Yes, I know. The great powers pretty much get to do whatever they want. No wonder so many in the not-great-powers countries hate us.
Is there any notable criticism of the present action from any of those countries?
Give it time.
The not-great-powers pretty much do whatever they choose, too.
John, the UN is acting under the “Responsibility to Protect” norm, which is codified in Security Council resolution 1674, passed unanimously by the UNSC in 2006. This lists four reasons for international intervention in domestic affairs of a state: genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing.
I think they’re defining Qaddafi’s actions as “crimes against humanity.” You could argue with that classification, but the UN is not acting counter to their stated and adapted principles.
Venezuela has several times. That is why you should hate them. Iran is sitting on our oil.
Yes, I would argue against that classification. And just because something was passed by the UNSC does not make it part of the UN Charter. For that, we’d need to have it voted on by the General Assembly.
Proud tears come to my eyes as again America leads another crusade against evil. No more sleepless nights of anguish in concern for the suffering of the internationally beloved Libyan people.
No. We support people wanting to be free against murderous dictators because it is the right thibg to do. Just for the sheer novelty value if nothing else.
Another?
Just because you cannot do everything it does mean you can do nothing. Geography and circumstance means we can act in Libya and it is in tune with our ‘yay, freedom’ values to do so.
It’s my impression that the structure of the organization makes such a vote pretty much irrelevant to UN sponsored military action. Maybe I’m wrong about this, but if the Security Council wants to take action, it doesn’t really matter if the entire rest of the member nations vote against it.
Effectively, when the SC decided that those four categories can be legitimately be considered as violative of international peace and security, military intervention is covered by Chapter 7 of the charter.
Not a defense of this particular action in terms of its necessity. I’m just saying it’s not realistically outside of the UN charter.
No, we don’t care so much about human rights in countries with regimes that are friendly to us. That’s the only difference.
Sometimes a dash of cold, cyncial realpolitik can be refreshing. Especially when warped and twisted to a good cause.
This probably won’t work. But it might. So far, we are investing very little, mostly we are offering support to the French and British. We have the support of the Arab League, about the only legitimate body of Ghaddafi’s neighbors available. For once, we are on the right side of this.
Plus, it fosters an image of a new and improved America to those Muslims we would sorely like to get along with. America is different, there’s a new sharif in town, and his name is Barrack. Maybe that’s just an illusion, but its a darned useful one.
Is it hypocritical not to free Yeman and Bahrain, seeing as how we’re so all high and mighty? OK, maybe so, likely so, but it is not good enough reason to abstain because: it just might work.
Its still a gamble. But a puny investment might bring huge rewards, not least of which is humanitarian. We should do this thing. But no ground troops. And I do not want to hear any crap about protecting our embassy with a couple of armored divisions.
Nonsense. Complete and arrant nonsense. A civil war in Libya is the business of no one except the Libyans. The same as the civil wars in Uganda, the Congo, Sri Lanka, etc.
We’re only doing this because it’s politically expedient to take out Qaddaffi. It’s a betrayal of what at least used to be our nation’s values. It’s none of our business who rules Libya.
If the French, the Italians, the Arab League want to do something about it, that’s up to them. It’s none of their business either, but I have no standing with those nations.
I do have standing with the United States and with Canada, and our activities are completely an act of sticking our nose in where it has no business being. Our actions are wrong, and are deplorable and unjustified.
So they only logical conclusion is that you shouldn’t care about human rights anywhere?
There are worse sins than hypocracy.
So let me make sure I understand
Libyan Government putting down a rebel uprising = bad
Rebels attacking = good
I see
I see…
I see that a Libyan civil war is still none of our F’ing business
That said, if the UN wants to provide the rebels with arms (maybe at a cheap discount) and let them take matters into their own hands. So be it. The rebels win with honor and life goes on.
UN bombing…not so good. This will come back to haunt them as pics of the unavoidable civilian deaths are distributed and the hate for Gadaffi is replaced with hate for the UN, and the US in particular. How many times do we have to see this scenario play out before we learn to MYOB?
Meh. Such is life. In this case at least, our coalition of the willing involves other military powers and we’re acting with the blessing of the UN and the support of more than just England.
This is based on your vast knowledge of Libyan history and culture? Small risk? This guy is a nuttier than Km Jong Il. I say let them fight it out and if the Europeans want to do so something, so be it. We are not playing just a supporting role, here. We’re the big dog in this fight, and the bombs have Made-In-USA on them.
When was that time of principled non-interventionism, again?