Georgians Rally for EU Membership

@athousandyoung said

https://academic.oup.com/ia/article-abstract/89/2/365/2449996?redirectedFrom=fulltext

The Libyan conflict of 2011 divided Africa, but nonetheless the African Union (AU) was able to agree on a political strategy aimed at achieving a negotiated settlement and power transition.

Another extremely relevant group...

A "political strategy" and (according to your link):

"United Nations Security Council resolution 1973 expressed support for the initiative, but in the event France, Britain and the United States blocked its chances of success."

@no1marauder said
A "political strategy" and (according to your link):

"United Nations Security Council resolution 1973 expressed support for the initiative, but in the event France, Britain and the United States blocked its chances of success."

Yes, but the point is his continent wanted him gone - they wanted regime change.

@athousandyoung said
Yes, but the point is his continent wanted him gone - they wanted regime change.

"Wanting regime change" and "bombing the crap out of a country to effect regime change" are different things.

@no1marauder said
Neither the UN nor the Arab League supported regime change. The Resolution made no mention of it and the Arab League made clear it opposed it:

How do you stop a dictator without changing the regime? Whether you agree the invasion was justified or not you can't "facilitate dialogue" with a despot, especially one as notoriously crazy as Ghaddafi.

@vivify said
How do you stop a dictator without changing the regime? Whether you agree the invasion was justified or not you can't "facilitate dialogue" with a despot, especially one as notoriously crazy as Ghaddafi.

Funny, the West chats with dictators all the time: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-06-02/biden-likely-to-visit-saudi-arabia-as-us-gasoline-prices-spiral

@no1marauder said
Funny, the West chats with dictators all the time: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-06-02/biden-likely-to-visit-saudi-arabia-as-us-gasoline-prices-spiral

The moment military force has been agreed upon to stop a dictator you have agreed to change their regime.

@vivify said
The moment military force has been agreed upon to stop a dictator you have agreed to change their regime.

IF that is what had been said in advance, there is no way the Security Council would have OK'ed it. Even with 1973 merely talking about protection of civilians through a no-fly zone, 5 of the 15 Security Council members abstained. Moreover:

"Speaking after the vote, representatives who had supported the text agreed that the strong action was made necessary because the Qadhafi regime had not heeded the first actions of the Council and was on the verge of even greater violence against civilians as it closed in on areas previously dominated by opposition in the east of the country. They stressed that the objective was solely to protect civilians from further harm."

https://www.un.org/press/en/2011/sc10200.doc.htm

The US, NATO and a few other countries pulled a "bait and switch".

@vivify said
The moment military force has been agreed upon to stop a dictator you have agreed to change their regime.

In fact, the UN Charter bans interference in domestic affairs. Article 2, Section 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.

https://www.un.org/en/about-us/un-charter/full-text

Chapter VII enforcement measures were supposed to be limited to measures that threaten " international peace and security" not civil wars.

@no1marauder said
IF that is what had been said in advance, there is no way the Security Council would have OK'ed it.

Nations get around declaring war by using terms like "operation". Legalese doesn't change what is actually going on.

There is no way to disrupt how a dictator treats his own people without removing him. It's like saying you'll stop abusive parents without breaking up the child's family.

@vivify said
Nations get around declaring war by using terms like "operation". Legalese doesn't change what is actually going on.

There is no way to disrupt how a dictator treats his own people without removing him. It's like saying you'll stop abusive parents without breaking up the child's family.

Actually, there's been many situations where civil wars have been negotiated to an acceptable conclusion without violent regime change.

In any event, I'm tired of wasting my time with such stubbornness; the points I've raised are accurate and your failure to admit the truth of them doesn't change that. Explicit declaration of the goal of regime change would have lost the support of the African Union, the Arab League and probably caused a Chinese and/or Russian veto. It is nonsense to suggest that the UN authorized such a thing.

@no1marauder said
Actually, there's been many situations where civil wars have been negotiated to an acceptable conclusion without violent regime change.

Which ones involved a brutal dictator and foreign invaders?

Explicit declaration of the goal of regime change would have lost the support of the African Union

And the U.S. has not made any "explicit" declaration of war since WWII, thereby getting around Article 51 of the UN Charter for the last 80 years. Don't be naïve.

@vivify said
Which ones involved a brutal dictator and foreign invaders?

Explicit declaration of the goal of regime change would have lost the support of the African Union

And the U.S. has not made any "explicit" declaration of war since WWII, thereby getting around Article 51 of the UN Charter for the last 80 years. Don't be naïve.

Don't be stupid; IF the US and Western countries had been honest that they intended to bomb until Gaddafi was forced out, Resolution 1973 would never have been passed.

And if he hadn't been passed, they would have done it anyway.

@no1marauder said
Don't be stupid; IF the US and Western countries had been honest that they intended to bomb until Gaddafi was forced out, Resolution 1973 would never have been passed.

And if he hadn't been passed, they would have done it anyway.

Of course they weren't honest about it, just like any "military operation" isn't honest about the fact that they're actually wars. If NATO insisted on military force to stop Gaddafi, regime change is the only logical outcome.

To be clear I don't agree or condone how NATO handled the situation and I don't necessarily agree the invasion should've happened in the first place. My only point is that if the invasion had to happen, regime change was inevitable. It would be like trying to stop Saddam Hussein from committing atrocities by leaving him in power.

@kevcvs57 said
There is only one way to fight a war and it involves killing as many of the enemy as possible in the shortest time possible.
The worst kind of war is the one that the Taliban were forced to fight, a twenty year insurgency is something you do if you have no other choice due to an overwhelming disparity between the invading force and the invaded force.
Only a retarded idiot ...[text shortened]... ategy would have been the worst possible option for Ukraine In my and the Ukrainian peoples opinion.

I suggest you read “The art of war”, read up on some manuals, study resistance behaviour in WW2 and Vietnam… then come back and make that bloody ludicrous claim again.

All you wish to do is herd men to their death; all for some ideal which you think you have.

I presume you have shares in weapons manufacturing and are raking it in at the moment.

How many legless boys and scarred and burnt little girls is it worth?

I seriously suggest you go and live in a war zone for a month. See and feel and smell what it’s like. Then come back here and tell us it was the best bloody option.

@shavixmir said
I suggest you read “The art of war”, read up on some manuals, study resistance behaviour in WW2 and Vietnam… then come back and make that bloody ludicrous claim again.

All you wish to do is herd men to their death; all for some ideal which you think you have.

I presume you have shares in weapons manufacturing and are raking it in at the moment.

How many legless boy ...[text shortened]... ee and feel and smell what it’s like. Then come back here and tell us it was the best bloody option.

Stop talking like a pompous idiot from the 1960s and provide a link to the chapter from the art of war that covers long range artillery and nuclear weapons.
Your analysis would make sense if Ukraine or NATO declared war on Russia and drove a thirty mile long convoy of tanks up to the suburbs of Moscow
I suggest you go and live in a Russian occupied zone of Ukraine and spend some time with the Chechnya’n volunteers, of course you’ll take your wife and daughters with you.
Unlike you the Ukrainians know exactly what they are fighting for and against, unlike you they do not sit around pontificating about options that never existed.
It is clear for you this is a diplomatic and geopolitical issue that you do not give a toss about. All I’m doing is arguing the case for supporting the decision that the Ukrainian people made to fight rather than lose their country and in regards to anyone who could be pointed out by collaborators as pro Ukrainian their lives.
Why do you think the Russians are setting up filtration camps in the areas they take over?
I see you’ve provided no actual plan for how an occupied and unarmed Ukraine gets the Russians to leave their country once they’ve occupied it without a lot of bloodshed on both sides.
If they let the Russians take or occupy Kiev western Ukraine there will be no Ukraine so be honest about what your really willing to accept on behalf of the Ukrainian people.
I take it this annoying little war in Ukraine is negatively affecting your cost of living and business opportunities, such a shame, why can’t we all just get along.