Showing posts with label United Kingdom. Show all posts
Showing posts with label United Kingdom. Show all posts

Saturday, March 19, 2011

Libya, an International Coalition, the United Nations, and Getting a Grip

This isn't, as I've said often, a political blog. But, like it or not, politics is involved in the decision-making process of countries. Most countries, anyway.

Which is why I bring up 'political' topics sometimes.

But, again, this isn't a political blog. Not in the sense that I claim that one person or party is always right - and that everybody who disagrees is
  • Stupid
  • A Traitor
  • One of those
    • Tools of the military-industrial complex
    • Commie 5th columnists
    • Shape-shifting, space-alien lizard men
Or something even more imaginative. (February 8, 2009)

Libya, Diplomacy, and a Tale of Two Presidents

An American president leads a coalition of nations including:
  • Canada
  • France
  • Italy
  • Qatar
  • The United Kingdom
    (Scoop News)
I've heard it discussed on television news as a wise and prudent diplomatic move by a knowledgeable leader.

To a limited extent, I can agree with that. Let's look at another administration.

An American president leads a coalition of nations including:
  • Albania
  • Armenia
  • Australia
  • Azerbaijan
  • Bosnia-Herzegovina
  • Bulgaria
  • Czech Republic
  • Denmark
  • El Salvador
  • Estonia
  • Fiji (though UNAMI)
  • Georgia
  • Hungary (through NATO or UNAMI, and may never have sent troops before 'withdrawing' them in 2004)
  • Iceland (through NATO, a training mission)
  • Japan
  • Kazakhstan
  • Latvia
  • Lithuania
  • Macedonia
  • Moldova
  • Mongolia
  • Poland
  • Portugal
  • Romania
  • Singapore
  • Slovenia (through NATO, a training mission)
  • South Korea
  • Turkey (through NATO, a training mission)
  • the Ukraine
  • the United Kingdom
    (August 9, 2007)
This "unilateral" action threatened to sink America in a "quagmire." (August 9, 2007) Some of America's serious thinkers said so.

Well, that was different.

Libya, Diplomacy, Common Sense, and Business as Usual

I'm an American citizen, eligible to vote, and take civic duty seriously. Every two years I wade through the usual slogans, weird claims, and assorted flavors of hot air: and try to pick candidates I think are least-unlike what I'd like to see elected.

I didn't vote for the current American president: but I don't think he's evil incarnate, either. I even think he's made sense now and again.

Like this week, adding America's abilities to an international coalition that might prevent the Libyan colonel from killing more of his subjects.

Do I think
  • The American president can do no wrong?
    • Of course not.
  • The American president never does anything right?
    • Of course not
      • I'm not running for office, or working for someone who is
        • And that's another topic
  • It was a good idea to work with an international coalition, when using military force against a dictator?
    • Yes
      • I thought it was a good idea when a previous administration took that approach
      • I haven't changed my mind

Why a Coalition?

Working under a United Nations Security Council resolution, with a coalition of nations - including at least one in the Middle East - makes good sense, in my opinion.

The Libyan colonel could, if America was 'going it alone' against his efforts to kill people who don't agree, claim that the evil Americans had launched a conquest of Libya. And that the military action was an unprovoked attack on Libya, the Middle East, and Islam.

Quite a few folks would, I think, buy that line.

The colonel may take that line, anyway: but it's going to be a harder sell, with the armed forces of so many countries involved.

Does this mean that I think the American president did everything right? No. That would be - unlikely, to put it mildly. Perfection and human nature are a somewhat unlikely mix - and that's almost another topic.

For starters, in an ideal situation - the president would have gotten this action going a lot sooner. Ideally.

Earlier today, I heard someone say "the perfect is the enemy of the 'it'll do.' "

A Few Predictions

I'd like to be wrong about this: but I'm pretty sure that coalition attacks on Libya will kill some civilians. Some of those dead bodies will be people who really were in the wrong place at the wrong time. Or - willingly or not - deliberately set themselves up to be killed when military targets were hit.

War, as I'll say again, isn't nice. Things get broken and people get killed.

But I'm not quite nice enough to wish that the Libyan colonel's enforcers were free to kill folks in Benghazi. More folks, actually.

I think it's possible that some of the dead bodies will be folks who said that the colonel wasn't a good leader - or members of their families. It'd be a practical application of the old 'killing two birds with one stone' principle.

Excerpts from the News

"Thousands of Libyans packed into Muammar Gaddafi's heavily fortified Tripoli compound on Saturday to form a human shield against possible air strikes by allied forces.

"Fireworks erupted into the night sky and people fired defiant shots into the air at the compound after allied warplanes went into action in eastern Libya to stop the Libyan leader's forces attacking the rebel-held city of Benghazi.

"Libyans from all walks of life streamed into the Bab Al-Aziziyah compound, shouting slogans and holding portraits of Gaddafi. Loudspeakers boomed songs praising the leader...."
(Reuters Africa)
"The US, Britain and France have pounded Libya with air strikes and Tomahawk missiles, sparking a furious response from Muammar Gaddafi who said the Mediterranean had now become a 'battlefield.'

"United States and British forces fired at least 110 Tomahawk cruise missiles at Libya's air defence sites, a top US military officer said, two days after a UN Security Council resolution with Arab backing authorised military action.

"Libyan state media said that Western warplanes bombed civilian targets in Tripoli, causing casualties while an army spokesman said strikes also hit fuel tanks feeding the rebel-held city of Misrata, east of Tripoli...."
(The Sydney Morning Herald)
"The U.S. military has launched its first missiles in Libya against Moammar Gadhafi's forces, a senior Defense Department official said Saturday.

"Earlier, French fighter jets deployed over Libya fired at a military vehicle on Saturday, the country's first strike against Moammar Gadhafi's military forces who earlier attacked the rebel stronghold of Benghazi.

"U.S. Tomahawk missiles have landed in the western area around Tripoli and Misrata, the American military official said...."
(CNN)
"U.S. President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said U.S. forces were poised for action in Libya, but made clear Washington was determined to play a supporting role in military action there.

As French warplanes began operations over Libya to stop Muammar Gaddafi's attacks on rebels, Obama said military forces would act quickly to shield civilians from the fighting.

"The international community demanded an immediate ceasefire in Libya, including an end to all attacks against civilians," Obama said during an appearance in Brasilia with Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff...."
(Edition: U.S., Reuters)
"...6:59 PM Spectator1: A US-led coalition has launched cruise missile and airstrikes against Gaddafi controlled air defences in what is called Operation 'Odyssey Dawn'.
"6:59 PM Spectator1: The coalition includes forces from the US, UK, France, Canada, Italy, Qatar."
(Scoop News)
Related posts:
News and views:
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , ,

Monday, July 12, 2010

Banned in Britain: Savage and the Department of Unintended Consequences

I don't know enough about Michael Savage to have an informed opinion about what he's said in public in the United Kingdom.

Maybe he really is as dangerous as Hamas.

Or maybe he's just saying things that the established order in Britain don't want to hear.

If it's the latter, the United Kingdom has a bigger problem than Michael Savage.

Anybody I don't Like is a Commie!

In my 'good old days,' quite a few people were convinced that anybody they didn't approve of was a commie. Or at least a commie sympathizer. Or part of the red menace.

That's one of the reasons I'm not terribly nostalgic about the 'good old days.'

That was then, and now things are different. Sort of. Here in America, folks whose sympathies were for blacklisted physicists became the establishment. As a result, the wacky end of establishment supporters don't see commies everywhere: now it's fascists and racists and relevant stuff like that.

Different words, same old song.

Silencing the Opposition: Such a Tempting Idea

I think it's a very human thing, when you're in a position of influence, to keep people who don't agree with you from expressing their views.

I also think it's a very, very stupid idea.

Particularly these days, when "the masses" get their information from many sources: not just a few national broadcasting networks and a handful of newspapers. I've written about information gatekeepers before.
"Banned in Boston" as a Stamp of Approval
Decades back, "banned in Boston" showed up in entertainment news fairly often. Someone speculated that playwrights and movie makers tried to get Boston's painfully proper people to ban their work: for the free publicity. And as a sort of stamp of approval: showing that the playwright or director was 'bold' and 'outspoken.'
Dangerous Ideas, Maybe: But Dangerous to Whom?
I get - interested - when a national government tries to silence someone who doesn't agree with the current leaders.

I think it's good for Michael Savage, that he lives in the United Kingdom. In some countries, he wouldn't be banned - most likely, he'd just disappear. Or get killed by an 'unknown assailant.' (April 30, 2008)

As I said before, I don't know much about Michael Savage's statements. Maybe he really is dangerous.

Or maybe the British establishment isn't any more open to disagreeable ideas, than their American counterparts. If that's the case, I think their (apparent) effort to silence Mr. Savage may make his position stronger.

I could be wrong, but I don't think the British like their leaders to tell them how to think, any more than Americans do.

Here's what set me off today:
"New U.K. government bans Michael Savage"
WorldNetDaily (July 12, 2010)

"Conservative Party admin demands repudiation of 'violent' statements"

"The new Conservative Party-led government of Prime Minister David Cameron informed Michael Savage it will continue the ban on the top-rated talk-radio host's entry to the United Kingdom unless he repudiates statements made on his broadcasts that were deemed a threat to public security.

"The U.K. Border Agency told Savage through a letter from the treasury solicitor's office that his 'exclusion' from the U.K. that began last year under the Labour Partygovernment of Gordon Brown will continue 'in the absence of clear, convincing and public evidence' that he has 'repudiated his previous statements.'

"As WND reported, then–British Home Secretary Jacqui Smith announced May 5, 2009, that Savage was on a list of 16 people, along with terrorists and neo-Nazis, banned from entry because the government believed their views might provoke violence. Smith said it was 'important that people understand the sorts of values and sorts of standards that we have here, the fact that it's a privilege to come and the sort of things that mean you won't be welcome in this country.'..."

"...The U.K. ban-list includes Hamas terrorist leader Yunis Al-Astal, former Ku Klux Klan grand wizard Stephen Donald Black, neo-Nazi Erich Gliebe and radical American pastor Fred Phelps, known for his virulent anti-gay protests at funerals...."

"...An e-mail message dated Nov. 27, 2008, from an unnamed Home Office official, says, with regard to Savage, 'I can understand that disclosure of the decision would help provide a balance of types of exclusion cases.'

"Another e-mail points to complicity by other agencies and even former Prime Minister Brown.

" 'HO (Home Office) intend to include [Savage] in their quarterly stats ... Both the FS (foreign secretary) and PM (prime minister) are firmly behind listing and naming such people,' it reads.

"The e-mails include a message from an unnamed civil servant whose cautions were ignored.

" 'I think we could be accused of duplicity in naming him,' he wrote without explaining the reason.

"Smith's successor as home secretary, Alan Johnson, called the ban a terrible blunder and told the London Daily Mail he would scrap the policy of maintaining an enemies list. But Savage told WND two days later that according to his attorney, Johnson's announcement did not mean his name had been removed from the list...."

Postscript

Oh, my:
  • "...'...disclosure of the decision would help provide a balance of types of exclusion cases...."
  • "...'...Both the FS (foreign secretary) and PM (prime minister) are firmly behind listing and naming such people,'..."
  • "...'I think we could be accused of duplicity in naming him,'..."
In my opinion, it's a really bad idea for a nation's leaders to try silencing people whose ideas they don't like. We're not, quite, looking at thoughtcrime here: but I think it's a bad sign when national leaders appear to want uniform - and enforced - beliefs among their subjects.

Related posts:Related posts, on censorship, propaganda, and freedom of speech.
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , ,

Wednesday, July 7, 2010

British, American Courts: Plodding, Frustrating - But Consider the Alternatives

From today's news:
"Five charged as al Qaeda plotters in U.S. and U.K."
CNN (July 7, 2010)

"The Justice Department announced charges Wednesday against five people who prosecutors say are members of an al Qaeda plot to attack targets in the United States and the United Kingdom.

The charges link a plot against the New York subway system to a scheme to attack a target in the United Kingdom, and say both were directed by 'senior al Qaeda leadership in Pakistan.'..."
The CNN article shows the sort of concerns that British courts - and, I think, Western courts in general - have. An immigration tribunal decided that one of the men involved, Abid Naseer, is an Al Qaeda agent. He wasn't deported to Pakistan: because he might be tortured there.

Some red-white-and-blue-blooded Americans might say that's being 'soft on criminals.' Maybe so: it's also one of the reasons I sincerely hope Western civilization wins the war on terror. The more rabidly "Islamic" countries, like Iran, are quite definitely not soft on criminals. ("Halt stoning of Iran 'adulterer' - Human Rights Watch," BBC (July 7, 2010))

I put "Islamic" in quotes, since I don't think that outfits like Al Qaeda are any more representative of Muslims and Islam, than the Ku Klux Klan of the fifties and sixties was of Americans and Christianity.

There's a Lesson Here: Several, Actually

First, I think the legal proceedings in today's news show that Al Qaeda and like-minded organizations are
  • Not nice
  • Not safe to have around
  • Nowhere near willing to sit down and chat about living peaceably alongside people aren't just like them
If that sounds patently obvious: you haven't been keeping up with the sillier statements of America's more earnest subcultures.

Second, for all its (many) faults, the sort of judicial system that's been hammered out in the English-speaking world could be worse. A lot worse. Principles like 'innocent until proven guilty' may not feel good all the time: but there's a reason why we're careful (on paper, anyway) about assuming that someone's guilty - and then stringing the varmint up.

Not-entirely-unrelated posts:In the news:
Posted by at 2 comments:
Labels: , , , , ,

Friday, August 21, 2009

Lockerbie Bomber: Hero's Welcome in Libya Follows Compassionate Release

Before December 21, 1988, Lockerbie was known to the people who lived in the area, and very few others.

Then a bomb exploded on Pan Am flight 103. A few minutes later, all 259 people on the airliner were dead, along with 11 more on the ground.

Libyan terrorists were later caught, tried, and sentenced. And, there were the usual claims of faked evidence. (Conspiracy theories are a perennial favorite (January 14, 2009))

Recently Abdel Basset al-Megrahi got sick. Terminally ill. He's one of the 'Lockerbie bombers,' serving time in the U. K. - or was, until the judicial system there felt sorry for him and let him go home to Libya. And a hero's welcome.

Compassion is nice. I'm sure that Abdel Basset al-Megrahi feels a bit better, now that he's had an opportunity to receive the adulation due (in Libya, at any rate) someone who's responsible for mass murder. And, he'll probably enjoy what's left of his life more, now that he's no longer surrounded by people who aren't up to his standards.

As I said, compassion is nice. But it's something that might be nice, even if it were extended to people who aren't responsible for snuffing out 270 lives. Like the friends and families of the people murdered by Abdel Basset al-Megrahi.

The judicial system of America, quite a few years ago, discovered that, just as there were those pathetic-looking, sympathetic 'victims of society' who showed up in the courtrooms regularly, there were victims of crime.

Not long after that discovery, a concept sometimes called 'victims' rights' was discussed. To some extent, the American judicial process now takes into account survivors of criminal activity: and those whose lives were linked with the non-survivors.

It's a concept which has, I think, some merit: and which might, with some modifications, be adopted by the judicial systems of other countries.

Just a thought.

I've mentioned before that, preferences for regarding all nations as equivalent notwithstanding, not all nations are alike. I think the same could be said about people.

Finally, I'm with British Foreign Secretary David Miliband's response to the hero's welcome Libya gave the terrorist. According to him, seeing that was "deeply distressing" and "deeply upsetting" - strong words from a Britisher, but not, I think, inappropriate in this case.

Related posts: In the news: Background:
Posted by at 4 comments:
Labels: , , , , , , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)

Unique, innovative candles


Visit us online:
Spiral Light Candle  • Find a Retailer
• Spiral Light Candle Store

Blogroll

Note! Although I believe that these websites and blogs are useful resources for understanding the War on Terror, I do not necessarily agree with their opinions. 1 1 Given a recent misunderstanding of the phrase "useful resources," a clarification: I do not limit my reading to resources which support my views, or even to those which appear to be accurate. Reading opinions contrary to what I believed has been very useful at times: sometimes verifying my previous assumptions, sometimes encouraging me to change them.

Even resources which, in my opinion, are simply inaccurate are sometimes useful: these can give valuable insights into why some people or groups believe what they do.

In short, It is my opinion that some of the resources in this blogroll are neither accurate, nor unbiased. I do, however, believe that they are useful in understanding the War on Terror, the many versions of Islam, terrorism, and related topics.