Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Bakerofish wrote:@pseudo

you sure you know what youre talking about? you know Saudi is where the Hajj is right? ya know...Mecca? not every country will fight for oil...but yeah im sure a good number of folks will fight to keep Mecca safe.

Most of those same people would absolutely love to see it out of the hands of the Saudi royal family though.

Switzerland has non neutral countries pledging to defend its neutrality

Which doesn't translate into being able to greatly influence geopolitics.

singapore is a regional power yes thats true but thats still power. singapore is a hub for sea based trading. Cripple that and a lot of commodities even in the west will go up.

And what's it going to do if it doesn't like how things are going? Shut down its port? Then it goes from "important" to "an aircraft carrier parked nearby telling it 'no, you're not allowed to do that'" in the blink of an eye.

Vatican has small degree of pr? really? you really want me to name every country that will raise hell if the vatican is threatend? Spain, Italy, Columbia, Argentina etc etc?

Sure, there are people who would complain and riot if someone actually attacked it, but it doesn't hold actual power over anyone important outside its borders.


You're confusing the intangibility of laws with "anyone with power can go axe crazy and no one will care." International laws can be broken without consequence by anyone with the ability to make anyone else important either not care enough to engage in a conflict of any sort beyond words (which is invariably expensive, regardless of the manner, be it military or economic), decide that the action in question isn't actually a breach of the law (regardless of whether it blatantly is or not), or agree that they should go ahead and break the law. That's a combination of military and economic power, diplomatic leverage, and PR. The same things that generally form international law in the first place.

Bakerofish wrote:
@chris

your error here is that youre thinking the will of the people of a nation decides who should be in power. even if the rebels become the defacto leaders of Libya, if Gaddafi is still alive and still holds the military theres no reason to recognize the rebels as other than being rebels. to do so gives logical reason for every rebel group to start declaring ownership of their respective territories and demanding sovereignity.

you claim i see things black and white when you refuse to see how youre simplifying the process of being a recognized country to a dangerous level. Heck if your idea of being recognized as your own government is true, the red states can declare cecession from the United States right now if they wanted to. It would also be easy for Ireland to seperate themselves from UK as well.

Isn't that what democracy is all about? That the will of the people equals who's in charge? Now, I may not like democracy, but the political stance of the West is that democracy is a good thing. I really don't get where you're going with this argument....rebels have been declaring themselve sovereign from larger states for a long time, look at Chechnya, look at Tibet. The Balkans. They're already doing this, so recognizing the true leaders of Libya isn't going to change anything.

Being recognized as a country is a simple thing. You need internal sovereignty, external sovereignty and that's about it....the rebels hold internal sovereignty, and are asking for external sovereignty. Why shouldn't we give it to them? Yes, the red states could secede, and yes Ireland could break away. But even if they did...they wouldn't get recognized, they'd get invaded by their owning power and dragged kicking and screaming back into the fold of the greater state if they had to. That's what Gadaffi is trying, and failing to do.

@ pseudo

my problem here is your US centric world view. claiming that countries are "insignificant" just because it doesnt affect the US directly is foolish.

just because they cant affect you directly doesnt mean that the US or any other big country cant be hurt.

you think the US wont be unscathed if they marginalize Saudi in any way? this isnt politics were talking about here man. no matter what political reason you have if you threaten the Hajj in any way prepare for repercussions.

how many votes will be lost just because a religious leader calls for a certain action?

shut down one port of trade and everything gets affected. Not all cargo ships go to the US directlty from country of origin. Most intercontinental cargo liners have a stop in singapore for refuel and loading.

lol and your comment on switzerland not being a geopolitical force is hilarious. its a good thing theyre actively neutral because they can turn the world on its head if they decided to side with one movement or another. theyre actively NOT participating because they have a great advantage: they have everyone's fricking money!

the US isnt invincible. heck the US has been dancing to the tune of many "lesser" countries for a long time.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@Chris

youre assuming that democracy is a given. Not all UN countries follow a democracy and the UN's responsibility is to safe guard a country's sovereignity.

Why shouldn't we give it to them? Yes, the red states could secede, and yes Ireland could break away

why havent they if creating your country was easy? The IRA definitely tried to gain their independence. how about the Moro Islamic Liberation Front? They had "de facto" control of the southern islands of the Philippines for a while.

But even if they did...they wouldn't get recognized, they'd get invaded by their owning power and dragged kicking and screaming back into the fold of the greater state if they had to

lol why wouldnt they if like you say creating your country is a simple thing?

cuz its not that simple.

am i the idealistic one here?

Yes, the US government, for a while anyway, recognized the government of Taiwan as the true government of China.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/africa/03/07/libya.conflict/index.html?hpt=T1

More air strikes on civilian targets.

Ireland is already independent of the UK. Well, officially anyway...

Albatross wrote:Ireland is already independent of the UK. Well, officially anyway...

whoops. big error on my part then

'Ireland' is typically used to refer to the Republic of Ireland, whereas Ulster, which is part of the UK, is normally just called Northern Ireland. NI will never declare independence from the rest of the UK, as it is overwhelmingly protestant, and most importantly, loyalist. That was why it was partitioned.

>_< i should remember that

on the upside the rebels are getting organized as far as leadership roles are concerned

and the blatant bombings should give the other nations a greater sense of urgency. Gaddafi cant hide behind the "no such order was made" bs anymore

Wait, you just now say that?

In a link I posted earlier in this thread, CNN caught a bombing on video, and in fact their crew was nearly hit by the bomb.

Bakerofish wrote:
@Chris

youre assuming that democracy is a given. Not all UN countries follow a democracy and the UN's responsibility is to safe guard a country's sovereignity.

why havent they if creating your country was easy? The IRA definitely tried to gain their independence. how about the Moro Islamic Liberation Front? They had "de facto" control of the southern islands of the Philippines for a while.

lol why wouldnt they if like you say creating your country is a simple thing?

cuz its not that simple.

am i the idealistic one here?

The UN has traditionally supported the will of the people as the defining characteristic, and tends to frown upon violent supression of them. By your logic, the UN should be helping Gadaffi, as he has legal control of the country, and supporting him is 'upholding the country's sovereignty'. Ths UN makes no such claim.

Because, like I said, it'd be a pointless attempt, and they'd be dragged kicking and screaming back into the greater state. They know this, and they know the world would never recognize them if they did so. The MILF (alright everyone, get your snickering out of the way. ) and other such terrorist organizations know that they have no legitimacy as far as the world is concerned. The difference between them and the Libyan rebels is that the Libyan rebels have a claim to legitimacy and actual recognition by the rest of the world.

While the process seems simple on paper, it's much more complex when you actually try to put it into process. Do your research, it's simple enough to declare yourself a country, but its hard to get recognized as a country.

The US not having a sure win victory over the Libyan air force is like saying that Mike Tyson doesn't have a sure chance of beating a three year old child.

They use older technology and I doubt that they have the level of training our aviators receive. We also have airbases in the area from which we can deploy better fighters if need be(the F-22) but I think that the F-18 Super Hornet can handle the Mirages that the Libyans bought some time in the 80's or so.

I would dare to say that the only threat of casualties we have stems from pilot error.

@halo

no ones saying that the US isnt going to claim air superiority. thats a given. pay attention. what weve been saying is if the Rebels can win on the ground.

@chris
you say this:
"While the process seems simple on paper, it's much more complex when you actually try to put it into process. Do your research, it's simple enough to declare yourself a country, but its hard to get recognized as a country"

after saying this:
"Being recognized as a country is a simple thing. You need internal sovereignty, external sovereignty and that's about it"

pick one. cant have both. youre not helping your case. before you claim that i do my research go do your own and stop tripping over yourself.

and yes, if Gaddafi claims that any of the other countries overstep and trample on his sovereignity he CAN invoke his rights and get a trial going. Thats why no country is jumping in willy nilly. Thats what the UN is for, to give countries a fair venue to plead their case in front of an international community.


@melissia
yep im saying that now. When the bombings happened in your earlier vid Gaddafis son was at UN saying there were no orders made to do so. This sinks his claim nicely

Yes I can. It's simple on paper, you need external sovereignty and internal sovereingty, and that's it. However getting both those things are extremely hard to get in practice. There is no contradiction there.

Bakerofish wrote:@halo

what irks me is the "sure win" attitude when the reality of the situation still leaves it up in the air.

Sorry, but this point was very vague as to who was going to win which is why I responded the way I did.


See how it goes and prescribe different doses when the time comes is what I say, there's no reason to chop off someone's hand to get rid of the sixth finger.

@chris

you said:

its hard to get recognized as a country

after saying:

Being recognized as a country is a simple thing

and generally acting like the world recognizing the rebels as legitimate is a SURE thing.

and you say theres no contradiction??

wtf?

Automatically Appended Next Post:
@halo
sorry but i thought the exchanges me and chris had spelled that out.

a lot of the folks here think the rebels have this in the bag

It's hard, but it's simple. There is no contradiction between those words, there are lot of simple things that are easy, but there are also a lot of simple things that are hard. If I told you to go around, and wash every single car in Manila, it'd be simple no? Washing a car is a simple thing, and anyone can do it. However, it is a hard thing to do as well, simply because there are so many cars.

Likewise, while it is simple enough to become a country, you just need internal and external sovereignty, it is hard to get such sovereignty.

That is why there is no contradiction.

@chris

please stop. you kept going on and on how all the world needed to do was recognize the rebels as if it were a forgone conclusion

psh.

=Thinka about it= Nah, I don't think I will stop. This is far too much fun. Glad to know you've resorted to pretending you've won though.

And yes, all the world needs to do is recognize the government in Benghazi, and that's that. The fact that British SAS troops were sent to Benghazi seems to imply this is the direction the West intends to take.

nah i didnt win

i lost. i lost a ton of time arguing with you. i sincerly thought id learn something from you but then you come up with this "non contradiction" out of left field

i feel really stupid.

thank you.

Not sure if this is legit: http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4038646,00.html


Report: Gaddafi offered resignation for security


Al-Sharq al-Awsat reports Libyan leader wants rebels to drop demands to try him in international court, guarantee his security as well as that of his family and funds in exchange for his departure from country

Roee Nahmias Published: 03.07.11, 09:45 / Israel News


Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi will resign and leave the country on condition that he and his family receive guarantees they will not be harmed, the London-based al-Sharq al-Awsat reported Monday. No official confirmation has been given.

The report cites "reliable" Libyan sources in Benghazi as saying that Gaddafi vowed to announce his resignation and the transfer of authority to rebels in Benghazi before his parliament if his security, his family's security, and his funds are preserved.

Rebels mobilizing in Benghazi (Photo: Tsur Shezaf)

Gaddafi also wants rebels to help him leave the country for the destination of his choice, and to relinquish their demand to try him in international courts for crimes against humanity, the report says.

The sources added that preparations for Gaddafi's departure had already begun, among them the spreading of a rumor that he had had a stroke.

"There has so far been no official response to Gaddafi's proposal, negative or positive," the paper was told. However, the sources hinted that rebels would not consider any negotiations with the Libyan leader.

Meanwhile, Gaddafi told France 24 in an interview that Paris and al-Qaeda were becoming involved in his country's internal affairs.

He added that "armed extremists" were plotting against his regime. "Al-Qaeda has a plan," he said. "I think it is trying to take advantage of the situation in Tunisia and Egypt, in which hundreds of people were killed on the sides of the police and the rebels."

Gaddafi also included himself in the "fight against terror" conducted by the West. "The ones holding weapons in Benghazi are al-Qaeda men without political or financial demands. If the terrorists achieve victory, they will not support democracy," he said.

Bakerofish wrote:
wtf?

Automatically Appended Next Post:
@halo
sorry but i thought the exchanges me and chris had spelled that out.

a lot of the folks here think the rebels have this in the bag

Yes, but you were addressing a point that I was making, not anyone else. If you want to address my points in vague terms and then say that I should've paid attention to the argument you were having with another person then you sir have made an error.

Your position of 'all in or all out' is idealistic which in turn is incredibly unrealistic. Life itself is not black and white and neither is the matter of war. There is a saying about the best laid plans not surviving the battlefield. If you want to argue on the fact that your position is not idealistic then you will need to address me and if you make any vague remarks you can't just say that I should look at arguments made by others instead of not taking the time to explain your point fully.

I can almost guarantee that your reply to this will include something of a personal attack along the lines of "its not my fault you didn't read".

@halo

chill. i already acknowledged that my "all in or nothing" is an opinion and mine alone. im not imposing that on anyone

what i took issue to was the assumption that the rebels will win the war of a no fly zone is established despite other legitimate threats the Lbyan Military still has. it aint as clear cut as that.

thats all.

Bakerofish wrote:nah i didnt win

i lost. i lost a ton of time arguing with you. i sincerly thought id learn something from you but then you come up with this "non contradiction" out of left field

i feel really stupid.

thank you.

Explain how saying something is at the same time simple and hard is a contradiction?

ChrisWWII wrote:

Bakerofish wrote:

thats not how it works. they just cant "decide" how things will be.

getting recognized as a country is a lot more involved than you think. Heck, Taiwan for the longest time is still technically not a country even if it has its own government independent of China.

claiming a country isnt as simple as stabbing a flag into the ground and proclaiming "mine!". things have changed since Magellan.

Yes they can. For a while the US recognized Taiwan as the government of all of China, and refused to recognize the PRC. Some states refuse to recognize existence of the State of Israel. Even then, all these situations are subservient to who has de facto control of anything. Right now, the Libyan rebels have de facto control of the country. If we recognize them as the new government of Libya, then they are the new government of Libya. They have internal recognition of their control by most of the country, and if granted externatl recognition they'd have the qualities to make them a new state.

Point it, we don't have to follow any legal procedures to oust Gadaffi. We didn't have to follow legal procedures to oust Sadaam or the Taliban, we simply changed the situation on the ground, and recognized the new government we installed.

bolded text. I said it first. getting recognized isnt easy.

you countered my points.

so am i to understand that you were agreeing with me the whole time??

You are half right, it is a hard process, but I'm not saying they're stabbing a flag in the ground and declared it theirs. They wrested control of the nation from the existing governmetn. Our bone of contention is that you say they had no right to do that as long as Gadaffi is still in power, while I say they have every right to do that, and all that's stopping them from being the government of LIbya is international recognition of the new situation on the ground.

@chris

this is the last time im saying this

one of the obstacles that the rebels have in geting recognized is that Gaddafi is STILL the recognized head of Libya. he has not stepped down. They have NO legal right to declare themselves government because if they did... WE WOULDNT BE CALLING THEM REBELS.

regarding the no fly zone:
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/gates-clinton-libyan-fly-zone-difficult/story?id=13037200&page=2

I quote:
"Plus, to give such military action international legitimacy, would require new authorization from the U.N. Security Council. There is some concern that Russia and China, each of which has the power to veto any Security Council resolution, would be skeptical of authorizing military action."

the military action being referred to here is the no fly zone.

why would russia and china veto a military action? one reason is if it encroaches illegally on a country's sovereignity.

but wait....the US doesnt have to follow laws just cuz Russia and China says so. right? i mean the US can flaunt international law right?

ChrisWWII wrote:There really isn't any international law that anybody stands up to.

... your next statement better be a paradigm shattering political statement of epic proportions to dig yourself out of your hole.

I'm going to repeat it again, they have every right to declare themselves the government. By your logic, we should be protecting Gadaffi and helping him preserve his nations sovereignty. The fundamental idea about a government is that it represents the people, and the people of Libya have said Gadaffi no longer speaks for them, the new government in Benghazi does. All the world has to do is recognize the Benghazi government as the new government, and its done.

Us calling them rebels is merely a term we find easy to use...the fact we're calling them rebels means nothing. We could just as easily be calling them 'Anti-Gadaffi Protestors' which would be more accurate, but it's not as easy to say.


Edit: By the way, you say that 'Gadaffi is the recognized head of Libya', so I propose to you, what's stopping the world from saying 'Nah, we don't consider him the head of Libya anymore. We're going to talk to Benghazi for our dealings with Libya now'? The answer....absolutely nothing.

lol

im done.

theres really nothing i can do to top what you just said.

congrats.

Bakerofish wrote:@halo

chill. i already acknowledged that my "all in or nothing" is an opinion and mine alone. im not imposing that on anyone

what i took issue to was the assumption that the rebels will win the war of a no fly zone is established despite other legitimate threats the Lbyan Military still has. it aint as clear cut as that.

thats all.

The assumption really isn't an assumption, the reason why the rebels are being held back is because of the air power Ghadafi has left. Both sides have fighting forces, both have supplies, and both have weapons. However, Ghadafi has an air force so removing it would be equalizing them. If we need to take out his radar installations ot establish the no fly zone then that doesn't just mean his air power was reduced, but his overall military power was reduced. If we have to take out communications, its the same deal.

So a no-fly zone would:
1) Almost equalize the forces.
2) Boost rebel morale while reducing the Loyalist morale.
3) Diminish the effectiveness of Ghadafi's military overall.

Bakerofish wrote:They have NO legal right to declare themselves government because if they did... WE WOULDNT BE CALLING THEM REBELS.

What is it exactly that gives someone the legal right to declare themselves the government?




Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also did everyone just go wall-of-text at my last post, or has it been disconfirmed, or what? Inquiring minds want to know!