Should Sweden attack Libya?

[Loppan Torkel]

As most know another military intervention in this region by western powers is a touchy subject and in one way or another it will probably continuously blow up in the face on any participants. Politicians are debating what role Nato should have in this conflict. One bright idea would be to bring in neutral parties and nations from the Arab world do some work. Trying to remain, at least officially, neutral has now made Sweden, amongst others, a candidate to uphold a no-fly zone in the area.

1. I'm not particularly fond of Gaddafi.
2. the loss of human lives is tragic.
3. I can't foresee any obvious good results after another intervention in the region, but a backlash for those who participate is likely.
4. An intervention may intimidate other regimes from using force as brutally as Gaddafi has.
5. We, the Swedish people, won't gain anything of value, except maybe some goodwill and perhaps sell in our jets to other nations, if they do well.

Do I as a citizen i neutral Sweden have a moral obligation to support an attack on Libya, which is in a state of civil war? On what moral ground in that case? Will this responsibility continue and stretch globally as more nations with an increase of economical and democratic issues revolt against their governments/regimes? Has our neutrality lost all meaning?

 

[Ingvina Freyr]

If it was as a part of a UN action, then yes. Otherwise no.

Our neutrality lost its meaning after the first world war. After that there was a point in hiding behind an alleged neutrality but there isn't any more.

 

[Pokurcz]

Yes, but only with the "Wasa" ship.

Seriously, if the French can so can the Swedes.

 

[emzie]

Denmark sent 4 F16s. You don't want to be upstaged by Danes, do you?

 

[Volum]

We're sending 6!

Norway Power!

 

[emzie]

We're sending 6!

Norway Power!

Sweden, this is just getting embarrassing.

 

[Cutlass]

Yes. Time for neutrality to end and join NATO

 

[Truthy]

Not looking good Sweden. Your being upstaged by all the other Scandinavians. I bet Finland will send 8 F16s.

 

[Loppan Torkel]

Not looking good Sweden. Your being upstaged by all the other Scandinavians. I bet Finland will send 8 F16s.

They'd need to buy some first.

If it was as a part of a UN action, then yes. Otherwise no.

Our neutrality lost its meaning after the first world war. After that there was a point in hiding behind an alleged neutrality but there isn't any more.

UN-responsibility needs to be divided into smaller regions. UN nations closer to Libya should be forced to take a greater responsibility in that mess.

 

[Truthy]

They'd need to buy some first.

Even after buying an air force, Finland would be attacking Libya before Sweden made up its mind.

 

[emzie]

Even after buying an air force, Finland would be attacking Libya before Sweden made up its mind.

They have F18s.

I really spend way too much time on wikipedia if I'm able to recall trivial details like this.

As most know another military intervention in this region by western powers is a touchy subject and in one way or another it will probably continuously blow up in the face on any participants. Politicians are debating what role Nato should have in this conflict. One bright idea would be to bring in neutral parties and nations from the Arab world do some work. Trying to remain, at least officially, neutral has now made Sweden, amongst others, a candidate to uphold a no-fly zone in the area.

1. I'm not particularly fond of Gaddafi.
2. the loss of human lives is tragic.
3. I can't foresee any obvious good results after another intervention in the region, but a backlash for those who participate is likely.
4. An intervention may intimidate other regimes from using force as brutally as Gaddafi has.
5. We, the Swedish people, won't gain anything of value, except maybe some goodwill and perhaps sell in our jets to other nations, if they do well.

Do I as a citizen i neutral Sweden have a moral obligation to support an attack on Libya, which is in a state of civil war? On what moral ground in that case? Will this responsibility continue and stretch globally as more nations with an increase of economical and democratic issues revolt against their governments/regimes? Has our neutrality lost all meaning?

An obligation? Not to pick sides in a civil war, no. To protect civilians from military strikes? Yes, I think you have that obligation.

A combat demonstration of the Gripen might be useful in convincing a few countries to pick it over the F-16, which is, of course, a very good reason to engage in war

 

[Perfection]

No, you guys would just screw it up and end up bombing a hospital or something.

 

[Lillefix]

I really spend way too much time on wikipedia if I'm able to recall trivial details like this.

Ditto. And "trivial" comes from trivium which was a preparatory for quadrivium in the middle ages university system. Trivium was apparently much easier than quadrivium. I discovered this on Wikipedia two days ago when I wanted to know more about trivium.


Anyway. Four planes, six planes ten planes. Does it matter in the end? Don't the Americans, British and French already have hundreds of planes at their disposal?

 

[kronic]

I wouldn't bother if I were a Swede. You're not going to get the oil contracts anyway.

 

[emzie]

Ditto. And "trivial" comes from trivium which was a preparatory for quadrivium in the middle ages university system. Trivium was apparently much easier than quadrivium. I discovered this on Wikipedia two days ago when I wanted to know more about trivium.


Anyway. Four planes, six planes ten planes. Does it matter in the end? Don't the Americans, British and French already have hundreds of planes at their disposal?

I don't think the Americans intend to be the major player in this. There's more French fighters flying over Libya than American, I think.

The 4-and-6 fighter contributions add up.

 

[Quintillus]

Denmark sent 4 F16s. You don't want to be upstaged by Danes, do you?

I've read it's actually six from Denmark - four to take part and two as 'backup planes'. I don't know what exactly that means, but they've sent six F-16s to Sicily.

 

[stuge]

Wasn't one of the reasons for Sweden changing to a professional army that it could become more active in international operations?

I'd say here's a pretty good chance at that. Let's see the Gripen fly.

(I'm mostly interested in the warpronz aspect.)

 

[Loppan Torkel]

An obligation? Not to pick sides in a civil war, no. To protect civilians from military strikes? Yes, I think you have that obligation.

Are they still civilians when they carry Ak-47's? It seems the Secretary-General of the Arab League now is criticizing the military intervention. It seems he thought it wouldn't mean any attacks to ground targets in Libya. Great early development!

A combat demonstration of the Gripen might be useful in convincing a few countries to pick it over the F-16, which is, of course, a very good reason to engage in war

I'm sure Brazil and India will keep half an eye on the performance of the Rafale, Gripen and F-18's at least.

 

[Cynovolans]

Only if you wear stereotypical viking attire.

 

[emzie]

Are they still civilians when they carry Ak-47's? It seems the Secretary-General of the Arab League now is criticizing the military intervention. It seems he thought it wouldn't mean any attacks to ground targets in Libya. Great early development!I'm sure Brazil and India will keep half an eye on the performance of the Rafale, Gripen and F-18's at least.

Well unless you get in there, they'll only be seeing the performance of the Rafale and the American-made fighters.

I should note, and I hate doing this, my comments along these lines are sarcastic -- the last thing America needs is more competition in arms dealing.