The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Arming the Libyan rebels: tempting but illegal > Comments

Arming the Libyan rebels: tempting but illegal : Comments

By Alison Pert, published 18/4/2011

Barak Obama's call to remove Gadaffi is illegal under international law.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All
Skeptic,
Let me jump in before Runner and tell you that there is only one law and that is God's Law. (Who am I kidding?)

David
Posted by VK3AUU, Monday, 18 April 2011 12:08:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
While I am no fan of Nelson Mandela's good buddy, Mumammur Gadaffi, I don't see why UK / France / USA are so keen to intervene.

Why not for once stay out and leave the Libyans to sort out their own mess?
Posted by stevenlmeyer, Monday, 18 April 2011 2:17:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Are you a lawyer too, by any chance, James O'Neill?

>>It is not Dr Pert's fault that international law is selectively enforced and the neanderthals who think it is simply a means for enriching lawyers are dangerously ill-informed<<

Lawyers, to my sure and certain knowledge, simply adore laws that i) are poorly written, ii) support multiple interpretations and iii) are, as you say, selectively enforced. Of course it is not Dr Pert's fault that this is the case here. But that does not mean that she cannot salivate over the opportunity afforded when adopting a suitably contrarian position.

It is none of her concern, as a lawyer, that a bunch of people are getting killed. Nor that a policy of "look away, dear, it's only some foreigners" can in itself be ethically criminal.

Was she, I wonder, one of the legal team advising the United Nations forces in Rwanda, as they stood passively back, observing the bloodshed of tens of thousands? On the basis of this article, that would come as no surprise.

But I suppose that is what being a lawyer entails. Find a suitably defensible intellectual argument, build a little pedestal on top of it on which to stand, and spruik for business. Who cares if people are dying. Right is right, and damn the torpedoes.

The rest of us in the meantime have to balance a whole lot more nuanced political situation, our dislike for tyrants tempered by our concerns about intervention, our fears for terrorised citizens weighed against our ignorance of the nature of the "rebels".

So lucky, not to have to take these little things into consideration, but instead remain blinkered to anything but a self-righteous, impersonal interpretation of "the law".

Which, as we all know, is an ass.
Posted by Pericles, Monday, 18 April 2011 2:24:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
International Law? Civil War? International Law supports Nation States, as legally recognized, and the delivery of assistance to the same in the war against non-Sovereign entities within their borders. That is how we & the UN/NATO happen to be legally in Afghanistan, the UN/French in Ivory Coast, the UN in Macedonia/Serbia/Montenegro/Bosnia-Herzegovena, the Middle East, etc. It is PRECISELY what the UN is for - remember the minor conflict between the two Korea's? Which is still ongoing?

Qatar, several other Emirates, the Saudi's (the minute they are really asked - although given the presence of Al-Quaeda backed insurgents, they are already involved heavily), and the bulk of the African Nation States support Qaddaffi's being deposed as quickly as possible (they REALLY don't want their people watching others get supported, they'll get ideas). The UN Security Council has invoked it's mandate to protect civilians and the member States of NATO have decided that the best way to implement the same is to destroy Qaddaffi's Armed Forces. However, several UN/NATO Member's have recognized the rebel forces as the LEGITIMATE (ipso facto, Qaddaffi's regime is now illegitimate) LEADERSHIP of Libya.

As time goes on, the rebels, who are currently swapping oil for weapons, will only get stronger, while Qaddaffi's Army will be effectively rendered ineffective by the ongoing lack of resupply, lack of equipment and lack of trained formations (which get shot to hell by NATO Airstrikes whenever they are found). The trained rebel forces (several of which decamped early in the peace & more will follow as the writing on the wall gets clearer) will be held back until the current rabble is exhausted, then with their EU/US Supplied Equipment (via proxies) they will move forward. Time is Qaddaffi's enemy and it is running out (UN/NATO members would like nothing more than seeing insurgents continue to die). There will still come a time, when prolonging the conflict serves no useful purpose (they would otherwise be en-route to Afghanistan for Summer) & it will be ended.
Posted by Aaron 1975, Monday, 18 April 2011 5:51:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
VK3AUU

David, don't jump. What if the God is is gone shopping and can't help? You'll get hurt.
Posted by skeptic, Monday, 18 April 2011 6:28:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
So Amicus and Donald Trump think invading Libya for their oil is ok? So the USA and Israel are within their rights to invade any country they like and steal resources and energy.We will not benefit from USA/European Corporates having a monopoly on all the oil.It will only get more expensive due to less competition.

They have not found a good enough excuse to invade Iran and steal its'oil,but if they do,China and Russia will enter the fray.Amicus,are you of sound mind to want to give oxygen to these lunatic neo-cons? The USA think they can beat China with these min-nukes.They also produce a lot of radiation.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jz2HaGZ_wmc You will see here a tactical nuke in Bagdad light up the entire sky and then followed by a giant mushroom cloud.Fallujia is wracked with birth defects and US soldiers come home with health destroyed.Do you think an all out war with China and Russia that mini-nukes will save anyone?
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=24202 The USA is also considering using nukes in Libya.

It will be up the ante,and an all out nuke war.The yanks,poms and Israelis are barking mad.
Posted by Arjay, Monday, 18 April 2011 6:29:47 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy