I thought the purpose of the UN was as a peacekeeping organization? If they vote to intervene militarily (as in Iraq and Bosnia) in the interests of keeping the peace, does that violate the charter? I admit I have not read that document.
It isn’t, and never was.
The UN is a building on the East Side of Manhattan where nations meet to further their own agendas. I’m surprised people think it was ever something else.
Your cynicism (and possibly correct view) aside, is not the stated purpose of the UN as noted above, and doesn’t this intervention fall under its stated purpose? Is that clear enough, or do you wish to continue to vent?
Did the UNSC authorize the bombing of Serbia? I don’t think so.
The authorization for the Gulf War involved the use of force against one country that had invaded another. In this case, we are talking about the internal affairs of a sovereign country.
No, but they weren’t “rebels” and they weren’t “taking” anything until after Gaddafi started shooting peaceful demonstrators.
Can you reference the part of the charter where this is forbidden?
What were the rebels supposed to do, ask the crazy dictator real super nicely?
This tidbit makes you look incredibly stupid. 9 Americans died in Vietnam while Eisenhower was president. Nine.
You’re embarrassing yourself.
They did not. The NATO bombing of Serbia is, however, pretty much the only time the international community successfully stopped internal genocidal action.
In Bosnia, the UN mandate forbade their soldiers from engaging in actual offensive action. They were there as observers and escorts for humanitarian aid. Their role in Rwanda was similar.
The UN, in general, does not have a good record in actually preventing human rights violations precisely because people are reluctant to interfere with a nation’s internal affairs. Why are they okaying intervention in Libya? My guess is that it is because (warning: seat of my pants policy analysis to follow):
-
Ghadaffi’s actions are so blatantly a violation of international human rights norms, and people don’t want to look like a bunch of gits standing around twiddling their thumbs while people die.
-
Continuing conflict in Libya could destabilize the region. Two of Libya’s neighbors overthrew longterm dictators in the last few months, and there is no guarantee that Tunisia and Egypt will actually be able to create stable democratic governments. Having a chaotic situation next door will not help.
-
Oil. The US only gets a small percentage of oil from Libya, but Europe gets a lot more, and you’ll notice that it’s France and Britain who have been the most proactive.
The situation is getting pretty bad in both Yemen and Bahrain, but those countries are under the Saudi sphere of influence and the equation is quite different.
I don’t mean to say it is explicitly forbidden by the charter, but I’m asking if it is allowed. If it’s not allowed, then it’s forbidden.
This just proves how hard it is to be president. In other threads he is being hammered because he has not gone in alone to protect "freedom fighters’ against Gadaffy. People are upset that he has waited so long. The fact that every other democracy has also waited seems to make no difference. The fact that we have 2 wars going on and are spending tons on wars does not matter either. They claim he is weak and dithering.
Now, after a UN resolution, he has tepidly given support. But you think he has betrayed America. Crap he cannot win.
I am a pacifist. I hate wars and injecting our military power across the globe. Iraq and Afghanistan sicken me. This one ,not so much. If he keeps troops out and does not spearhead the foray, them I will not be too disappointed. I will abhor the “collateral damage”. These are innocent humans in my book.
But if Gadaffy actually commits to a cease fire with nobody getting killed, it will be a huge victory.
Libya, Venezuela, Iraq, and Iran are all members of OPEC. As such, they have quotas to meet. While they may throw verbal barbs, they haven’t made material threats to the oil supply since the '70s. Russia, on the other hand, has manipulated natural gas exports.
Well, it appears we have begun launching missiles on Tripoli. Does that make everybody feel better?
Ugh. When do we start bombing Iran, Syria, Bahrain…?
Later this afternoon.
At least then we’d be consistent!
Okay, can you link to what is allowed then? I’m not trying to be a dick; I’m just curious. I am completely against getting involved in the Middle East and always have been. It’s a morass from which there is little hope of escaping, let alone winning a war in. They don’t respect diplomacy, only money and power. The more they can bleed off the coffers of the west, the happier they are, and we’ve been pouring cash into that shithole for way too many decades. I’m all for letting them fight their own damned battles, a la Egypt.
I’m asking if it’s allowed. You can find the charter on wikipedia, or at least a link to it.
They did it, didn’t they? That means it’s allowed.
(I’m being a little facetious, but not much.)
War is shitty, Civil war inside Libya is shitty, but that doesn’t make it any shittier than all the other places we’ve ignored.
Here’s the question, if the rebels go back on the offensive after we hammer Gaddafi’s forces do we bomb the piss out of them as well?