NATO !

[Hal.]

Is it time for NATO to disband ?

[pwagen]

Any special reason for it to be?

[Marat]

NATO was originally established as a defensive alliance to oppose the forces of the Warsaw Pact, which were thought to intend an invasion of Western Europe with their massive combined armies exceeding NATO's forces many times over. Not much wrong with that.

 

But then, when the Warsaw Pact dissolved and the ideological motivations for such a massive invasion of the West by the East unravelled with it, NATO was preserved as an Imperialists' Club to assert the interests of the West against other nations. If the Yugoslav break-up and ethnic wars were not good for the NATO countries' vision of a future capitalist Europe secure for business and commerce, then NATO would just bomb the Yugoslavs into submission, even if this meant bombing from such a high altitude that innocent civilian deaths were sure to result, but if high altitudes were necessary to protect NATO pilots, so be it. And of course when it came time to assess the conflict for war crimes, the investigators were all from NATO countries so they ignored the Serbs' evidence of civilian deaths from NATO bombing and instead saw only war crimes -- by some astonishing coincidence -- solely on the side of NATO's enemies. Louise Arbour, one of the war crimes inspectors, just by coincidence was appointed to the Canadian Supreme Court after her report.

 

Now NATO is intervening in Libya in fulfillment of the UN Security Council's narrow authorization of military action to protect civilian lives and nothing else. Although Gaddafi a while ago offered a ceasefire which would have immediately brought to an end all possibility of further civilian casualties on either side, which the NATO-backed rebels refused to accept, thus making them logically solely responsible for all future civilian casualities. NATO continues to back the rebels -- solely to prevent civilian casualties! NATO is also now itself causing civilian casualties by its bombing, as it knew in advance it could not help but do, and naturally no one is counting whether NATO is now producing more civilian casaulties by its massive bombing campaign than Gaddafi's tiny forces are causing on the ground.

 

NATO's actions now remind one of the Berlin Conference of 1884 when the Great Powers met to divide up Africa among themselves. Now that the period of internicene wars among the Great Powers (1914-1945; followed by the Cold War of 1945-1991) is over, they can settle back into the old way of doing things, but instead of being called by those rather unstylish names of the past like 'the White Man's Burden,' 'European Imperialism,' 'the Mission to Christianize and Civilize the Primitive World,' it is more fashionably disguised with the name of the old purely defensive alliance, 'NATO.'

[ajb]

Is it time for NATO to disband ?

 

No, but clearly its role has changed from a defence against the Warsaw pact.

[John Cuthber]

Marat,

Saying "Although Gaddafi a while ago offered a ceasefire which would have immediately brought to an end all possibility of further civilian casualties on either side, which the NATO-backed rebels refused to accept, thus making them logically solely responsible for all future civilian casualties." seems a little one-sided.

 

For a start his troops opened fire on (relatively) peaceful protesters in the first place.

Also, did you consider the idea that he may have lied?

If he called for a ceasefire, used the lull to redeploy troops and gather intelligence then, on some pretext or other, restarted the gunfire wouldn't the rebels be responsible for letting him do that and, in turn, increasing the death toll?

Also, unless I'm mistaken the security council voted for this action. So what you are describing as "NATO backed" could also be called "China Backed" or "Russia Backed"

[Hal.]

Ref.1

 

Adopting resolution 1973 (2011) by a vote of 10 in favour to none against, with 5 abstentions (Brazil, China, Germany, India, Russian Federation), the Council authorized Member States, acting nationally or through regional organizations or arrangements, to take all necessary measures to protect civilians under threat of attack in the country, including Benghazi, while excluding a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory — requesting them to immediately inform the Secretary-General of such measures.

 

Ref 2 .

Voting for the Resolution .

 

Permanent members: United States, Britain, France

Non-permanent members:: Bosnia and Herzegovina, Colombia, Gabon, Lebanon, Nigeria, Portugal, South Africa

 

Abstentions .

Permanent members: Russia, China

Non-permanent members: Germany, Brazil, India

 

 

Ref. 1 . http://www.un.org/Ne...sc10200.doc.htm

 

Ref. 2 . http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/17/libya-united-nations-air-strikes-live

[Dekan]

Politicians want to keep NATO, because they can do things under its name, without sounding bad in the news. The politicians figure this way:

 

Suppose the news reported that "American planes are bombing Libya", or "British planes are bombing Libya". That might upset American and British voters. Who might ask awkward questions as to why their planes are doing it.

 

But if the news says: "NATO planes are bombing Libya", that sounds better, because the voters aren't quite sure what this "NATO" thing is.

 

So the voters will think, "Well, it's probably OK then", and will keep re-electing the politicians.

Edited June 24, 2011 by Dekan

[Marat]

That's also why Canada is so often pressed into international imperialist missions. Since Canada has an unjustifiably benign image internationally, having Canada onside for the latest neocolonial adventure provides an excellent fig leaf.

 

Although the UN Security Council authorized the Libyan mission, it did so only through diplomatic arm-twisting by the Great Powers getting enough votes onside, so the Security Council has itself become the figleaf of imperialism. Technically, article 24 of the UN Charter allows the International Court of Justice to review UN Security Council actions for their consistency with the UN Charter, but the court lacks the courage to submit the Great Powers to the discipline of anything so objective and neutral as international law.

 

The Security Council Resolution also only allows actions to be taken to protect civilian lives in Libya. Technically, it is impossible to regard Gaddafi's forces as threatening civilian lives after they asked for a ceasefire and were turned down. Even if that request was a ruse, at least during the ceasefire Gaddafi would not have been endangering civilians, and the ceasefire itself would have promoted the Security Council Resolution a million times more effectively than continuing the fight for the period the ceasefire would have lasted.

 

NATO paradoxically decided to enforce the sole authorization for its intervention in Libya -- saving civilian lives -- by adopting the military methods most likely to maximize civilian casualties: high-level bombing of cities like Tripoli; logistical support for undisciplined rebel troops; and lobbing missiles from long distance at cities. It has already been documented by the BBC that NATO is now slaughtering Libyan civilians by its inaccurate targeting of missiles and bombs at Tripoli, so logically, to fulfill its UN mandate, NATO should start bombing its own military installations to reduce civilian casualties.

 

As for Gaddafi's initial use of lethal force against armed rebels in his own country committing acts of sedition to overthrow the government by force, this was a perfectly legal action under the Criminal Code of Libya, and so should have been regarded internationally as nothing more than a case of a state maintaining its own domestic rule of law. No country in the world permits armed rebels to try to overthrow the government and simply stands back and lets them do so without opposing them by armed force. The fact that Libya did so was no different than what Lincoln did in the U.S. during the American Civil War, and just as legal.

[John Cuthber]

By abstaining rather than vetoing the decision, China and Russia supported it; abstaining gives them a cover for not spending their money or sending their troops.

[Hal.]

By abstaining rather than vetoing the decision, China and Russia supported it; abstaining gives them a cover for not spending their money or sending their troops.

 

By extension of this logic , if everybody abstained then the vote would have full support . I doubt that !

[Brainteaserfan]

NATO was originally established as a defensive alliance to oppose the forces of the Warsaw Pact, which were thought to intend an invasion of Western Europe with their massive combined armies exceeding NATO's forces many times over. Not much wrong with that.

 

But then, when the Warsaw Pact dissolved and the ideological motivations for such a massive invasion of the West by the East unravelled with it, NATO was preserved as an Imperialists' Club to assert the interests of the West against other nations. If the Yugoslav break-up and ethnic wars were not good for the NATO countries' vision of a future capitalist Europe secure for business and commerce, then NATO would just bomb the Yugoslavs into submission, even if this meant bombing from such a high altitude that innocent civilian deaths were sure to result, but if high altitudes were necessary to protect NATO pilots, so be it. And of course when it came time to assess the conflict for war crimes, the investigators were all from NATO countries so they ignored the Serbs' evidence of civilian deaths from NATO bombing and instead saw only war crimes -- by some astonishing coincidence -- solely on the side of NATO's enemies. Louise Arbour, one of the war crimes inspectors, just by coincidence was appointed to the Canadian Supreme Court after her report.

 

Now NATO is intervening in Libya in fulfillment of the UN Security Council's narrow authorization of military action to protect civilian lives and nothing else. Although Gaddafi a while ago offered a ceasefire which would have immediately brought to an end all possibility of further civilian casualties on either side, which the NATO-backed rebels refused to accept, thus making them logically solely responsible for all future civilian casualities. NATO continues to back the rebels -- solely to prevent civilian casualties! NATO is also now itself causing civilian casualties by its bombing, as it knew in advance it could not help but do, and naturally no one is counting whether NATO is now producing more civilian casaulties by its massive bombing campaign than Gaddafi's tiny forces are causing on the ground.

 

NATO's actions now remind one of the Berlin Conference of 1884 when the Great Powers met to divide up Africa among themselves. Now that the period of internicene wars among the Great Powers (1914-1945; followed by the Cold War of 1945-1991) is over, they can settle back into the old way of doing things, but instead of being called by those rather unstylish names of the past like 'the White Man's Burden,' 'European Imperialism,' 'the Mission to Christianize and Civilize the Primitive World,' it is more fashionably disguised with the name of the old purely defensive alliance, 'NATO.'

Gaddafi already claimed cease-fire to buy time, as he was lying. I'm not for the Libyan war, but gaddafi didn't mean a true cease-fire, he wants NATO to cease-fire!

Quote:

Witnesses in the western city of Misrata said earlier Friday that a pro-government assault is persisting and casualties are mounting as countries backing the council's move, such as Britain and France, get their military resources into place to enforce the measure.

"What cease-fire?" asked a doctor in Misrata, who described hours of military poundings, casualties and dwindling resources to treat the wounded. "We're under the bombs.

"This morning, they are burning the city," the doctor said. "There are deaths everywhere."

"Misrata is on fire," according to an opposition member, who said tanks and vehicles with heavy artillery shot their way into the city Thursday night and the assault continued Friday. He said Gadhafi's regime announced a cease-fire to buy time for itself. "Please help us."

End quote

Source:

http://articles.cnn.com/2011-03-18/world/libya.civil.war_1_cease-fire-khaled-kaim-rebel-forces?_s=PM:WORLD

[Marat]

The initiation of any ceasefire is always ragged, and especially where combat is ongoing, disengagement can be difficult. Thus many soldiers were killed on both sides shortly after the official end of World War I, sot so much because anyone intended to violate the ceasefire as because the fog of war confuses the effect of all orders.

 

The point in Libya is that if Gaddafi's proposal had been accepted and his forces were still not in overall compliance with it a day or two later, obviously the ceasefire would have been exposed as a sham and would have no longer had any effect. So what could it have been worth to Gaddafi to have a fake ceasefire which would have been effective for only a day or two? I doubt that he would have seen it as worthwhile, and would instead have regarded it as counterproductive, since it would just have strengthened the international condemnation of his regime. The fact that the rebels rejected his ceasefire offer out of hand shows that they are the ones, along with their NATO backers, who have made themselves from that moment on solely responsible for the civilian casaulties, the avoidance of which is also the sole ground of NATO's authority to be there in the first place under international law!

 

That the Western media have not even noticed this mind-numbing paradox only speaks to how little free press we have in reality. Instead all we have is propagandistic prattling by CNN about Gaddafi's troops using rape as a weapon of war, just like the World War I propaganda about the barbarian Huns raping nuns as they moved through Belgium. The latter was exposed after the war as a total fabrication, but only after it made no difference, and the former will no doubt turn out to be the same sort of nonsense. It is a mark of the decline of religion that the rape stories no longer have to be about nuns, but with the rise of feminism as the new religion, just plain rape does well enough.

[John Cuthber]

"So what could it have been worth to Gaddafi to have a fake ceasefire which would have been effective for only a day or two?"

Like I said.

If he called for a ceasefire, used the lull to redeploy troops and gather intelligence...

[Hal.]

I think that it must be said that in any western country , though I don't like to use the term ' western ' as it makes people think there is an entity called the ' west ' , which there isn't , if twenty people , never mind 2500 , went down through the centre of a city with machine guns on pickups , grenades and rocket launchers , the government running that western country would be sending thousands of military personnel to end that problem quickly , licenced to do whatever they have to .

[Brainteaserfan]

I think that it must be said that in any western country , though I don't like to use the term ' western ' as it makes people think there is an entity called the ' west ' , which there isn't , if twenty people , never mind 2500 , went down through the centre of a city with machine guns on pickups , grenades and rocket launchers , the government running that western country would be sending thousands of military personnel to end that problem quickly , licenced to do whatever they have to .

I assume you are talking about the rebels. If the populace was so against the leader of any western country, he/she would surely step down before the violent uprising.

[Hal.]

I ' m talking about a hypothetical situation , should it ever happen in a ' western ' country , there would be no justification for blame to be put on the government who reacts to it , from their foreign governmental counterparts , this of course being from their unified point of view .

 

Don't get me wrong , people from whatever tribal backgrounds that they are , should live peacefully and have the benefits of their natural resources spent in ways that help them , not the foreign countries who are only interested in getting cheap oil while fronting it with whatever will convince their own people that they are doing the right thing .

 

 

 

 

[JohnB]

The fact that the rebels rejected his ceasefire offer out of hand shows that they are the ones, along with their NATO backers, who have made themselves from that moment on solely responsible for the civilian casaulties,

 

Heard that logic before. Hijackers back in the 70s used the same arguments. "It's not our fault the hostages are being killed, it's your fault for not acceeding to our demands. " It was BS then and it's BS now.

[Brainteaserfan]

Heard that logic before. Hijackers back in the 70s used the same arguments. "It's not our fault the hostages are being killed, it's your fault for not acceeding to our demands. " It was BS then and it's BS now.

Something like this was in the US news recently. Remember the Quran burning pastor? Whether it was right or not doesn't matter, but the American media made it out like he was costing American soldiers' lives in afghanistan. By your (correct) logic, it was the people who killed the soliders fault that they died, not the pastor's fault!

Edited June 27, 2011 by Brainteaserfan

[Hal.]

Who knows how , what a person might say , could influence any person at all , anywhere at all ? These days we are communicating with each other from all over the world , nearly instantly !

[Marat]

JohnB: I don't think your analogy applies, because as childish as this reasoning may sound, it all comes down to 'who started it.' The hijackers commit an initially illegal act in seizing the plane and blackmailing the legally constituted authorities by threatening to kill their hostages, so they really can't blame the authorities for any deaths that result by the authorities maintaining public right and the legal order in refusing to comply with the hijackers' demands.

 

In the Libyan case, international law recognizes the right of the domestically constituted legal authority in every country to enforce its domestic criminal code, which always allows the state to use lethal force to suppress an armed uprising, especially one directed at seizing power by violent means. This is the authority by which the U.S. acted to kill the Puerto Rican freedom fighters at the Battle of the Blair House in 1950, for example, and it was this same legal authority by which Gaddafi acted to suppress the rebellion in his own country. So the initial wrong doers here, the 'hijackers' in terms of the analogy offered, are the Libyan rebels, not Gaddafi, since they are the ones who are acting in violation of public right. If you accept, as the whole world did before the rebellion, that Gaddafi's government is the legally constituted domestic authority in Libya, then the world has no complaint at international law when he acts to sustain the domestic legal order in Libya by suppression open and armed rebellion with force.

 

Don't be misled by the basic moral and legal calculus of the situation having been turned upside down as soon as the Great Powers got a whiff of Libyan oil perhaps becoming available on the market at a discount once the risk factor of its possession by an unreliable character like Gaddafi could be eliminated by giving a little strategic nudge to the rebels.