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.

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:

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?

lots. transfer of power, abdication. a successfull cecession. power vaccuum.

but its definitely not as easy as "the world says so" because then holding on to power loses meaning

Bakerofish wrote:

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:

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?

lots. transfer of power, abdication. a successfull cecession. power vaccuum.

but its definitely not as easy as "the world says so" because then holding on to power loses meaning

What is it that constitutes power?

halonachos wrote:
1) Almost equalize the forces.
2) Boost rebel morale while reducing the Loyalist morale.
3) Diminish the effectiveness of Ghadafi's military overall.

if its not an assumption then what is it? a foregone conclusion? your points also have to be tempered by the facts i discussed earlier. Rebels mainly made up of civilians. Supplies. Arms. Position. Numbers. City fighting.

@warboss
looks to be a hoax...am monitoring it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:

Bakerofish wrote:

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:

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?

lots. transfer of power, abdication. a successfull cecession. power vaccuum.

but its definitely not as easy as "the world says so" because then holding on to power loses meaning

What is it that constitutes power?

this is a question that has been asked through the ages man and not something this thread can contaibn alone. some people say divine right. some people say economics. some people site law. some people site might.

people get their masters degree trying to answer this question

Okay then Baker, if you want to look at that information then what about the fact that civilians have already shot down two or so bombers and have held back Ghadafi's land forces. If the rebels were so bad off then I would guess that they would've lost by now, but they're still there taking land held by those armed forces. Rebels living in those cities know those cities better than mercenaries from foreign countries(look at the Hessians in the Revolutionary war), both sides have the supplies necessary and each time Ghadafi blows up a depot remember that those were his depots to begin with so he's losing supplies either way. Their weapons are similar because they're taking the weapons from the military's depots.

Bakerofish wrote:this is a question that has been asked through the ages man and not something this thread can contaibn alone. some people say divine right. some people say economics. some people site law. some people site might.

people get their masters degree trying to answer this question

Alright then, what is it that constitutes power in Libya? Is it control of the oil? Is it control of a majority of the country?

Moderator note: Although we recognize that sexiest_hero does not actually hate Obama and is mostly just angry because he feels betrayed, we have edited the thread title to something less inflammatory.

While it has been allowed to stand for a while, we have considered that in retrospect, if someone who DOES hate Obama had used this thread title as a trolling post, it would have been locked or edited long ago, and it is inappropriate and inconsistent to let the title stand just because we know sexiest_hero is not actually trying to troll. Thank you. -Mannahnin

Yeah I was upset About the whole deal, I don't hate the Big O (I voted for him, and canvased pretty hard). But I do feel he lets things get way out of hand before dealing with it. I do belive this could have been avoided before a complete civil war, that just gives Oil companies a reason to jack up prices at record speed. I do feel that if we don't support protesters being killed before the gak hits the fan, we'll find many of the countries that emerge very hostile. O feel we either (A) help to make sure transfers of power are as bloodless as possible, or (B) deal with a new power full of hardened civil war vets who may have gotten aid from terrorist networks after the west turned them down. Sorry mods :(.

I wouldn't consider Obama's position on Libya weak, I would consider it indifferent. Not by his words, but by his actions (or lack thereof). It took 9 days for him to say anything about it. Which leads me to believe that he's more concerned about his re-election right now and it putting every one his actions or words through a political expedience filter to repair his image.

As for Libya, the rebels need to win on their own. We've got too much going on right now. I would like to see us help them, but I won't be holding my breath.

Why do we think the rebels would be better than Khaddafy?

Frazzled wrote:Why do we think the rebels would be better than Khaddafy?

Because they're newer and newer is always better right?

Because they're rebels. The rebels are always the good guys.

Case in point, The Rebellion. Palpatine totally had it coming.

@halo
ill call those victories awesomesauce because they are. cant take that away. however the war isnt over and taking a capital is different. The core of Gaddafi's army remains. to assume that victory is imminent is asking for it.

Gaddafi might be feinting. Call the war a victory when its over. if the rebels gain Tripoli i will call it a done deal.

@warboss

right now what constitutes power in Libya is up in the air. hence the conflict. Obviously control of the geography and military might is being used to jockey for that power. right now Gaddafi is still retaining his title and the capitol. The rebels are contesting his claim.

who folds first gives power to the victor.

Bakerofish wrote:@warboss

right now what constitutes power in Libya is up in the air. hence the conflict. Obviously control of the geography and military might is being used to jockey for that power. right now Gaddafi is still retaining his title and the capitol. The rebels are contesting his claim.

who folds first gives power to the victor.

And if the rest of the world decides to just ignore Gaddaffi and deal directly with the rebels (in part because Gaddaffi can no longer deliver oil and such, he no longer has the power to do so)? If they enforce the no-fly-zone, which would mean that gaddaffi has no ability to meaningfully project force beyond tripoli?

If that happens, and Gaddaffi can't make decisions about anywhere further than he can throw a stone, does that not mean that he's no longer the de facto ruler of the country? That he is no longer in power, so to speak, without abdicating, and without being eradicated?

Which is exactly the position I've been holidng, but bakerofish insists that without some kind of legal procedure, Gadaffi is still in charge, and it doesn't matter what the de facto situation is.

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:

Bakerofish wrote:@warboss

right now what constitutes power in Libya is up in the air. hence the conflict. Obviously control of the geography and military might is being used to jockey for that power. right now Gaddafi is still retaining his title and the capitol. The rebels are contesting his claim.

who folds first gives power to the victor.

And if the rest of the world decides to just ignore Gaddaffi and deal directly with the rebels (in part because Gaddaffi can no longer deliver oil and such, he no longer has the power to do so)? If they enforce the no-fly-zone, which would mean that gaddaffi has no ability to meaningfully project force beyond tripoli?

If that happens, and Gaddaffi can't make decisions about anywhere further than he can throw a stone, does that not mean that he's no longer the de facto ruler of the country? That he is no longer in power, so to speak, without abdicating, and without being eradicated?

see youre assuming the world can just decide to just ignore Gaddafi's claim to govern. to do so means that youll be ignoring the very laws and rights you put for the greater good in the first place.

if all it takes is a UN vote to depose a head of state, Bush Sr and Jr wouldve been on the hotbox several times. If all it takes is a military advantage to control a country then a lot of Warlords in Africa wouldve had legitimate claim for power.

The current assumption of the international system is that power flows from the people. Whoever represents the people has the rightful claim to power.

The world can choose to ignore Gadaffi all they want, there is no law that says we have to recognize him as the leader of Libya. If there is one, please name it for me and give me a direct citation for where it is, who enforces it...I doubt you'll find one.

ChrisWWII wrote:The current assumption of the international system is that power flows from the people. Whoever represents the people has the rightful claim to power.

The world can choose to ignore Gadaffi all they want, there is no law that says we have to recognize him as the leader of Libya. If there is one, please name it for me and give me a direct citation for where it is, who enforces it...I doubt you'll find one.

It is? What planet are you on? Whoever has the gun rules in most countries.

I'm talking ideally, what most people WANT the system to be like. Yeah, de facto whoever has the bigger/more guns makes the rules, but ideallly, especially with Western democracies, the 'righhtful' government of the country is the one that represents the will of the people.

In practice we don't stick to this as much....

Bakerofish wrote:

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:

Bakerofish wrote:@warboss

right now what constitutes power in Libya is up in the air. hence the conflict. Obviously control of the geography and military might is being used to jockey for that power. right now Gaddafi is still retaining his title and the capitol. The rebels are contesting his claim.

who folds first gives power to the victor.

And if the rest of the world decides to just ignore Gaddaffi and deal directly with the rebels (in part because Gaddaffi can no longer deliver oil and such, he no longer has the power to do so)? If they enforce the no-fly-zone, which would mean that gaddaffi has no ability to meaningfully project force beyond tripoli?

If that happens, and Gaddaffi can't make decisions about anywhere further than he can throw a stone, does that not mean that he's no longer the de facto ruler of the country? That he is no longer in power, so to speak, without abdicating, and without being eradicated?

see youre assuming the world can just decide to just ignore Gaddafi's claim to govern.

If he has no ability to govern, why should it be given any attention?

Bakerofish wrote: to do so means that youll be ignoring the very laws and rights you put for the greater good in the first place.

What laws and rights? Could you name one?

Bakerofish wrote:if all it takes is a UN vote to depose a head of state, Bush Sr and Jr wouldve been on the hotbox several times. If all it takes is a military advantage to control a country then a lot of Warlords in Africa wouldve had legitimate claim for power.

These things in isolation would not have been enough to depose (or install) a head of state, you're correct.

But let's say that midway through Bush jr's second term that the military defected to Al Gore and Bush had control of DC and Maryland and nothing else.

If Gore had the people behind him, in this scenario, and had de facto control over the country, why would it be out of the realm of possibility that he be recognised as the ruler of America?

ChrisWWII wrote:I'm talking ideally, what most people WANT the system to be like. Yeah, de facto whoever has the bigger/more guns makes the rules, but ideallly, especially with Western democracies, the 'righhtful' government of the country is the one that represents the will of the people.

In practice we don't stick to this as much....

Why do you think most people want that?

That's the way I've been thought, and from the Western democratic point of view, power flows from the people to the government. There is a Locke style 'contract' between the people and the government. That is how Western democracies judge 'rightful government' and why they tend to protest a lot when someone is being opressive.

Unless of course the opressor is too important or powerful for them to stare down, and they settle for finger wagging.

http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/chapter1.shtml

Article 2

The Organization and its Members, in pursuit of the Purposes stated in Article 1, shall act in accordance with the following Principles.

1. The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.
2. All Members, in order to ensure to all of them the rights and benefits resulting from membership, shall fulfill in good faith the obligations assumed by them in accordance with the present Charter.
3. All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.
4. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.
5. All Members shall give the United Nations every assistance in any action it takes in accordance with the present Charter, and shall refrain from giving assistance to any state against which the United Nations is taking preventive or enforcement action.
6. The Organization shall ensure that states which are not Members of the United Nations act in accordance with these Principles so far as may be necessary for the maintenance of international peace and security.
7. Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter Vll.

Article 2 is talking about international relations, not which government in a region should be recognised as legitimate.

@warboss

selective reading is bad

youre conveniently ignoring the items i put in bold. read #7 again.

Bakerofish wrote:@halo
ill call those victories awesomesauce because they are. cant take that away. however the war isnt over and taking a capital is different. The core of Gaddafi's army remains. to assume that victory is imminent is asking for it.

Gaddafi might be feinting. Call the war a victory when its over. if the rebels gain Tripoli i will call it a done deal.

But what if Ghadafi has a secret military base somewhere else in the country? Then the battle isn't over despite the fact that the rebels took Tripoli. Ghadafi isn't feigning any secret army, he's a moron who thought that not rebuilding the house we bombed back in the 80's would be an act of defiance against the americans. He said that there was a 'kill line' in international waters and that anyone who crossed it would perish, we shot down a couple of his fighters. He has a bunch of empty threats up his sleeves maybe, but that's it.

Bakerofish wrote:@warboss

selective reading is bad

youre conveniently ignoring the items i put in bold. read #7 again.

7. Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter Vll.

Right, right. The UN isn't intervening in the internal affairs of Libya by saying who they're willing to deal with on an international level, though.

The UN would be well within its rights to say that it recognises the rebel government as the government that represents the people. They wouldn't be wrong, either; the rebels control the vast majority of the country, and with it, the majority of the population, (though I may be wrong on that).

From the wikipedia which is not the most reliable source when it comes to academic fine detail, but it's usually a good source for undisputed data such as why the sky appears blue or Africa is FUBAR.

Chronological List of 21st century wars in Africa

21st Century
2001–present War on Terrorism
1997–present Islamic Terrorism in Egypt
2002–present Islamic insurgency in the Maghreb
2002–present Operation Enduring Freedom - Horn of Africa
2006 Rise of the Islamic Courts Union
2006 - 2009 Ethiopian War in Somalia
2007 - today Operation Enduring Freedom - Trans Sahara
2009 - today Islamist civil war in Somalia
2009 - today Taliban insurgency in Nigeria
2001 - 2003 Central African Republic civil war
2002 - 2003 Ivorian Civil War
2003–present War in Darfur
2004 2004 French-Ivorian clashes
2004 - today Conflict in the Niger Delta
2004–present Central African Republic Bush War
2004–present Kivu conflict
2005–present Civil War in Chad
2005 - 2008 Mount Elgon insurgency
2007–present Second Tuareg Rebellion
2007 - 2008 Kenyan crisis
2008 Invasion of Anjouan
2008 Djiboutian-Eritrean border conflict
2009 Israeli bombing of Sudan

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_conflicts_in_Africa

There were 13 active conflicts/wars in Africa before the recent meltdown in Libya, which will make 14 current wars/conflicts going on in Africa, 3 of which are current US military campaigns. If not getting involved in African wars such as Libya is a sign of weakness then we should be involved in every single on of the conflicts I just listed, many of which have much more of a direct national security interest to the USA.

Just because Obama doesn't want to involve the USA in an African civil war doesn't mean it's a sign or weakness or the wrong thing to do. Obama puts his underwear on before he puts his pants on, and Obama puts his socks on before he puts his shoes on. Just because Obama does or doesn't do something doesn't make it inherently wrong. There is a lot of things Obama does that I really disagree with, but you don't see me walking around with my underwear over my pants and my socks over my shoes to spite Obama.

Let's also bear in mind that the UN charter is not law, but rather an agreement between nations. It's got as much backing it as the old League of Nations did...well, a bit more, but Clause 4 didn't stop us in Iraq or Afghanistan did it?

I think that we established the fact that Africa in general sucks.

halonachos wrote:I think that we established the fact that Africa in general sucks.

Then why the feth do so many people on this forum insist that the US should get right into the middle of an African nation's civil war?