etc., and the “glorious People’s Republic of China” interfering in the self-determination of the Vietnamese people and the Tibetan people? Those are all peachy-keen, right, Commissar?
But we’ve already seen your concept of what is and is not a treaty. Look at all the inanities you posted about the Korean war.
Right, you’re doing enough of that yourself.
Except for the part where you’re deploring the Libyan people’s attempts to decide their country’s government for themselves, and bitterly denouncing “Christendon’s” attempts to assist them as an attack on the Libyan nation and its people.
That’s where you’re not even with your own self.
Well, as we’ve seen, “self-determination” means whatever Commissar wants it to mean. It certainly doesn’t actually mean letting the people decide for themselves what their government will be like, because voting is bad and tyranny is good. And it certainly doesn’t apply if people share culture/language/whatever, because then a nation like China can invade Tibet and it’s not a violation of their sovereignty (which Commissar really does support, really!) and it’s not a violation of their rights to self-determination (which Commissar really does support, really!), it’s “liberating” them. Naturally, self-determination also doesn’t mean letting people have their Commissar Approved trial-by-combat, since Commissar is okay with a dictator being supplied with massive amounts of mercenary force and out-of-state weaponry that he’s purchased, but is quite opposed to the rebels being given foreign military aid, as if they can’t determine their government once the battle is over.
I do have to say, though, the whole Calculus of Brutality is an interesting nail to hang your hat on, for a communist especially. The side that has a greater capitalistic outlay of lucre in order to purchase weapons and troops has the greater degree of ‘support of the people’ and more ‘self-determination’. So in a nation of a million people, a dictator with a dozen jets armed with cluster bombs is the true Voice of the People and 900,000 guys armed with sticks and foul language are just upstarts.
BBC is reporting that Italy has reversed policy and will now help bomb the bejeesus out of Ka-Daffy. The good news just keeps on comin’!
Really?
Bombardment of Misrata continues after Nato air strikes
NATO initiatives not seen decisive in Libya war
Good news indeed.
Battle continues for Libya’s Misurata
Yes, Italy may be getting tired of the refugees, especially with France starting to close the border to any.
How long will Khadafy’s ammo hold out? We can keep supplying the insurgents, but can he keep getting adequately resupplied via the black market? That looks like what it’s come down to.
“Ukraine’s far-left Progressive Socialist Party said on Tuesday it has delivered an award to the Libyan embassy in Kiev naming Muammar Gaddafi a ‘soldier of anti-NATO resistance.’”
It’s always nice to be reminded that the entire world has not gone mad, and that there are still rational people saying rational things in the face of warmongering and religious hate.
Also, this short article may be of interest to those posters that were insinuating that it is odd for a socialist to support the rightful Libyan government of the good Colonel. Think again.
Wasn’t it the Libyan ambassador to Ukraine that early on in the conflict went over to the rebels and called Daffy Nazi-Hitler-Gadaffi?
How many times do you have to be told that the Libyan rebels are Muslim?
No point wasting your breath Monty. Just take pleasure in knowing that despite the ridiculous, witless, spluttering proclamations that some have seen fit to spout in this thread, Gaddaffi and his regime will inevitably be removed and the people of Libya will be rewarded with the free nation they so amply deserve.
Skipping the “good” part - after all that confused splutter about the Libyan people’s right to self-determination, what makes the regime “rightful”? What system of morality or reason can lead to that assessment? You’ve already pointed out that YOU support him, sure - but you’ve also pointed out that it isn’t your call to make, either. :rolleyes:
I’m disappointed there have been no awards from Kim Jong-il.
Yeah, he doesn’t always give credit where it’s due, does he? That’s probably why he’s so rone-ry…
d&r*
How many times do you have to be asked how this is relevant? Is it your position that a Muslim nation undergoing a civil war cannot be attacked by a non-Muslim nation for largely religious reasons? If so, I must inform you that your argument is not a sound one.
That implies that Commissar’s argument is on speaking terms with the facts. Evidently instead it’s just an ever-so-funny game, where defending Muslim rebels from a brutal tyrant morphs into attacking a country out of religious hatred.