Libya

[Craterloads]

no it isn't hearsay the fact was that he already had Bengazi surrounded... Its rather unlikely that we'd have had any better outcomes without intervention, its quite plausible that we'd have something ranging from a similar scenario through to many massacres. A power vacuum is probably a better scenario than keeping in power someone pretty much willing to conduct genocide. Its not like we are assuming he would cause massive civilian casualties - he already had caused civilian casualties, he already was killing his own people and his troops had just surrounded the second biggest city in the country.

So us killing their people and then all of them killing each is better how? Again you are not mystic meg, you cannot say what would have or would not have happened. I've already provided you with a scenario which would have been better than what it is now. Again a simple fact, we supplied weapons to pretty much everyone, created a power vacuum, these are the facts.

Yes we facilitated regime change though that was in response to how he was behaving - the west was working with him up until he started killing his own people. I think that when someone is actively trying to kill large chunks of his population regime change is rather a good thing.
I'm sensing that you become critical as soon as the west interferes in anything to do with an Islamic country.

I thought we were there to impose a no fly zone and to protect civilians, weren't we told time and again we weren't there to facilitate a regime change. Given western regime changes in the past how can you sit there and not acknowledge any responsibility given we know what happens afterwards. It just a cost we are willing to take, or should I say a cost we are willing others to take. This is not the fist time you attempted to absolve the west of any responsibility...

If they'd have known for sure it was Gaddafi you might well have seen further attempts at that particular convoy... he survived the ariel attack - yes as far as I'm aware they got lucky with that one - unless you have any evidence to the contrary?

They have stated they knew it was a high value target, they had already attempted to take him out by bombing his residential home killing his kids and grand children and Gadhafi managed to escape injured. US and NATO officials have gone on record attempting to justify assassinating Gaddafi, not sure what more you need.

As for whether we went beyond the resolution - I've already answered that in the post you're quoting and even copied the relevant section of it further up the thread... it authorised all necessary measures while "excluding a foreign occupation force of any form". We're not occupying Libya nor did we occupy it at any point during the military action.

Regime change was not part of that mandate, acting as air support was not part of the mandate or supplying weapons, if you cannot even accept either we were mislead or that they went past the mandate there little point in any further discussion as I fear you have your head buried in the sand.

"The resolution makes clear it is for the security council to decide whether to strengthen, suspend or lift the arms embargo, not for member states to act unilaterally." U.N. Security Council Resolution 1970

The fact is in many of the conflicts we (the west) have a responsibility for what is going on, that's not to say the countries involved don't either. But the fact you flat out dismiss this you come across as your typical American "we gave them freedom".

 

[arknor]

you'd be disorientated if an explosion happened a few cars away from you too, he wasn't seriously injured until someone stuck a knife or whatever it was up his anus

 

[Amp34]

Lybia is not doing great but it's not Syria, which it would've been without the West's intervention. Like Syria, it would have dragged neighbours into the conflict as well.
In 2011, Syria had a much larger military force than Lybia, access to advanced Russian weaponry and a powerful security apparatus yet the country is now in ruins and hundreds of thousands are dead.

Before sprouting blind hatred towards anything Western/American, why don't you take some time to use your head?

Just because you don't read past the front page, it doesn't mean there's no news on Lybia.

You do know the problems in Mali, CAR and even Buku Haram can be directly attributed to the fall of Gadaffi and the current mess Libya is in right?

 

[Amp34]

How on earth is it our fault?

We went in on a mandate of policing a no fly zone then wiped out the main force in the area, leaving a power vaccum which has now been filled by multiple groups broadly aligned on tribal divisions.

Basically we interfered in a civil uprising/war and left space for the mess that currently inhabits Libya.

Edit: the overstepping of the UN mandate is one of the major reasons there was no way we would get a UN mandate to interfere in Syria, another civil war with multiple factions almost all as bad as each other.

It's interesting to note that out of all the uprisings in the Arab spring most have ended just as bad or worse than they were to begin with.

Tunisia (the first) was successful
Libya is now a mess
Syria is now a mess
Egypt had democracy for a year before moving back to military dictatorship

 

[dowie]

We went in on a mandate of policing a no fly zone then wiped out the main force in the area, leaving a power vaccum which has now been filled by multiple groups broadly aligned on tribal divisions.

Basically we interfered in a civil uprising/war and left space for the mess that currently inhabits Libya.

again its simply not the case that this was only supposed to be a no fly zone - the resolution clearly authorised far more than that

 

[Amp34]

erm I'm not - perhaps try reading your own link instead of just the title - it wasn't just a no fly zone.... people just assumed that when the press headlines mentioned a 'no fly zone' then got surprised when we started bombing people.



It authorized pretty much anything up to an actual invasion/occupation in order to protect civilians which is pretty much what happened.

Protect civilians, not blow up tanks in the desert during battles with rebels. The UK and France overstepped the mandate and that is why there was no way we could intervene in Syria. The UN nations would not vote for us to "protect civilians" knowing full well we had used a similar resolution to instigate regime change in Libya.

This is a post i wrote i another thread but apt for this thread as well...

You know this, how? Syria had a larger, better equipped loyal military force and support from Iran. Yet the war rages on to this day..



War = threats to blow up tanker? If only wars were like that..

No, war is rival factions fighting it out, a western backed government that can't even secure it's own parliament, or protect a US ambassador where multiple factions control their own areas of the country and battle it out for prime assets, where parts of the country are so out of control factions can fill a tanker and send it on it's way, only being stopped by the western military. The uprising and instability of what could politely be called a failed state, but more precisely an ex country that is now basically multiple fiefdoms also helped destabilise much of west and central Africa, including Mali, CAF and Chad, alongside helping to arm Boko Haram, the organisation that kidnapped hundreds of girls in Nigeria.

But no, it's in a fine state and in no way epitomises the chaos the west can cause by getting involved in things that don't concern it.

The repercussions from the western involvement also directly relate to the lack of action over Syria. Once we overstepped the mark by becoming the Rebel airforce under the guise of policing a "No Fly Zone" under the UN Resolution there was no way another UN resolution was going to be passed to allow the same to happen in Syria. Without UN backing only unilateral action could occur and luckily the UK voted that down too.

 

[Amp34]

Its not hearsay - it is a fact that Gaddafi's forces were closing in on Bengazi immediately prior to our intervention. We didn't start the revolution there, it was never going to be without loss of life, destruction whether we intervened or not. Its just that because 'the west' did something and its not perfect afterwards you can point a finger and decide that all the Libyan people's woes are completely down to the west... regardless of the fact that they were up **** creek well before we got involved in anything. You now seem to be advocating intervention but in the form of strictly a no fly zone... had we taken a different approach and it had been ineffective there would no doubt be criticism that we stood by with some token no fly zone while half of Benghazi was massacred. What it really boils down to is simply that as soon as we intervene then anything that goes wrong from that point on, whether the alternatives would have been worse or not, can rather easily (and quite lazily) be blamed wholly on the west.



I don't really care what you think some unspecified 'experts' may or may not agree with - its completely irrelevant. I'm fully aware that SF don't deploy on hoverboards, yes their boots were on the ground - you seem to be confusing a term used by Barack Obama in a speech with the terms of the resolution. A few forward air controllers and some embedded advisers are not capable of occupying anything. As for bombing some regime vehicles - its rather standard... while its nice it turned out to be Gaddafi in that particular incident you might well find that rather a lot of vehicles were bombed... something to do with his regime/military killing civilians - so yes when a bunch of armed men in a column of vehicles decides to head off from one of the remaining regime strongholds they're rather likely to get bombed.

The Libyan army were indeed closing in on bengazi when we intervened. The rebels were routed and the uprising was almost crushed. Our intervention changed the course of the battle significantly, from something that may have ended within a few days/weeks to something that is still going on now...

 

[dowie]

So us killing their people and then all of them killing each is better how? Again you are not mystic meg, you cannot say what would have or would not have happened. I've already provided you with a scenario which would have been better than what it is now. Again a simple fact, we supplied weapons to pretty much everyone, created a power vacuum, these are the facts.

Its also a fact that Bengazi was surrounded and its not hard to see what was likely going to happen there given what was already happening. I really don't see Gaddafi being in power as being a better alternative to the current situation given that the active killing of civilians by his regime, an entire city at the brink of falling to his forces is rather more destructive.

I thought we were there to impose a no fly zone and to protect civilians, weren't we told time and again we weren't there to facilitate a regime change.

there was nothing preventing regime change... given that the regime was actively killing civilians on a large scale then getting rid of that regime isn't necessarily a bad option

They have stated they knew it was a high value target, they had already attempted to take him out by bombing his residential home killing his kids and grand children and Gadhafi managed to escape injured. US and NATO officials have gone on record attempting to justify assassinating Gaddafi, not sure what more you need.

You're claiming they knew it was Gaddafi - I'm saying they likely got lucky... what I'd need to change my view there is some evidence they knew it was Gaddafi. Yes they have tried to kill Gaddafi so what? Yes it might well have looked like a high value target - so what? I'd say its entirely plausible that they suspected it might be Gaddafi or it might be someone else high up in his regime - that isn't the same as actually knowing that specific convoy contained Gaddafi - how do you know that they knew that for sure?

I think they got lucky with that one - but yes it is good they managed to get him and I really don't see an issue with actively targeting him.

Regime change was not part of that mandate, acting as air support was not part of the mandate or supplying weapons, if you cannot even accept either we were mislead or that they went past the mandate there little point in any further discussion as I fear you have your head buried in the sand.

How else do you protect the population of Bengazi from the imminent invasion of Gaddafi's troops? A no-fly zone isn't going to stop ground forces.

 

[dowie]

The Libyan army were indeed closing in on bengazi when we intervened. The rebels were routed and the uprising was almost crushed. Our intervention changed the course of the battle significantly, from something that may have ended within a few days/weeks to something that is still going on now...

The only way it would have ended within a few days/weeks would have been via rather large scale massacres/genocide. It was a large scale uprising - Libyan police/security posts were being attacked by masses of civilians - unarmed people driving JCBs, ramming cars into gates, not caring if they died and masses of civilians some armed some not overwhelming them. They dealt with this by killing people en masse If he'd been able to take Bengazi the result would have been disastrous.

Yes it might well have ended within a few days/weeks without our intervention - my point is that that ending would very likely have been a complete disaster. Not intervening is sometimes far worse than intervening - Rwanda etc..

 

[dowie]

Protect civilians, not blow up tanks in the desert during battles with rebels. The UK and France overstepped the mandate and that is why there was no way we could intervene in Syria. The UN nations would not vote for us to "protect civilians" knowing full well we had used a similar resolution to instigate regime change in Libya.

the resolution was pretty clear that we were to use all means necessary short of an actual occupation - acting as a catalyst to remove a regime that was actively massacring people didn't require occupation, depriving that regime of its military hardware, command and control systems etc.. is rather a good way of depriving it of the ability to conduct these massacres

 

[Craterloads]

Its also a fact that Bengazi was surrounded and its not hard to see what was likely going to happen there given what was already happening. I really don't see Gaddafi being in power as being a better alternative to the current situation given that the active killing of civilians by his regime, an entire city at the brink of falling to his forces is rather more destructive.

A entire city falling is worse than the entire country falling, how? I've already provided you with a scenario which could have prevented any massacres. You can not predict the future especially given NATO only had one thing on its mind, regime change. It's plausible if they went on a containment mission or countless other scenarios they would have prevented any massacres whilst maintaining the structure of the country, simply they were not interested in that, hence your guess work is useless.

At least Gadhafi had rival factions in check,, the country was reasonably well off compared to neighbouring African states, good health care and a decent standard of living. Now they have squat and everyone is fight among themselves, you do the math.

there was nothing preventing regime change... given that the regime was actively killing civilians on a large scale then getting rid of that regime isn't necessarily a bad option

Well it turns out it was..... There was nothing endorsing regime change, which is what you should be saying. There was nothing preventing them delivering cheese to the moon as part of the mandate either..... hence why you enforce what the mandate actually states, no do what it doesn't say....

I'd say its entirely plausible that they suspected it might be Gaddafi or it might be someone else high up in his regime -

Taking out Gaddafi was against the mandate and many other UN resolutions.

I think they got lucky with that one - but yes it is good they managed to get him and I really don't see an issue with actively targeting him.

Think you should give NATO more credit than that, unfortunately killing the leaders of sovereign nations is against the law. Whether you don't have issues with assassinations of foreign leaders is irrelevant.

How else do you protect the population of Bengazi from the imminent invasion of Gaddafi's troops? A no-fly zone isn't going to stop ground forces.

Can only suggest regime change wasn't the best option or a legal option to begin with. If you cant see the difference between enforcing a no air zone or protecting civilians with regime change or how it oversteps the mandate I can only assume you are being intentionally obtuse.

 

[dowie]

A entire city falling is worse than the entire country falling, how?

when the people taking over the entire city are actively carrying out large scale massacres... and tbh.. it wasn't just that city at risk.

I've already provided you with a scenario which could have prevented any massacres.

no you haven't - a no fly zone alone doesn't prevent ground forces from carrying on

At least Gadhafi had rival factions in check,, the country was reasonably well off compared to neighbouring African states, good health care and a decent standard of living.

do I need to point out that Nazi Germany was rather well run under Hitler and prospering relative to the previous decades immediately after WW1? There's that big elephant in the room - oh yeah the wide scale massacre of portions of the population... the whole reason behind the west going from trying to work with the Gaddafi regime through it becoming quite apparent something needed to be done.

Well it turns out it was..... There was nothing endorsing regime change, which is what you should be saying. There was nothing preventing them delivering cheese to the moon as part of the mandate either..... hence why you enforce what the mandate actually states, no do what it doesn't say....

The resolution authorized any necessary action short of an actual occupation

Can only suggest regime change wasn't the best option or a legal option to begin with. If you cant see the difference between enforcing a no air zone or protecting civilians with regime change or how it oversteps the mandate I can only assume you are being intentionally obtuse.

not at all - the regime was actively killing civilians... getting rid of the regime that was massacring civilians falls well within the remit

 

[dowie]

as for the legalities of targeting Gaddafi:

http://opiniojuris.org/2011/03/23/can-the-coalition-lawfully-target-gaddafi/

Can the Coalition Lawfully Target Gaddafi?

by Kenneth Anderson

Can the coalition forces using force in Libya under the Security Council’s authorizing resolution lawfully target Gaddafi personally? This question has provoked some heated back and forth among political leadership of several coalition countries, including the US and the UK:

Yesterday a war of words erupted between the U.S. and Britain after the U.K. government claimed Muammar Gaddafi is a legitimate target for assassination. U.K. government officials said killing the Libyan leader would be legal if it prevented civilian deaths as laid out in a U.N. resolution. But U.S. defence secretary Robert Gates hit back at the suggestion, saying it would be ‘unwise’ to target the Libyan leader adding cryptically that the bombing campaign should stick to the ‘U.N. mandate’.

Here is my very quick take. The international law questions are two; followed by a US domestic law question (and not the Constitutional law, separation of powers question being hotly debated):

First, under the laws of war generally, would targeting Gadaffi personally be lawful? Quick answer: Yes. As commander of Libya’s armed forces (which might be the case whether he is a civilian or a military officer), as a matter of status as well as operational fact, Gaddafi is a lawful target. There are many difficult questions of when it is lawful to target a person — status, participation in hostilities, etc. Some of them involve hard questions of interpretation of law; others include hard questions of what is the proper, or most plausible, understanding of the law itself. But it is not necessary to jump into those issues to find that Gaddafi can be targeted; his does not appear to be a hard case.

Second, under the terms of the Security Council’s authorizing resolution to use force, is it lawful to target Gaddafi personally? Quick answer: Yes. The text of Security Resolution 1973 (2011) reads with reference to protection of civilians (and repeats the same language with reference to the no-fly zone), and under the mandatory authority of the Council under Chapter VII:

Authorizes Member States that have notified the Secretary-General, acting nationally or through regional organizations or arrangements, and acting in cooperation with the Secretary-General, totake all necessary measures, notwithstanding paragraph 9 of resolution 1970 (2011), to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, including Benghazi … (emphasis added).

The resolution thus protects a category of persons, “civilians,” and a geographical status, “civilian populated areas that are under threat of attack.” It does so by permitting “all necessary measures.” Does this permit the targeting of the political and military leadership at the top that is attacking or threatening to attack civilians or civilian areas? “Necessary” could be read here as a term of limitation, but it is joined to “all,” which effectively runs the other way (it does not say “only,” for example). Additionally, however, “necessary” itself can also be read as a term of authorization — viz., the Council has issued not merely an invitation, but a mandate, to end the attacks and threats of attacks. In that sense, “necessary” can be understood plausibly as an instruction to accomplish the mandate by the means necessary.

 

[Craterloads]

when the people taking over the entire city are actively carrying out large scale massacres... and tbh.. it wasn't just that city at risk.

Given pretty much every city is at risk now makes it rather pointless.

no you haven't - a no fly zone alone doesn't prevent ground forces from carrying on

A containment mission, it's hard to say when Nato only had one thing in mind. Like I said guesswork.

do I need to point out that Nazi Germany was rather well run under Hitler and prospering relative to the previous decades immediately after WW1? There's that big elephant in the room - oh yeah the wide scale massacre of portions of the population... the whole reason behind the west going from trying to work with the Gaddafi regime through it becoming quite apparent something needed to be done.

I think its rather a far stretch comparing Libya to Nazi Germany, Godwin's anyone.

The resolution authorized any necessary action short of an actual occupation

The resolution did not authorise regime change. It's quite a disingenuous position of argument you are taking, "the mandate did not prevent" of coarse, the madate should be used for what it permits not on things it doesn't say.

not at all - the regime was actively killing civilians... getting rid of the regime that was massacring civilians falls well within the remit

It was a civil war, our job was to protect people not regime change.

 

[Craterloads]

Regardless of whether Muammar Gaddafi is ousted in coming days, the war against Libya has seen countless violations of United Nations security council resolutions (UNSCRs) by Nato and UN member states. The funnelling of weapons (now being air-dropped) to Libyan rebels was, from the beginning of the conflict, in clear violation of UNSCR 1970. The use of military force on behalf of the rebels, in an attempt to impose regime change, has undermined international law and damaged the credibility of the United Nations. Countless innocent civilians have been killed, and Nato air strikes continue to place many at great risk.

So much for the humanitarian-inspired UNSCR 1973 as a means to protect civilians. The people of Libya cannot take another month of such humanitarian intervention.

The leading donor nations of Nato – the US, France and Great Britain – have been free to prosecute war under the cloak of this faceless, bureaucratic, alphabet security agency, now multinational war machine, which can violate UN resolutions and kill innocent civilians with impunity. War crimes trials are only for losers. The prospective conquerors, the western powers and their rebel proxies, will then expect to be able to assert control over Libya's vast oil and natural gas reserves

Within days Nato stressed that was not their position and David Cameron was quick to say he disagreed with Fox. The Chief of the Defence Staff General Sir David Richards went even further: "Absolutely not. It is not allowed under the UN resolution and it is not something I want to discuss any further."

Yet as the war has continued it has become increasingly clear that Nato has accepted Fox's interpretation of 1973, despite publicly claiming the opposite. First there were attacks on his command and control centres in Tripoli that aimed, according to Fox, to increase "psychological pressure" of the Gaddafi family. Then there were attacks on his family home, which allegedly killed his youngest son Saif al-Arab Gaddafi and children. Since the fall of Tripoli the realistic threat to civilians has fallen significantly and while the pursuit of Gaddafi by the Libyans is legitimate, the continued use of Nato air force hints at regime change.

If Nato stepped over the line between protecting civilians and assassination attempts it is unclear exactly when this happened. International law lags behind real politik, particularly in the regulation of unmanned surveillance drones, which have been used in Libya. International law regulating assassination often ends up falling back on the Hague Convention of 1899 which confirms that it is illegal "to kill or wound treacherously individuals belonging to the hostile nation or army."

http://news.sky.com/story/843601/libya-military-chief-rules-out-gaddafi-hit

But the Chief of the Defence Staff General Sir David Richards flatly declared it was not allowed under the terms of the UN Resolution.

After a meeting of the sub-committee of the National Security Council at No10, he was adamant it was not permitted to attack Col Gaddafi.

He said: "Absolutely not. It is not allowed under the UN resolution and it is not something I want to discuss any further."



The Defence Secretary was also directly contradicted by the US who stressed no one is "going after" the Libyan leader.

US Defence Secretary Robert Gates warned that calls to target the Libyan leader could undermine the cohesion of the international coalition supporting the no-fly zone.

"If we start adding additional objectives then I think we create a problem in that respect," he said.

"I also think it is unwise to set as specific goals things that you may or may not be able to achieve."

Mr Fox's remarks risk damaging international support for the allied mission and alienating the Arab League, whose support is crucial.

The UN resolution allows "all necessary measures" to protect Libyan civilians, but does not mention regime change and rules out a foreign occupation.



David Cameron will be pressed on the exact aim of the strikes in a debate on the military action in the House of Commons this afternoon.

 

[dowie]

Given pretty much every city is at risk now makes it rather pointless.

of massacres? Where are there massacres of a similar scale being carreid out in Libya today?

A containment mission, it's hard to say when Nato only had one thing in mind. Like I said guesswork.

And how do you contain an entire army + mercenaries when you've not got authorization to invade/occupy? You can't practice any form of containment from the air.

I think its rather a far stretch comparing Libya to Nazi Germany, Godwin's anyone.

I think its rather silly to point out how great life was in Libya while ignoring the rather major point about civilians being massacred by a rather dubious dictator.

The resolution did not authorise regime change. It's quite a disingenuous position of argument you are taking, "the mandate did not prevent" of coarse, the madate should be used for what it permits not on things it doesn't say.

Again it permitted all necessary measures... regime change didn't require an invasion/occupation (something it didn't permit). Attacking the regime/infrastructure being used to massacre civilians falls well within the resolution.

 

[Craterloads]

of massacres? Where are there massacres of a similar scale being carreid out in Libya today?

Eye witness over Libya’s massacre, in which 7 Coptic Christians were killed execution-style (shot to the head), said that killers asked about the Christians in the building.

Massacre at hands of militias against unarmed civilians in Libya
The Libyan capital prepared Saturday to bury its dead after 32 people were killed and almost 400 wounded when a residents' revolt against militia rule degenerated into armed clashes.

that's only a couple, and it's only getting worse.

And how do you contain an entire army + mercenaries when you've not got authorization to invade/occupy? You can't practice any form of containment from the air.

That does not = regime change.

I think its rather silly to point out how great life was in Libya while ignoring the rather major point about civilians being massacred by a rather dubious dictator.

What is silly is comparing Libya to Nazi Germany. It's a valid observation that the situation now is significantly worse because of our actions.

“Before we only had one Gaddafi, but now we have hundreds.”

“I would say the majority of Libyans used to like Gaddafi, and they still like Gaddafi especially now they see the chaos,” said Majid Fituri, a 49-year-old former rebel fighter from Misrata. “But none of them can say this in public. In Gaddafi’s time we were all afraid of the regime, but now we have multiple powerful groups in Libya. Now you don’t know who could arrest you, detain you, beat you or even kill you without shame. And everything is justified by simply saying, ‘He loved Gaddafi.’” http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/...rs-after-gaddafi-libya-revolution-anniversary

Again it permitted all necessary measures... regime change didn't require an invasion/occupation (something it didn't permit). Attacking the regime/infrastructure being used to massacre civilians falls well within the resolution.

Again regime change wasn't permitted, targeting Gadhafi wasn't, acting as air support wasn't, providing weapons wasn't permitted.

We seem to be getting side tracked, the issue here is you think the west bares no responsibility for the fallout of our actions in Libya, even though they are a direct result of our actions, A) supplying weapons to practically everyone, B) creating a power vacuum and destroying any form of law and order.

 

[dowie]

that's only a couple, and it's only getting worse.

which isn't anywhere near close...

What is silly is comparing Libya to Nazi Germany. It's a valid observation that the situation now is significantly worse because of our actions.

Significantly worse than when? When tanks were surrounding Bengazi and further massacres were about to occur? Sure the country is in a worse state security and infrastructure wise than say prior to the uprising, but we didn't intervene then, we intervened when Gaddafi started massacring civilians so its rather a mute point.

Again regime change wasn't permitted, targeting Gadhafi wasn't, acting as air support wasn't, providing weapons wasn't permitted.

yes it was - we're going round in circles on this but the resolution authorised 'all means necessary' up to ruling out an invasion/occupation - I've quoted it in this thread several times and given you a link to further legal opinion on the matter by a Law Professor specialising in international law.

We seem to be getting side tracked, the issue here is you think the west bares no responsibility for the fallout of our actions in Libya, even though they are a direct result of our actions, A) supplying weapons to practically everyone, B) creating a power vacuum and destroying any form of law and order.

No the point I'm making is that even without our intervention Libya wouldn't be a bed of roses right now. There was already an uprising and there were already massacres prior to us doing anything... the country was already unstable.

 

[Craterloads]

which isn't anywhere near close...

Ohh so massacres only you deem worthy...right

Significantly worse than when? When tanks were surrounding Bengazi and further massacres were about to occur? Sure the country is in a worse state security and infrastructure wise than say prior to the uprising, but we didn't intervene then, we intervened when Gaddafi started massacring civilians so its rather a mute point.

Like I said who knows how it would have played out if our only intention was not to simply toforce regime change. Fact is we used the protest for our own agendas so lets stop pretending it was all humanitarian.

yes it was - we're going round in circles on this but the resolution authorised 'all means necessary' up to ruling out an invasion/occupation - I've quoted it in this thread several times and given you a link to further legal opinion on the matter by a Law Professor specialising in international law.

No you are being disingenuous and pointing out what the mandate did not prevent (which could be anything, like I didn't prevent giving Gadhafi herpes) to what normal people would point out what it did authorise. I have provided you with statements from the Defence Staff General himself, rather than people abusing and twisting mandates to suit their cause. As pointed out by Amps this directly resulted in not getting any support over Syria.

No the point I'm making is that even without our intervention Libya wouldn't be a bed of roses right now. There was already an uprising and there were already massacres prior to us doing anything... the country was already unstable.

Yes I am aware of that, that doesn't somehow absolve any responsibility now. The fact is the country is falling to pieces, its in dire shape as a direct result of our actions. That's not saying it wouldn't have been in bad shape regardless, but the facts are the actual and current situation are partly our fault and could have been prevented if we weren't so fixated in regime change (illegal one at that)

You said the same about Iraq, it would have been bad anyway given 10 yrs later we've had Arab springs.

 

[dowie]

This is going round in circles... If you can't understand that a deliberately broad resolution authorising all means necessary can be used to cover a wide variety of actions or that the humanitarian crisis at the time when a dictator was actively massacring large numbers of people isn't very compatible to the fighting today then there really isn't much point in me carrying on posting in this thread.