Hopefully they can halt the advance on Benghazi, if it didn't already get there.
U.N. Approves Airstrikes to Halt Attacks by Qaddafi Forces
- Thread starter Incodcito
- Start date
GoodGame
Red, White, & Blue, baby!
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2004
- Messages
- 13,725
I see this not really helping the rebels much, and getting kind of complicated for any nation to actually enforce (without sponsoring one of the two sides) when you consider how hard it is to figure out who is what (short of the fighters who are actually wearing military uniforms)---especially from the air. A no-fly zone should intimidate any quick fix attempts to use chemical weapons against rebel-held regions.
They're called the National Transitional Council, you can probably look them up.
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
In a sense it's "special" because it's not quite a civil war - the UN is viewing this as a world leader going after and killing his own people.. most of whom have risen up against him.
In another it's "the right thing to do", if you support democracy, human rights, and so on. Just because most of the time the world community at large (if there is such a thing) does not do "the right thing" doesn't mean that it's wrong to celebrate when they do... the rare instance when it happens.
And you know, there is another real difference here. The leaders in the region have urged the UN to act. Unless I'm mistaken, the entirety of the Arab League supports this UN action. Not only does the UN have the mandate of most of the region, it also has the support of the most of the world, including most of the population of Libya itself.
If the UN hopes to have any legitimacy it HAS to act when it has such support.
Haha, do you think France and the UK have the means for a full scale intervention without American assistance?
Holycannoli
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2006
- Messages
- 2,406
I'm not happy with this. Why intervene in what is basically a civil war between the government and rebels? It's not a humanitarian crisis or a case of the government opening fire on protesters (not in Libya anymore). I would favor intervention in those cases. But a government attacking rebels in it's own country?
There has to be genuine fear of what he will do once he regains control of his country, I just don't see the reason to intervene in Libya and not elsewhere otherwise.
EDIT: Doing this is basically siding with the rebels, and I'm not even sure they're trying to be transparent about it. It's just weird that they chose to intervene here and not elsewhere, and even weirder that there's been past criticism of trying to be the world's police.
There has to be genuine fear of what he will do once he regains control of his country, I just don't see the reason to intervene in Libya and not elsewhere otherwise.
EDIT: Doing this is basically siding with the rebels, and I'm not even sure they're trying to be transparent about it. It's just weird that they chose to intervene here and not elsewhere, and even weirder that there's been past criticism of trying to be the world's police.
Thoughtful Thug
Deity
That is nice fine and dandy stuff there, warpus. I agree with your sentiments.
On the last sentence about the UN have any legitimacy, I can only lol on that. If I was allowed to change the UN charter in one day. I would make all members of the UN as permanent members, instead of just having only 5 of them. But that is a different topic.
Whiskey_Lord
Deity
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2008
- Messages
- 2,163
We should oppose tyranny everywhere and in all its forms. We just have to take them out one at a time and pace ourselves. "We" being anyone with a sincere belief in justice.
innonimatu
the resident Cassandra
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2006
- Messages
- 15,377
The script I'm seeing getting played is one of "reconciliation" in Libya, and this a move to force Qaddafi to accept it. It's not meant for actual war and occupation. In other words: no airstrikes. It remains to be seen if the libyans (both sides) swallow it, but Qaddafi pretty much had already indicated he's willing to. It was just that no one can believe him.
They are all permanent members minus a couple who haven't been recognized as nations. There are only 5 permanent members of the security council which is what I believe you meant. The 5 permanent members of the security council makes perfect sense because they hold the majority of military power in the world. I suppose if I had my way there would only be one member of the security council, the US.
GoodSarmatian
Jokerfied Western Male
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2006
- Messages
- 9,408
Finally.
Hopefully not.
I don't really understand this. Especially the "It's not a humanitarian crisis or a case of the government opening fire on protesters (not in Libya anymore)" part.
It reads like an intervention would have been justified when the protests started and the Lybian airforce started bombing civilians, but now that the situation has escalated to a civil war it's not justified any more.
Hopefully not.
I don't really understand this. Especially the "It's not a humanitarian crisis or a case of the government opening fire on protesters (not in Libya anymore)" part.
It reads like an intervention would have been justified when the protests started and the Lybian airforce started bombing civilians, but now that the situation has escalated to a civil war it's not justified any more.
Holycannoli said:
The reason they became armed rebels is because of the violent government response to them. It's really really really hard to remain a nonviolent protestor movement with the sort of vicious response the Libyan government undertook. Massed nonviolent action can work, but then again, Gandhi was dealing with the British, not with a bloodthirsty dictatorship.
Disgustipated
Deity
Good news, but I fear it may be too late. The U.S. is in no position to attack except for maybe using Stealth bombers (and refueling over the ocean). The Enterprise isn't too far away (red sea last I heard), but still too far away to strike.
I'm not a big fan of intervention (I'm against all ground action), but he did bomb an airliner after all... What more do you need? Of course Reagan bombed an airliner too.
We know this is true. And France needs that oil too. High oil prices will ruin the economic recovery of every nation.
I'm not a big fan of intervention (I'm against all ground action), but he did bomb an airliner after all... What more do you need? Of course Reagan bombed an airliner too.
We know this is true. And France needs that oil too. High oil prices will ruin the economic recovery of every nation.
Kraznaya
Princeps
We should approve airstrikes on Italy too if they refuse to help.
Disgustipated
Deity
To my understanding, I think the U.S. was hesitant because of the significant anti air defenses Libya has which would necessitate using stealth bombers at first to knock those defenses out. It won't be a cheap operation, and I think that's why Obama was against it. Maybe a military expert can clarify about Libya's anti-air defenses. But that's the impression I got from news articles.
GinandTonic
Saphire w/ Schweps + Lime
- Joined
- May 25, 2005
- Messages
- 8,898
France and Cypress are not too far. Malta may not be able to host the whole show but is right on station and able to fuel assets on a smaller scale.
Good news, but I fear it may be too late. The U.S. is in no position to attack except for maybe using Stealth bombers (and refueling over the ocean). The Enterprise isn't too far away (red sea last I heard), but still too far away to strike.
I'm not a big fan of intervention (I'm against all ground action), but he did bomb an airliner after all... What more do you need? Of course Reagan bombed an airliner too.
We know this is true. And France needs that oil too. High oil prices will ruin the economic recovery of every nation.
There are a number of European ships near Malta at present, France has been saying they can start within hours.
