- At 00:58am on 23rd Mar 2011, GH1618 wrote: sayasay (37), that's a cheap shot, I think. Military operations are inherently risky, and military fliers do put themselves in harm's way, but it is reasonable to reduce that risk. US Defense Secretary Gates stated the need to remove air defense weapons as part of implementing a no-fly zone at the outset: Gates: no-fly zone would require airstrike
- 51. At 01:00am on 23rd Mar 2011, Ichijo wrote: The failure of the UN and especially the United States to reinforce the woefully undermanned Rwanda Peacekeeping Mission resulted in a genocide. This tragedy was preventable. Out of these failures emerged operational strategies like "peace enforcement" as well as "R2P" the responsibility to protect.
Despite these movements the critical questions of intervention have not been answered. These are: why, who, where, how, and when. A final question on "exit" also needs to be asked. Has all these questions been sorted out?
Intervention is sanctioned in Libya on the need to protect civilians? But who is a civilian and who is a rebel? This author can think of more than a handful of states where regimes are killing civilians. The double standards applied for intervention would make a contortionist cringe.
The literature on peacekeeping as well as peace-enforcement is voluminous but is easily distilled into a simple means/ends analysis. Concrete ends and sufficient means coupled with a clear mandate equals unqualified success. The Libyan intervention may succeed but from this vantage point it looks like a forward fumble or perhaps even Suez 1956 Redux?
- 52. At 01:07am on 23rd Mar 2011, allegedely wrote: maybe just maybe.
I have been following the sad events in Libya for the last weeks and every day I have more and more question marks, mind boggling really!?
but isn't all the wars that the US, Britain, Nato have been involved into came with some shocking revelations afterwards?
It is only fair to say that a regime that kills and shoot it's own people should be stopped by the international community for the sole humanitarian purposes, but the way this version of international intervention is lead rises many question marks.
The coalition air strike aimed at destroying the Libyans military hardware with the alibi of saving the Libyan civilians from the Gadaffi's regime attacks don't really add up.
What if Gaddafi's army have been attacking armed rebels who are maybe and just maybe terrorist? this is what I think the coalition are mostly worried about, if the rebels turn out to be al qaeda then the EU, middle east, and north africa will be in a serious trouble. so it's better to destroy the military hardwired and air defence just incase the rebels turn to be al qaeda, in another words the reason the international community reacted little too late is that they lost confidence in Gadaffi's regime to neutralise the armed rebels in which no one knows who they are in the international community.
Similar events happened in Tunisia, Egypt, Bahrain, Saudi, Morocco and Yemen where peaceful unarmed civilians were shot at in front of world press, why did the international community didn't take the same steps like they have done with the case of Libya?
So is there a hidden agenda with the international intervention this time? what are they afraid of?, maybe just maybe they have another agenda.
- 53. At 01:20am on 23rd Mar 2011, GH1618 wrote: CuriousAmerican (48), if you were really curious, you would read the UN resolutions 1970 and 1973, available on the UN web site, which state the objectives clearly. Of course there are often unstated objectives as well. Getting rid of a troublemaker seems a rather obvious one, though.
- 54. At 01:22am on 23rd Mar 2011, sayasay wrote: 45, publiusdetroit
I see you have no experience in negotiating with an Indonesian like myself. Here: please see my responses.
"define total war". If UN wanted it, it would have said so. If USA, UK and France wanted it, they would have done so. Till then we stick to the UN version of NFZ. In fact, I concede to let your own imagination ‘run wild’ to figure out what is total war… that is just how it is, almost unlimited in execution. If you need help: read more books to aid yourself.
"what the rules of engagement are during a live-firing exercise?" There are just too many. My listing them out will make this post sound like a military manual and much, much longer than Mark's original blog article. I see no value in imposing on Mark. But if you are insistent, I humbly suggest you research it yourself.
"What limitations do you think are imposed by the phrase in Paragraph 8 " I am not an international law legist. I refuse to pretend to be such. If you are very curious, talk to USA State Department, UK's FCO or France's Foreign Ministry. For more contrary view, talk to the BRIC countries plus Germany. If they don’t want to talk to you, don’t blame me, please. It is they who need the good public relations not me
pub; personal research, diligent research and more research makes a wiser man. Than just trying to inquisition somebody else's knowledge.
As I had mentioned previously in this blog, my father and uncles were soldiers and, now, so are my cousins. But not me. Does it matter? They really did teach me a lot.
- 55. At 01:28am on 23rd Mar 2011, peterbo wrote: This author offers a set of key words: doctrine; humanitarian interventionism; international law; Samantha Power
An interesting hypothesis:
- 56. At 01:37am on 23rd Mar 2011, CuriousAmerican wrote: 53. At 01:20am on 23rd Mar 2011, GH1618 wrote:
CuriousAmerican (48), if you were really curious, you would read the UN resolutions 1970 and 1973, available on the UN web site, which state the objectives clearly. Of course there are often unstated objectives as well. Getting rid of a troublemaker seems a rather obvious one, though.
--------------------------------------------------
UN?.....come on be serious.......
The UN is a US/British/French construct to give diplomatic cover for our political will to be done....but mostly the USA...where are the Head Quarters of the UN again?....
Lets stick with the reality of the world shall we.....I know its ugly, hard and very messy...but the consequences for pretending.....leads only to defeat, death and destruction on a large scale
"don't piss on my head...and tell me its raining" is a rough way of saying....
Give me the ugly truth...its the ONLY way to make the best decisions and make the best corrective action. Pretending stupid things are really smart because "your" guy is making them is dangerous, destructive and closes your mind to really "SEE" what is going on.....and sadly typical....
But then again...this approach opens people up to have their world view challenged...and 99% of the world can't handle that...
"TRUTH?.....TRUTH?!!!....You can't handle the truth!"-Jack Nicholson in a Few Good Men.....I couldn't say it better....
- 57. At 02:00am on 23rd Mar 2011, PaulC wrote: Life would be easier and lives would be saved if politicians said what they meant. Unless we are led by idiots, our leaders knew that the UN resolution was a declaration of war on Gaddafi, since the eternal stalemate that the resolution would lead to (civilians must be protected, so neither side can attack a city without defying the UN) would not be an acceptable outcome.
The aim, therefore, has always been to oust Gaddafi and install someone in his place (perhaps the former Interior Minister, who is now officially Mr Nice Guy since he joined the rebels - lets forget what his ministry was responsible for!).
But maybe our leaders ARE idiots who didn't realise what they were getting into, since we know nothing about the aims, intentions and cohesion of the faction we are fighting for. We do not even seem to know what proportion of Libyans are pro-Gaddafi and what proportion hate him, though one expert on Al Jazeera suggested a 50-50 split, which would set the scene for a long civil war.
I think the media failed us by neglecting to explain in advance of the UN vote the inevitable consequences of this mission. Our leaders failed us by adopting a resolution that sends us half-heartedly to fight a war that is not our business (unless Sudan, Ivory Coast, Syria, Burma, Yemen etc are also our business) and to do it with one arm tied behind our backs (no boots on the ground) and without a clear, achievable and sensible objective. Gaddafi has one, we don't.
- 58. At 02:01am on 23rd Mar 2011, geordiepa wrote: People i.e. Libyans and coalition fliers are putting their lives on the line in the cause
of "democracy".... meanwhile "youze guys" are arguing semantics, hidden meanings
in UN resolutions or in politicians statements etc.etc. ( ad nauseam)....
just glad you weren't around in 1939.... as they say we'd all be speaking German now... while you cognoscenti argued the toss ( pun intended)
- 59. At 02:02am on 23rd Mar 2011, GH1618 wrote: CA (56), the "reality of the world" is, simply, that Gadhafi is someone a lot of people, inside Libya and out, would like to be rid of.
- 60. At 02:04am on 23rd Mar 2011, Chryses wrote: quietoaktree, (#39. At 23:53pm on 22nd Mar 2011)
"...--- our double standards will be our undoing --unless it is stopped !"
And what do you propose be done?
- 61. At 02:44am on 23rd Mar 2011, CuriousAmerican wrote: 59. At 02:02am on 23rd Mar 2011, GH1618 wrote:
CA (56), the "reality of the world" is, simply, that Gadhafi is someone a lot of people, inside Libya and out, would like to be rid of.
------------------------------------------------
...........The question is WHY...........?
There are revolutions ALL over the ME right now...why single out Libya?....which means Gadhafi...
Who are the good guys in this fight? Who are the bad guys?...are we helping islamic radicals take over?....are we helping Gadhafi become even more powerfull...Do know who we are shooting at?........Who says LOTS want him out?............the western media?.............they can't even get their own culture right, how are they going to KNOW about the man on street in Libya when they don't even leave their own press corp hotels and travel together only with other western libs...they live in an echo chamber...thats not information...that's propoganda...
What kind of "on-the-ground" intellegence do we have? do we have any?....I wonder....
Gadhafi was playing ball with us and gave up his weapons of mass destruction and nuclear programs....The British where developing his oil/gas field for him (second in the world by the way)...American companies where being invited in to help rebuild the country...Gadhafi kids are Oxford and Harvard educated and next in line to westernize the country and lead Africa to a new age prosperity...
......now what?.........is all of that work done now gone forever....are we "enemies" again?......how does this help anyone?.........
This is what you get when you politicians instead of leaders...when you have day dreamers instead of day doers...when you have ZERO experience instead of steady experience...when you have moral confusion instead of moral clarity....
.............The miltary is a tool to kill people and break things.......period.........
trying to use the military to send a diplomatic "message" to be NICE in a civil war is beyond naive, it is scary dumb......what other foolishness does this guy believe...??
اخبار,دهب,سياسه,نجوم,فن,مشاهير.حوادث الفنانين,قضايا ونقاشات
صفحات
الأربعاء، 23 مارس 2011
Complain about this comment
الاشتراك في:
تعليقات الرسالة (Atom)