Civil War in Libya

[gaelic cowboy]

NATO was a defence organisation and has no remit to leave Europe.

Wrong

The attack took place on NATO soil and article 5 was invoked and agreed by all

Article 5
The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security .

[rory_20_uk]

Restore and maintain security... Erm, first off, how was security breached and secondly how did this attack in Afghanistan help restore it?

[gaelic cowboy]

Restore and maintain security... Erm, first off, how was security breached and secondly how did this attack in Afghanistan help restore it?

Because this thread has wandered into a why were/are the USA in Afghanistan debate we can see clearly after 9/11 it was breached by a Non-State actor in league with a Nominal State so article 5 was invoked and therefore action beyond European and American shores was/is allowed.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Dictatorships, semi-democracies and authoritarian states act out of cynical self-interest. Both internally and externally. They are corrupt governments, with the resulting low trust societies. Idealism, human rights and the common good are impulses of policy that are entirely alien to them, and so they can't believe these are main drivers of Western democracies.
Add in that whole brew of Western hypocrisy, self-interest, cynicism, internal policial interests, and downright mistakes, and it becomes impossible to convince anyone that humanitarianism is one of the main drivers of Western policy.

[Noncommunist]

The attack took place on NATO soil and article 5 was invoked and agreed by all

So what was different about the Falklands?

[gaelic cowboy]

So what was different about the Falklands?

Simple article 5 was not invoked therefore no NATO action


The North Atlantic Treaty

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

04 Apr. 1949
The North Atlantic Treaty
Washington D.C. - 4 April 1949
The Parties to this Treaty reaffirm their faith in the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations and their desire to live in peace with all peoples and all governments.
They are determined to safeguard the freedom, common heritage and civilisation of their peoples, founded on the principles of democracy, individual liberty and the rule of law. They seek to promote stability and well-being in the North Atlantic area.
They are resolved to unite their efforts for collective defence and for the preservation of peace and security. They therefore agree to this North Atlantic Treaty :
Article 1
The Parties undertake, as set forth in the Charter of the United Nations, to settle any international dispute in which they may be involved by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered, and to refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.
Article 2
The Parties will contribute toward the further development of peaceful and friendly international relations by strengthening their free institutions, by bringing about a better understanding of the principles upon which these institutions are founded, and by promoting conditions of stability and well-being. They will seek to eliminate conflict in their international economic policies and will encourage economic collaboration between any or all of them.
Article 3
In order more effectively to achieve the objectives of this Treaty, the Parties, separately and jointly, by means of continuous and effective self-help and mutual aid, will maintain and develop their individual and collective capacity to resist armed attack.
Article 4
The Parties will consult together whenever, in the opinion of any of them, the territorial integrity, political independence or security of any of the Parties is threatened.
Article 5
The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security .
Article 6 (1)
For the purpose of Article 5, an armed attack on one or more of the Parties is deemed to include an armed attack:
on the territory of any of the Parties in Europe or North America, on the Algerian Departments of France (2), on the territory of or on the Islands under the jurisdiction of any of the Parties in the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer;
on the forces, vessels, or aircraft of any of the Parties, when in or over these territories or any other area in Europe in which occupation forces of any of the Parties were stationed on the date when the Treaty entered into force or the Mediterranean Sea or the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer.
Article 7
This Treaty does not affect, and shall not be interpreted as affecting in any way the rights and obligations under the Charter of the Parties which are members of the United Nations, or the primary responsibility of the Security Council for the maintenance of international peace and security.
Article 8
Each Party declares that none of the international engagements now in force between it and any other of the Parties or any third State is in conflict with the provisions of this Treaty, and undertakes not to enter into any international engagement in conflict with this Treaty.
Article 9
The Parties hereby establish a Council, on which each of them shall be represented, to consider matters concerning the implementation of this Treaty. The Council shall be so organised as to be able to meet promptly at any time. The Council shall set up such subsidiary bodies as may be necessary; in particular it shall establish immediately a defence committee which shall recommend measures for the implementation of Articles 3 and 5.
Article 10
The Parties may, by unanimous agreement, invite any other European State in a position to further the principles of this Treaty and to contribute to the security of the North Atlantic area to accede to this Treaty. Any State so invited may become a Party to the Treaty by depositing its instrument of accession with the Government of the United States of America. The Government of the United States of America will inform each of the Parties of the deposit of each such instrument of accession.
Article 11
This Treaty shall be ratified and its provisions carried out by the Parties in accordance with their respective constitutional processes. The instruments of ratification shall be deposited as soon as possible with the Government of the United States of America, which will notify all the other signatories of each deposit. The Treaty shall enter into force between the States which have ratified it as soon as the ratifications of the majority of the signatories, including the ratifications of Belgium, Canada, France, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom and the United States, have been deposited and shall come into effect with respect to other States on the date of the deposit of their ratifications. (3)
Article 12
After the Treaty has been in force for ten years, or at any time thereafter, the Parties shall, if any of them so requests, consult together for the purpose of reviewing the Treaty, having regard for the factors then affecting peace and security in the North Atlantic area, including the development of universal as well as regional arrangements under the Charter of the United Nations for the maintenance of international peace and security.
Article 13
After the Treaty has been in force for twenty years, any Party may cease to be a Party one year after its notice of denunciation has been given to the Government of the United States of America, which will inform the Governments of the other Parties of the deposit of each notice of denunciation.
Article 14
This Treaty, of which the English and French texts are equally authentic, shall be deposited in the archives of the Government of the United States of America. Duly certified copies will be transmitted by that Government to the Governments of other signatories.
The definition of the territories to which Article 5 applies was revised by Article 2 of the Protocol to the North Atlantic Treaty on the accession of Greece and Turkey signed on 22 October 1951.
On January 16, 1963, the North Atlantic Council noted that insofar as the former Algerian Departments of France were concerned, the relevant clauses of this Treaty had become inapplicable as from July 3, 1962.
The Treaty came into force on 24 August 1949, after the deposition of the ratifications of all signatory states.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Article 5 specifically limits the territory to Europe and North America. Colonial wars were considered a private matter. In particular, America did not want to guarantee the oversees possesions of the European colonial powers.


I still think it was a mistake to invoke article 5. Without it, there were compelling reasons too for NATO countries to join America in avenging and in preventing further attacks. Entirely unecessarily a silly precedent was set. What if Irish terrorists bomb London. Should we attack (non-NATO member) the Irish Republic now? That's preposterous.

[gaelic cowboy]

Article 5 specifically limits the territory to Europe and North America. Colonial wars were considered a private matter. In particular, America did not want to guarantee the oversees possesions of the European colonial powers.


I still think it was a mistake to invoke article 5. Without it, there were compelling reasons too for NATO countries to join America in avenging and in preventing further attacks. Entirely unecessarily a silly precedent was set. What if Irish terrorists bomb London. Should we attack (non-NATO member) the Irish Republic now? That's preposterous.

Everyone was in a state of pure shock with visions of dirty bombs and super soldier Taliban destroying the world it's not surprising they did.


On an unrelated note the differ between NATO and Non-NATO becomes more and more ambiguous by the day, Irish troops have helped admittedly in really minor ways in Afghanistan and other hotspots that are under NATO remit lately. I personally believe we should be in NATO but then I also understand the purely strategic and tactical reason for not being in NATO too.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Once presented with the choice, Egyptians prefer democracy. Who'd have thought?

(Or, alternatively, Egyptians have been deceived by a Western ploy to steal their oil by dismantling the Egyptian secret police and its systematic torture. )

Partial referendum results from a third of Egypt's provinces yesterday showed a massive turnout and a vote overwhelmingly in favour of constitutional changes to eliminate restrictions on political rights and civil liberties.


According to results issued by judges at polling centres, 11 out of 29 provinces showed between 65% and 90% of voters were in favour of the changes.
Opponents feared the referendum's passage would allow the Muslim Brotherhood to win out over Egypt's dozens of new political parties in the forthcoming presidential and parliamentary vote.
The partial preliminary results also showed 70% turnout at many polling centres, a massive showing after decades of political apathy in response to repression.

~~o~~o~~<<oOo>>~~o~~o~~

Everyone was in a state of pure shock with visions of dirty bombs and super soldier Taliban destroying the world it's not surprising they did.

Well we all are in a shock right now too with visions of dirty Irish hedge funds and Irish supercapitalism destroying the European way of life, but I still don't support an invasion of Ireland.

Not, that is, unless you people fail to meet every single payment of our punitative reparations, erm, rescue package. These bombs look good on my tv screen, and I'm developing an appetite for them. About time we used our forces more in our diplomatic dealings with smaller nations.

I also understand the purely strategic and tactical reason for not being in NATO too.

Would these purely strategic reasons have anything to do with Ireland's unwillingness to be a puppet fighting Britain's wars?

[Banquo's Ghost]

Once presented with the choice, Egyptians prefer democracy. Who'd have thought?

(Or, alternatively, Egyptians have been deceived by a Western ploy to steal their oil by dismantling the Egyptian secret police and its systematic torture. )
[CENTER]~~o~~o~~<<oOo>>~~o~~o~~

Bear in mind that Egypt had a pretty solid and professional civic society underneath which is now being called on. Both the judiciary and the military had and maintained a degree of respect through the revolution. The police however, are no so widely hated that few turn up for work.

Libya, by contrast, is a tribal society where all civic institutions have been removed by the dictator.

Would these purely strategic reasons have anything to do with Ireland's unwillingness to be a puppet fighting Britain's wars?

Partly. The Republic's stance on neutrality is complex but largely formed by our historical relationship with Britain. It is also the subject of quite energised debate (this is a good paper on the subject for the interested). For example, we were just as afraid of alliances with other countries which may have provoked Britain. Solution: garb the fence with both hands and sit firmly upon it.

I think Ireland has a great part to play in international affairs based on this "pragmatic" rather than "principled" neutrality. Our military has been very useful as non-threatening intermediaries and aid providers. We have an "underdog" history and tradition that many fractured nations find both comforting and non-threatening. Given the long list of countries that want to prove themselves well-endowed through the wanton murder of entirely unconnected civilians, the Republic can play a small part as a non-belligerent.

On the subject of Libya and debt, I am glad to see that the UK has been so successful at paying off the banking crisis loans, that they can happily spend millions of pounds on flying explosives. Good to know that public services are no longer affected and that the elderly, vulnerable and poor of the United Kingdom are no longer facing cuts because the country has so much surplus money they can afford to throw it away on filling some corners of a foreign field with the elderly, vulnerable and poor of that nation. Once the West has enraged enough people on both sides of the civil war by killing their children and grandmothers, the new Islamist state thus created can provide us with a whole new chapter of the War on Terror (which was in danger of going stale for a moment there).

[gaelic cowboy]

Would these purely strategic reasons have anything to do with Ireland's unwillingness to be a puppet fighting Britain's wars?

To some extent but mainly as a means to ensure the stability of the Republic certain groups could use the public outrage to topple the government.

Also the last of the Civil War generation are either very old or passed away by now, they would have never allowed Ireland to join a defence alliance with Britain not after fighting an independence war and a civil war over the very same.

[LeftEyeNine]

Dictatorships, semi-democracies and authoritarian states act out of cynical self-interest. Both internally and externally. They are corrupt governments, with the resulting low trust societies. Idealism, human rights and the common good are impulses of policy that are entirely alien to them, and so they can't believe these are main drivers of Western democracies.

I don't bear a single belief that the intervening has anything to do with the so called "humanitarian drive" of Western democracies. What has happened to me that got me thinking so ? Where were your humanitarian daddies when Srebrenitsa was hell on earth ?

Viking, for the nth time, "let them be" is my answer. Libyans know what's better for them, and actually even it's plain wrong, they reserve the right to be awfully so. That's how history is formed, and generally how true democracies are set up. You value something you fought for more than something you were imposed/carried to.

You may disagree but the blood spilt for something's sake deems it invaluable. If a victory is to be won and it needs sacrifices, let it be so for it will cement the meaning to it.

And where were your "humanitarian drive" when American legionnaires were killing for fun in Iraq ? What makes them less "Kaddafi", if that ever is your intent right now ?

I can get along with the reluctant-to-change fact that state policies may be wrong but intellectual people convinced of the humanitarian bleurgh behind it: that just "wow"s me.

[gaelic cowboy]

I don't bear a single belief that the intervening has anything to do with the so called "humanitarian drive" of Western democracies. What has happened to me that got me thinking so ? Where were your humanitarian daddies when Srebrenitsa was hell on earth ?

Viking, for the nth time, "let them be" is my answer. Libyans know what's better for them, and actually even it's plain wrong, they reserve the right to be awfully so. That's how history is formed, and generally how true democracies are set up. You value something you fought for more than something you were imposed/carried to.

You may disagree but the blood spilt for something's sake deems it invaluable. If a victory is to be won and it needs sacrifices, let it be so for it will cement the meaning to it.

And where were your "humanitarian drive" when American legionnaires were killing for fun in Iraq ? What makes them less "Kaddafi", if that ever is your intent right now ?

I can get along with the reluctant-to-change fact that state policies may be wrong but intellectual people convinced of the humanitarian bleurgh behind it: that just "wow"s me.

Hmm and so in order to prevent any loss of life due to the "WESTS" cynical intervention the people of Benghazi and other cites should suffer just like the people did in srberenica.

I mean if Europe and America were that cynical why not just buy oil off Saddam or Gadaffi.

[Sarmatian]

Hmm and so in order to prevent any loss of life due to the "WESTS" cynical intervention the people of Benghazi and other cites should suffer just like the people did in srberenica.

I mean if Europe and America were that cynical why not just buy oil off Saddam or Gadaffi.

Situation is not that dissimilar to the situation is Srebrenica, indeed. In Srebrenica, raiding parties were organized to rape, kill and pillage and then withdraw behind UN troops and here rebels tried to militarily wrestle control of the country and when they failed, they now hide behind UN, too.

Where was west when people suffered in Cambodia? No oil there=suffering of people not important.

[Viking]

Viking, for the nth time, "let them be" is my answer. Libyans know what's better for them, and actually even it's plain wrong, they reserve the right to be awfully so. That's how history is formed, and generally how true democracies are set up. You value something you fought for more than something you were imposed/carried to.

You may disagree but the blood spilt for something's sake deems it invaluable. If a victory is to be won and it needs sacrifices, let it be so for it will cement the meaning to it.

Again, it is not your blood that is being spilt. It is not your children who dies. Not your family, not your relatives. Not your friends, not your contacts. It is not up to you to tell others which sacrifices they should make - go make your own sacrifices. It's easy to talk about heroic deeds and sacrifices when you are far away from the machinery and maiming of war; it does not impress.

The democracy that I come from was set up without a single drop of blood being shed. Yet, it is one of the more peaceful ones, internally, in the entire world. Other countries would tell you similar stories. Despite this, people here would fight for democracy. In fact, to such an extent that we are willing to fight for democracy in other natons - thus taking the step to participate in the operations over Libya.

The Libyans ask for democracy themselves - and fight for it. We do not lead them, we do not impose anything on them. It is their revolution, and they have already made great sacrifices for their defiance.

[Louis VI the Fat]

I don't bear a single belief that the intervening has anything to do with the so called "humanitarian drive" of Western democracies. What has happened to me that got me thinking so ? Where were your humanitarian daddies when Srebrenitsa was hell on earth ?

Our forces, perhaps belatedly, were intervening on behalf of downtrodden Muslims in Bosnia and in Kosovo, neither of which has any oil or strategical value.



According to you, there was too little Western intervention in Srebrenica, which shows that the motives of the West are not humanitarian.
According to Sarmatian, there was too much Western intervention in Srebrenica, which shows that the motives of the West are not humanitarian.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

[Sarmatian]

Our forces, perhaps belatedly, were intervening on behalf of downtrodden Muslims in Bosnia and in Kosovo, neither of which has any oil or strategical value.

Oil no, strategic value, yes. Also, that's Europe and that's different. 10 deaths in Europe is a "stop the presses" thing. A 1000 deaths in Africa is barely a footnote.

According to you, there was too little Western intervention in Srebrenica, which shows that the motives of the West are not humanitarian.
According to Sarmatian, there was too much Western intervention in Srebrenica, which shows that the motives of the West are not humanitarian.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

No. In reality Srebrenica is just one crime in a conflict that had hundreds. The biggest single one, but still only one.

Could have Srebrenica been prevented if Americans didn't encourage Izetbegovic to reject the idea of a division of Bosnia earlier and then supposedly put pressure on all three sides to sign practically the exact same division in Dayton?

Could it be that there would be less casualties and refugees if NATO hadn't supported Tudjman in ethnic cleansing of Krajina?

Could it mean there would have been less lives lost if the West didn't meddle in the first place? Maybe, maybe not, we can't know that for sure now but at least your hands remain clean. Even if the rebels win in Libya and they are all for peace and democracy as they preach, that will forever be stained by the fact that western governments placed them in charge by military intervention and Libyan blood.

[TinCow]

What if Irish terrorists bomb London. Should we attack (non-NATO member) the Irish Republic now? That's preposterous.

That's not the same, as the Irish state wasn't supporting the Irish terrorists. In Afghanistan, the government was actively aiding and protecting the terrorists. The act of giving official governmental aid transforms the terrorist action into a state-sponsored action.

[Tellos Athenaios]

That's not the same, as the Irish state wasn't supporting the Irish terrorists. In Afghanistan, the government was actively aiding and protecting the terrorists. The act of giving official governmental aid transforms the terrorist action into a state-sponsored action.

There are terrorist groups backed/ignored/condoned by countries that the USA doesn't want to invade, or topple governments of. Pakistan springs to mind. So does half of the Middle & Near East, and while we're on the subject: how about Turkey? Afghanistan was chosen for a reason, but aiding terrorists can not be the sole reason. If you wanted to get rid of terrorists you would do better to eradicate the ISI than to waste your time in Afghanistan.

Incidentally, I suppose that the decision to come down hard on Saddam Hussein was partly inspired by the fact that he actively diverted funds from Iraq into well known terrorist organisations operating from the backyards of the broken down Palestinian Authorities.

[Noncommunist]

There are terrorist groups backed/ignored/condoned by countries that the USA doesn't want to invade, or topple governments of. Pakistan springs to mind. So does half of the Middle & Near East, and while we're on the subject: how about Turkey? Afghanistan was chosen for a reason, but aiding terrorists can not be the sole reason. If you wanted to get rid of terrorists you would do better to eradicate the ISI than to waste your time in Afghanistan.

I'd imagine that forcefully installing democracy into Pakistan would have been harder than installing it into Afghanistan. And with Pakistan, we could prop up Musharaff and have him help us out, something which I doubt we could have got from the Taliban.