|
Leperflesh posted:I would support the UN changing its mandate to include being able to act against the wholesale murder of a group of people identified as a political organization rather than an ethnic group. The systematic slaughter of any human is a horrible thing. I don't understand why there is any leeway on the subject? Is there a "Well, they haven't killed 600 people yet, so we're not gonna do anything quite yet." ? Under what conditions is the wholesale slaughter of human beings ok?
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2011 21:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 18:24 |
|
|
Sivias posted:The systematic slaughter of any human is a horrible thing. I don't understand why there is any leeway on the subject? Is there a "Well, they haven't killed 600 people yet, so we're not gonna do anything quite yet." ? It's his own people AND it's Africa... you do the math Also, what the gently caress good are sanctions right now?
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2011 21:33
|
|
|
Sivias posted:The systematic slaughter of any human is a horrible thing. I don't understand why there is any leeway on the subject? Is there a "Well, they haven't killed 600 people yet, so we're not gonna do anything quite yet." ? When you're suppling arms to both sides of a war to keep the reds out of course. Things could have been a lot worse had the UN not persuaded CQ to give up his WMD program. Jut fucked around with this message at 21:36 on Feb 25, 2011 |
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2011 21:33
|
|
|
Sivias posted:The systematic slaughter of any human is a horrible thing. I don't understand why there is any leeway on the subject? Is there a "Well, they haven't killed 600 people yet, so we're not gonna do anything quite yet." ? It is never ok. But the issue is when does the UN SC authorize intervention which is decidedly more complex.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2011 21:33
|
|
|
Apology posted:Have sanctions ever worked anywhere at any time? All sanctions will accomplish is making the little people suffer more. I suppose that at least it gives the semblance of support, but it seems to me it's as effective as lecturing your dog on how immoral it is for him to piddle on the carpet. 1. Sanctions actually forced Libya to stop supporting international terrorism in the 80s/90s, so they had the intended effect in that case. 2. Countries/the UN rarely impose broad sanctions like what happened in Iraq in the 90s, now they usually are targeted specifically at leaders, their assets, and state controlled assets.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2011 21:34
|
|
|
Jut posted:They won't act because it's not in the Security councils mandate to act unless a genocide is going on. Not yet, but they have been investing heavily in those sectors over the past 4 or 5 years, so they do have a vested interest in the powers that be.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2011 21:34
|
|
|
Sivias posted:The systematic slaughter of any human is a horrible thing. I don't understand why there is any leeway on the subject? Is there a "Well, they haven't killed 600 people yet, so we're not gonna do anything quite yet." ? There is a difference between "ok" and "something we agree we can respond with force against and can mobilize that force while being reasonably sure we won't just make things worse". Add in the fact that it's a multinational summit where numerous heads of state have to agree on action before it can take place, and I think it's just not reasonable to expect such an organization - even a putative replacement for the UN that was much more effective - to agree upon and mobilize an armed military intervention in the space of a week.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2011 21:35
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:I would support the UN changing its mandate to include being able to act against the wholesale murder of a group of people identified as a political organization rather than an ethnic group. Yeah, I suppose you're right. A new word is required. No reason not to do that, either. Since the word "genocide" comes from genes, ergo, ethnicity, nationality etc., eradication of political organizations, or parties, would be, umm... Partycide? No, that's dumb. Anyways, the UN guy spoke. Nothing really new, I think.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2011 21:35
|
|
|
Finlander posted:Yeah, I suppose you're right. A new word is required. No reason not to do that, either. Crimes Against Humanity is a decent catch-all phrase (maybe too catch-all). It's good to remember though that any military intervention would include collateral damage. If people are imagining helicopters flying into Tripoli, with blue-helmeted UN commandoes dropping down on ropes and then gunning down the mercenaries, just remember that the mercenaries look a lot like the locals, to the extent that we saw today they were using civilian cars as decoys and then surprising people and shooting them. And of course you can't deploy troops without a supply chain to keep them armed, fed, and sheltered. You need command and control centers, fuel dumps, communications set up... all this takes personnel, which themselves have to be protected and organized. And leaders are surely remembering the botched hostage rescue attempt in Iran back in the 70s. Nobody wants to repeat that. So yeah, even if there was the political will and legal standing to use military force against Ghaddafi, it'd take more than three or four days to organize and the potential to backfire horribly is very real.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2011 21:41
|
|
|
Furious Mittens posted:Not yet, but they have been investing heavily in those sectors over the past 4 or 5 years, so they do have a vested interest in the powers that be. Everyone has invested interests in the powers that be. CQ was starting to make strong ties with the west following the WMD disarmament. It seems that whenever the UN get mentioned, the same old tired "HURRRR MEETING" and "RUSSIA!!! CHINA!!!" lines get pulled out and they irritate the hell out of me since they are the same lines that an anti-UN republican party likes to spurt out of their rear end in a top hat.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2011 21:42
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:There is a difference between "ok" and "something we agree we can respond with force against and can mobilize that force while being reasonably sure we won't just make things worse". I'm not saying the UN should intervene with boots on the ground, per say. I'm just trying to understand the definition. At what point is it genocide? Is genocide worse than using anti-aircraft weapons indiscriminately on unarmed protesters? The only difference is one targets a specific race? What if the indiscriminate fire killed twice as many people as a given 'genocide'. The gray area is all very confusing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2011 21:42
|
|
|
Sivias posted:I'm not saying the UN should intervene with boots on the ground, per say. I'm just trying to understand the definition. International law is actually pretty complex but most of the sources are online.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2011 21:44
|
|
|
Maybe it's just me but the host on AJE right now sounds like Larry King if he were British and had a stroke.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2011 21:46
|
|
|
Sivias posted:I'm not saying the UN should intervene with boots on the ground, per say. I'm just trying to understand the definition. It's not really that confusing... Targeting a specific race, religion or ethnicity = genocide anything else = war. The whole genocide ruling was a knee jerk reaction on the back of a recently discovered holocaust. Maybe the UN articles need revising, maybe not, but that's a whole different discussion. The UN would be in a lovely position to intervene anyway, if they did what would they do? fight CQ? after all he is the recognised leader of the country, fight the protesters? force CQ to leave?
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2011 21:47
|
|
|
Sivias posted:I'm not saying the UN should intervene with boots on the ground, per say. I'm just trying to understand the definition. It doesn't actually even taking killing people to be considered genocide. Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide posted:imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2011 21:48
|
|
|
Lareous posted:Maybe it's just me but the host on AJE right now sounds like Larry King if he were British and had a stroke. That's David Frost of Frost/Nixon fame.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2011 21:48
|
|
|
Lareous posted:Maybe it's just me but the host on AJE right now sounds like Larry King if he were British and had a stroke.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2011 21:49
|
|
|
Sivias posted:Does anyone else get a Mr. Miyagi vibe from Ban Ki-Moon? Seems like such a nice guy. Like the Asian grandfather i'll never have. He is actually an autocratic blundering bureaucrat moron with the charisma of a wet mop that surrounds himself with yes-men and is very disliked by pretty much everyone else in the UN. He was specifically picked by the US and other SC nations because they do not want the UN to have a strong and charismatic leader. Your imaginary grandfather sucks
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2011 21:50
|
|
|
Jut posted:It's not really that confusing... Why is it every single post of yours is a simplistic naive interpretation of reality? If the government publicly executed one man for the cause of only having blue eyes, would that be genocide? War? What if they did it to a village of 15? It's not so easy to understand as "Black - white... done." e: ^^ Awww. I know nothing of the UN politics, but this makes me sad.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2011 21:51
|
|
|
Gosh I'd forgotten all about how useful Wikileaks could be in providing us with information that reflects on current events. Here's a cable from today:quote:¶1. (S) Summary. Libyan leader Muammar al-Qadhafi told visiting \ http://wikileaks.arane.us/cable/2009/05/09TRIPOLI417.html And here's a list of the cables just from the embassy in Tripoli: http://wikileaks.arane.us/origin/22_0.html I'm going to try and read through these later. There's also a great deal of information available on the other countries that are in revolt right now, but you have to search by the location of the embassy, not the name of the country.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2011 21:52
|
|
|
Akuma posted:How the gently caress does somebody know about Al Jazeera English but not know David Frost? It's been a while since I saw that movie and I only have a vague recollection of it. I live in the deep South, the internet is my only respite for sane political discussion and education 
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2011 21:53
|
|
|
Sivias posted:Why is it every single post of yours is a simplistic naive interpretation of reality? It depends, are the people being executed the total amount of people who have blue eyes, or is it just a one-off? Because irrational hatred is less irrational if you don't wipe out the entire group. (I am being facetious to point out the absurdity of arguing over the definition of "genocide". If someone is murdering a lot of people does it really matter if it's over racial or political grounds? He's still murdering people)
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2011 21:54
|
|
|
Lareous posted:It's been a while since I saw that movie and I only have a vague recollection of it. I live in the deep South, the internet is my only respite for sane political discussion and education
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2011 21:55
|
|
|
euphronius posted:Also while it is true the UN SC can in theory do pretty much anything it wants the UN Charter does contain specific language which says the the UN should not intervene in affairs in the domestic jurisdiction of a member state. This idea also has high customary law precedence as well. Otherwise the UN would have intervened when Bill Clinton used poisonous gas to kill the Davidian Branch and when he murdered all the negroes in California.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2011 21:56
|
|
|
The Cheshire Cat posted:It depends, are the people being executed the total amount of people who have blue eyes, or is it just a one-off? Because irrational hatred is less irrational if you don't wipe out the entire group. That's exactly my point. Genocide or not, it's wrong, and trying to define an arbitrary level of needless and senseless murder in order to decide if it's right or wrong (or acceptable not to take action of any level) seems impotent.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2011 21:57
|
|
|
Sivias posted:Why is it every single post of yours is a simplistic naive interpretation of reality? These are questions that you could have found the answers out for yourself if you took the time to read up on it, it really isn't difficult. Your questions have been answered in international courts. 10 minutes on wikifuckingpedia would tell you all you need to know regarding genocide. I put it in simple terms because I'm not your college professor.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2011 21:58
|
|
|
quote:10:12am Germany is preparing sanctions against Libyan leaders over the attacks on protesters, Guido Westerwelle, Germany's foreign minister, said on Friday ahead of a UN Security Council meeting. The time for action is now!! Is there no negative effect to politicians effectively doing nothing about a situation but pretending to be taking a stand. Christ.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2011 22:00
|
|
|
Wikileaks posted:Qadhafi stated that the \ wh- Hold on, let me reread that. ... what
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2011 22:01
|
|
|
Sivias posted:That's exactly my point. Genocide or not, it's wrong, and trying to define an arbitrary level of needless and senseless murder in order to decide if it's right or wrong (or acceptable not to take action of any level) seems impotent. The UN is bound by it's articles. The definition and nitty gritty of what constitutes genocide is the core of the matter here, since it's what's limiting the UN's ability to intervene. Of course it's much easier to shout out "hhuuuurr letters!" and "China! Russia!" instead of taking the time to educate yourself about the thing you're criticising.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2011 22:02
|
|
|
Finlander posted:Yeah, I suppose you're right. A new word is required. No reason not to do that, either. A couple already exist. Democide usually means "government-sanctioned murder of it's own people", while politicide can be used to describe mass-murdering political opponents (although it can also mean the death of a political system, like the dismantlement of the apartheid state in South Africa, or political suicide).
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2011 22:02
|
|
|
Here's a short article with a bunch of really nice pictures from inside of Libya: http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2011/02/libya_unrest_and_uncertainty.html I encourage you all to click through to see the pictures. None of them are ghastly.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2011 22:02
|
|
|
Dieting Hippo posted:Any other sources on this? It's an Iranian site, which is why I'm a bit skeptical, but they they are reporting that Saif (Gaddafi's youngest son) has joined the protesters: http://www.presstv.ir/detail/166900.html It should be noted that this was talking about his son Saif al-Arab, and not the one we've been seeing and hearing about, Saif al-Islam. Still no idea if there's any truth to it though. Ashmole posted:That's the safest way. It's a "qaaf" not an Egyptian "jeem"...unless Libyans use the "g" sound for "qaaf". Actually, there are several groups that may render the qaf sounding more like jeem or geem, including Egyptians from the صعيد (Upper Egypt), Libyans, and Gulf Arabs.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2011 22:03
|
|
|
Only a loving retard would say that there is a genocide going on in Libya right now. Sometimes, civil war is just civil war even if it's not civil.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2011 22:05
|
|
|
quote:11:27am Al Jazeera Arabic has learned that intensive discussions are under way between defected Libyan political leaders, including ambassadors and ministers who have stepped down, to form a political body to lead the country. Not so sure the ambassadors that stepped down should really be involved in politics anymore. Best case scenario that sat complacent to a lot of horrible poo poo, waiting for the people to stand for themselves.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2011 22:06
|
|
|
sweeptheleg posted:Not so sure the ambassadors that stepped down should really be involved in politics anymore. Best case scenario that sat complacent to a lot of horrible poo poo, waiting for the people to stand for themselves. What the hell were they supposed to do? Speak up against Gaddafi and get themselves and their families shot?
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2011 22:09
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:Only a loving retard would say that there is a genocide going on in Libya right now. Sometimes, civil war is just civil war even if it's not civil. Indeed. sweeptheleg posted:Not so sure the ambassadors that stepped down should really be involved in politics anymore. Best case scenario that sat complacent to a lot of horrible poo poo, waiting for the people to stand for themselves. My personal preference would be to see a technocracy arise, it's never been tried before on a national level and could address many of the weaknesses with democracy.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2011 22:09
|
|
|
Jut posted:Indeed. I guess it's fine if Qaddafi bombs peaceful protesters and has the capability of dumping mustard gas on them. Oh, let's not forget he's hired international mercenaries to partake in this 'civil war'. Quit being a douche. Genocide or not, what is happening is atrocious act and the international community shouldn't view it as anything less than that.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2011 22:12
|
|
|
It's not like genocide is worse than a crime against humanity, stop viewing it as a continuum, they're just different things.redscare posted:What the hell were they supposed to do? Speak up against Gaddafi and get themselves and their families shot? I agree with Jut's point, but my feeling is that a guy like Mustafa Abdel-Jalil, who served for decades in Gaddafi's government and only resigned when it became clear Gaddafi was going down, doesn't have that much credibility.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2011 22:16
|
|
|
Sivias posted:I guess it's fine if Qaddafi bombs peaceful protesters and has the capability of dumping mustard gas on them. Oh, let's not forget he's hired international mercenaries to partake in this 'civil war'. What's happening is what happens during a civil war when someone has their back up against a wall. It's not nice, it's not pretty, but it's going to happen. you never answered the following by the way me making a point earlier posted:The UN would be in a lovely position to intervene anyway, if they did what would they do? fight CQ? after all he is the recognised leader of the country, fight the protesters? force CQ to leave? quote:I agree with Jut's point, but my feeling is that a guy like Mustafa Abdel-Jalil, who served for decades in Gaddafi's government and only resigned when it became clear Gaddafi was going down, doesn't have that much credibility. Jut fucked around with this message at 22:20 on Feb 25, 2011 |
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2011 22:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 18:24 |
|
|
Xandu posted:I agree with Jut's point, but my feeling is that a guy like Mustafa Abdel-Jalil, who served for decades in Gaddafi's government and only resigned when it became clear Gaddafi was going down, doesn't have that much credibility. Or maybe he could deal with the garden-variety repression but wanted nothing do with the wholesale slaughter
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2011 22:18
|
|