Wait.. You're from Bielefeld.

You're part of the CONSPIRACY!!!!!

Bot more seriously:

The exact law about armed insurrections is not entirely clear - mostly because definitions of legitimate government are not formalised owing to political problems - whatyou or I see as a legit government is not necessarily the view of the chinese. International law itself is dubious, as not every country recognises it in whole or in part. In practice, if you rule a country that no one cares about you can do what you like, but if it is important in the global supply chain, you can't. Technically, there is no law regarding military intervention beyond the consent of the UN (which is why intervention has been so piecemeal and haphazard over the last 30 years).

As for my beloved Britain, it is doing what it always does: making an absolute ass of herself. Lockerbie was, politically, a long time ago, and the British never gave much of a damn about it then.

Iran is... unusual. Iranians spent about 1000 years believing they were better than the Arabs who ruled them, and have since spent 200 years trying to prove it. The sad fact is Iran won't ever be able to lead the Arabs - Sunni Arabs hate Shi'a Persians far too much to let them have power. Their closest ally is Syria, followed by Hezbollah, and Syria lookes set for a change, while Hezbollah can barely control the Shia vote in Lebanon, let alone anything else. Turkey is a more likely hegemon in the Middle-East, especially as the Turks effectively control the water supplies to Iraq and Syria, and export to Saudi too.

Anyway, this is probably moving off-topic. Would be glad to continue this via PM, though I'm still suspicious of someone from Bielefeld.

Well I have read an interview with a professor for international laws and reproduced his opinion here. The constitution of Germany allows explicit to deploy the Bundeswehr to fight armed insurrection, although the deployment of military inside of the country is strictly forbidden here. The might lies beside the guns as Lenin used to say. I think it will be a long way to hedge military violence through international laws in an effective way.



Its not England I'm wondering about, its this european consensus. Peaceful countries like Denmark or Sweden engaged themselves. I think except of Poland and Germany nearly the whole EU takes part in this conflict. This makes it difficult for Germany to say yes to an european miltary integration which could be useful when the USA will have to cut down its budget in the near future. We can not reduce the expenditures for defence like we want to without this integration. Germany needs that money to speed up the exit out of nuclear energy in this decade. The decentralisation and denuclearisation of energy supply will make life much more safer than any military power can do. So this stupid little war might cause long term follows which might become expensive for Europe. National defence is ineffective.

Don't forget the Mongols. Seriously, with a beneficient government like this, they really got no chance. But I wonder what will remain of the American military power in the next decades. China lost 20 billions of investment in Libya, do you think they will borrow the USA further money to stay a super power if they loose bigger amounts through American wars in the future? Of course American business will grow again but the public households can not finance war any more. So the issue is, what will happen in the middle east without the American military power? Saudi Arabia is a giant on clay feet and will fall former or later. Iraq might divide himself into three regions and Turkey is waiting for the big earthquake which might destroy their barrages. I mean, I'm missing a master plan for the future. The boss will leave it soon. (Perhaps we should really write PMs to avoid further off topics)

Although the majority of the Germans adamantly denies the existence of Bielefeld I'm shocked about the fact that this rumour reaches an international extent. We are n o t Atlantis we just are a little bit phase - shifted sometimes and the conspiracy will end when we will have reached the global dominance through radical pacifism and frozen pizza.

Relevant: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jCyRBUAEneM

I didn't whatch this vid, because I'm surfing with my old pc. But I've red an article in the Zeit, that left democrats and republicans are sueing for performance of the War Powers Act, which means that the congress has to agree to a war after two month. The war in Libya is impossible without American support, so the NATO will be blamed and Gadafi will probably prevail over his enemies. It's the same shit like in Afghanistan. We can't win wars without killing thousands maybe millions of innocents. If you are not ready for, don't start it. There is no moral in war. There are just winners and loosers, and the winners write the history.

Quite right -- people in congress on the right and left oppose Obama's actions in Libya. However, just like Homeland Security threatened to close down all airports in Texas if their legislature banned TSA from being able to touch people's breasts and reproductive parts, we can be sure that Obama is using his Chicago-style political strategies to make sure congressmen are intimidated or bought off to support the war.

That would be difficult with that republican majority. Gadafi will stay for a few month more, and the rebels got neither money nor arms. Lets see what the judges will say.

No, it is easy enough for a guy like Obama to muscle Republicans with promises of defense contracts in their districts, health care waivers or outright extortion/blackmail to support his war efforts to steal Libyan oil.

edward777, we get it that you don't like Obama. But if you're going to engage in discussions in our Politics forum, then you need to back up your statements regarding "outright extortion/blackmail" and "intimidation" of congressmen with some actual sources, examples, etc. Mere vitriol does not make for intelligent discussion.

-- Nephele

At the moment, there is another apprehension. The "Coalition of the Willing" is afraid that Gadafi's gouvernance cracks down to early. Meanwhile they have realised that the rebells are not able to rule Libya. There would be many different armed groups which would fight each other in order to gain control over the oil fields. So it would be a humanitarian desaster, if Gadafi would loose his power. Typical for a war which was started without an exit strategy.

That's a problem with modern wars in general, and the "World Police" attitude in specific. The exit strategy in a war should be the same as in Game of Thrones, "You win or you die". When you're intervening in an internal matter to achieve some arbitrary "greater good" you need bullshit like exit strategies because you're not fighting a real war.

In the "good old times" it was easy. The winners took it all and were interested in solid structures to thuck out the loosers. Just look at the Roman Empire or the Common Wealth. I mean that differs the USA from the former super powers. There is no real profit for America. So the US Gouvernment will not invest in the nation building of Libya and the Europeans don't want this either. So one has to pay without any benefit.

strange how it's all gone quiet about the war in Libya with the whole News Corps/Murdoch/ Norway/Winehouse reportage...what we know is soooooo determined by the press that it's frightening!!!!

There is not much to report. Gadafi is not able to attack the rebels with heavy arms any more and the rebels don't have the power for a big offensive. Meanwhile it's Ramadan and both sides ask the UN for credits to feed the people in Lybia. But it's a cheap war. The allied didn't spend more than 1,5 billion euros. The oil price has been increased, because the libian oil production is missing.

I think helping out the rebels in Libya is a waste of time, I'd even go so far as to say let the rebels and the government fight it out amongst themselves. Because if we help these rebels, most likely they'll turn on us because of their ties to the anti-western Islamic Brotherhood. We're gonna see a caliphate in that region, and the clerics will be in control, just like what happened to Iran, or the warlords will be in control like in Somalia.

First off, if you want to win a war, keep any idea of an exit strategy a secret; the public doesn't need to know. Second, kick all the media out from the country and black out the war. Third, Isolate the country from the rest of the world and kill off any insurgent. And finally, establish a viceroy to take command until the country is stable enough to choose their own official. If you want stability in a nation, you're gonna need to change the culture of instability.

Like I told a buddy of mine, the trend goes, help them (the rebels) now, fight and kill them later. It's a dark way of looking at things but it is what it is.

I agree, it is not sure what will be the result of the arabian revolutions. The Muslim Brothers are in progress and the well educated youth is not in power. The war in Libya is going to the end. Ghaddafi is losing power and the rebels soon will attack Tripoli. We will see what happens next. I don't expect democracy in Libya, because it is a tribal society and not a civil society. The societal requirements are missing.

Washington Post: Libyan refugees say Tripoli will fall soon.