Just to be perverse: Ghadaffi and Lincoln?

[fightingquaker13]

Let me be very clear here, I am happy to see Ghaddafi go. I am less happy that the deaths of a few hundred protestors have basically turned the world aginst the idea of national soveriegnty.
Let me state for the record that in the event of serious crimes against humanity such as genocide, rulers forfeit that claim. Here I am thinking Cambodia, Bosnia, Kosovo and Rawanda.
Still, this isn't the case in Libya. Sanctions are probably appropriate. Armed intervention IN OUR NATIONAL INTEREST as a straight up act of war may be appropriate. What bothers me is the idea of the international regime interfering in the domestic affairs of nation states barring some out of bounds weirdness.

THE QUESTION FOR THE BOARD
Here's the thought experinment. Its 1861 outside. The South seceeds from the union with popular support. Lincoln rejects these calls and musters an army to quash the revolt. A war is waged with 500,000 casulties and untold civilian suffering. The slaves are freed, but tens of thousands are dead and cities lie in ruin. Is he a war criminal by todays standards? If so, should we reject those standards as being an infringement on national soveriegnty, or should we stop honoring Honest Abe and think about tearing down the Lincoln Memorial? I just offer this as food for thought, not to start an argument. To me it seems a timely question.We can't just pick good guys and bad guys. We will never agree on that. We need to choose a neutral set of rules. What should they be?
FQ13

[Ichiban]

To try and view historical events through todays sensibilities is a fools game.  Almost every action that was acceptable by the standards of the day would fail todays standards.  Every leader a criminal, every military action a war crime, every discoverer a oppressor, etc, etc, etc.

No wonder you voted for that clown.

[mortdooley]

 In 1861 the individual states were sovereign and within their rights to secede, the federal government was not intended to have so much power. By definition the USA never had a Civil War because the South never wanted to conquer the rest of the country they just wanted to be free from the North. Had the South won Lincoln would have been President of a smaller United States with a new trading partner to its south. I believe that because the North was victorious the 10th Amendment of the constitution was repealed by this action.  What is doing on in Libya does not have anything in common with the war of northern aggression.

[fightingquaker13]

This isn't about historical revisionism here guys. The question is whether or not we need to change TODAY'S rules in light of past experience, not whether we should boo and hiss at the past due to our "enlightened" viewpoint.
FQ13

[twyacht]

You need to read mort's post again,....by your very academic, rhetorical question,....You would be supporting Darth Vader...

"You Rebel Scum"....

The South did not want to overthrow Lincoln. Just keep him, and his policies, the (insert expletive) out of the South. And I do not see your correlation between National Sovereignty and a National Revolt to oust a scumbag.

"Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual." --Thomas Jefferson

[Sponsor]

[fightingquaker13]

The point I was trying, and obviously am failing, to convey is this. Does the International Community have the right to intervene in a domestic conflict as a matter of international law as opposed to just a matter of national interest? If so, under what circumstances? I still think is an important question and one we should answer soon, while we are still (nominally) in charge.
FQ13

[twyacht]

The (modern) International Community, will never intervene,...OK ,... the U.N. voted for sanctions against Libya, but hey,.....they worked so well in N. Korea and Iran,.....why not?

Other than that, human rights violations happen everyday in many rat hole countries everyday, and the Int. Comm, do nothing.

Traditional isolationists, would say if it stays within borders, (insert expletive) em'.... However, the majority of the Mid East is erupting, what is coming out of it? Caliphate? An OPEC controlled by a Sharia Law, extreme, Muslim Brotherhood? Who Knows?

This number of countries on fire, does involve National Interests for not just the U.S.  Remember the riots in Greece and France?

What happens when it spreads to more "civilized members and countries" of advanced society,....(best spoken with a pompous British accent)

Who knows FQ, at some point measures will have to be enacted to ensure stability, whatever the hell that means. Frankly, it's like a gang war right now. If the "Bloods & Crypts" are killing each other, it rids us of TWO bad elements.

(For now),....watch Iran....

[Ichiban]

The (modern) International Community, will never intervene,...OK ,... the U.N. voted for sanctions against Libya, but hey,.....they worked so well in N. Korea and Iran,.....why not?

Other than that, human rights violations happen everyday in many rat hole countries everyday, and the Int. Comm, do nothing.

Not that the UN a good option, either.
http://bosniagenocide.wordpress.com/2010/12/09/un-peacekeepers-took-part-in-rapes-during-bosnian-genocide/
http://articles.cnn.com/2005-01-08/world/congo.peacekeepers.sex_1_sexual-abuse-jean-marie-guehenno-peacekeepers?_s=PM:WORLD
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A30286-2005Mar12.html