mattx Posted March 10, 2011 Posted March 10, 2011 The UN did nothing then, and it seems YET AGAIN they are doing nothing now. Oh hang on, they will have another meeting....
witch Posted March 10, 2011 Posted March 10, 2011 Then again - there have been plenty of signs in English held by the rebels telling the international community NOT to interfere. So who do we listen to? When does it become our 'duty' to intervene and when not? Having said that, if something is done then I hope it is by the UN this time and not some gung-ho country going in to bring 'democracy' to the people (and save the oil).
Fatmas Posted March 10, 2011 Posted March 10, 2011 I'm obviously disturbed when civilians get dragged into these kind of problems because they are the ones that suffer the most. However, we are not the world police. We have tried this before and now we are involved in two wars that are costing us billions of pounds a year and untold civilian and military casualties.
localzuk Posted March 10, 2011 Posted March 10, 2011 The main issue I have with the Libya situation is that the international community is happy to sit and say 'don't do that' to Gaddafi, but then not follow through with any actions. The single most effective course of action at the moment would be a no fly zone. It would stop the bombing of rebels and civilians, and therefore reduce the overall bloodshed massively. However, we are not the world police. That's just the thing - we are the world police, with the USA, UN and NATO. Without those organisations and countries keeping things in check, we'd have a lot more instability.
witch Posted March 10, 2011 Posted March 10, 2011 I'm obviously disturbed when civilians get dragged into these kind of problems because they are the ones that suffer the most. However, we are not the world police. We have tried this before and now we are involved in two wars that are costing us billions of pounds a year and untold civilian and military casualties. But both those wars were not the UN but individual countries leaping in.
Fatmas Posted March 10, 2011 Posted March 10, 2011 But both those wars were not the UN but individual countries leaping in. True, very true. I'm all for the UN stepping up and doing their job. The problem is, telling someone to do something doesn't make ANY difference in this situation. Does anyone seriously think imposing a no fly zone would actually make any difference? What happens when the rebels get hold of some planes? They have plenty of defected pilots to fly them.
daz666 Posted March 10, 2011 Posted March 10, 2011 We should stay out of it and let the Arab countries deal with it.
localzuk Posted March 10, 2011 Posted March 10, 2011 What happens when the rebels get hold of some planes? They have plenty of defected pilots to fly them. A no-fly zone applies to all planes not enforcing the no-fly zone. So regardless of who was flying them, they'd be engaged and forced to land or be shot down.
Theblacksheep Posted March 10, 2011 Posted March 10, 2011 The main issue I have with the Libya situation is that the international community is happy to sit and say 'don't do that' to Gaddafi, but then not follow through with any actions. The single most effective course of action at the moment would be a no fly zone. It would stop the bombing of rebels and civilians, and therefore reduce the overall bloodshed massively. That's just the thing - we are the world police, with the USA, UN and NATO. Without those organisations and countries keeping things in check, we'd have a lot more instability. Nato is mutual defence pact against an external attack. The UN is ineffective when the uber states can veto any resolution. The US only supports upheaval in nations for its own interests. They are not the police, they are the enforement of anglo-american policy.
LeMarchand Posted March 10, 2011 Posted March 10, 2011 It's damned if we do (more fuel for the sort of folk who want to blame the decadent West for all oppressing the world + we all know that any action would be primarily to protect oil interests) and damned if we don't (with the immediate cost to human life). In my more paranoid moments I wonder if the current unrest in the Middle East hasn't been engineered to drive oil prices up... Anyway, I think you'll find these guys are the World Police: http://i225.photobucket.com/albums/dd22/CHBBIHAG_2000/TeamAmericaWorldPolice.jpg
localzuk Posted March 10, 2011 Posted March 10, 2011 Nato is mutual defence pact against an external attack. The UN is ineffective when the uber states can veto any resolution. The US only supports upheaval in nations for its own interests. They are not the police, they are the enforement of anglo-american policy. Take a look at this list - List of United Nations peacekeeping missions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Would you be happy for the UN not to have been involved in that rather large list of peacekeeping missions then? Bosnia? Former Yugoslavia? East Timor? Cambodia? Indo-Pakistan war?
Rydra Posted March 10, 2011 Posted March 10, 2011 I always find it amazing that people will do this to eachother over what is in the end a politician, and not the nicest of ones at that. The best answer is let them work it out themselves. The "Rebels" are fighting for their independance and for their rights; it would not help for us to jump and and win their battles, as it would not be their victory.
joe90bass Posted March 10, 2011 Posted March 10, 2011 The UN is ineffective when the uber states can veto any resolution Totally agree! Watching the news last night they were talking of Libya now in terms of a civil war, rather than an uprising. I don't have the answer, but something needs to be done!
JHeaton Posted March 10, 2011 Posted March 10, 2011 Then again - there have been plenty of signs in English held by the rebels telling the international community NOT to interfere. So who do we listen to? When does it become our 'duty' to intervene and when not? Having said that, if something is done then I hope it is by the UN this time and not some gung-ho country going in to bring 'democracy' to the people (and save the oil). I think this is an important point to consider, because it is their own problem and they may want to deal with it internally. But do they speak for the entire population who aren't aligned with Gadaffi, or just their own rebel groups? If this is not the case, then for the sake of the civilian population who may suffer, do the UN get involved?
SYNACK Posted March 10, 2011 Posted March 10, 2011 about twelvety What?? As to the UN they should just rename it the League of Nations for all the influence they actually have (read none). "Oooooh, watch out problematic country or we'll write you a strongly worded memorandum of complaint."
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now