# U.N. \<---\> Libya **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 18, 2011, 2:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-n-libya/575154 "2011-03-18T14:19:45Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2011, 4:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-n-libya/575154/21 "2011-03-18T16:20:52Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > And yet, the Obama administration seems to be completely AWOL. What’s with that? I thought Obama was all about multinational efforts and the UN? Why isn’t he listening to them now? Apparently, Hillary and Bill Clinton are just hopping mad at Obama right now for disengaging. It doesn’t make any sense to me. Assuming the US gets involved, whose job do you think it will be to rebuild the country after the civil war is over? The invasion of Iraq was an act of sheer idiocy, in part because the UN didn’t authorize it. That doesn’t mean that when the UN _does_ authorize things we have to get involved. Just that when it doesn’t, we usually shouldn’t. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2011, 4:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-n-libya/575154/22 "2011-03-18T16:40:58Z")
> [@SanVito](#): > > Who says they can’t? If you read my post, you will note that I was responding to **Sam Stone** ’s accusation of the United States being “AWOL,” “disengaged,” and strongly implying that the US is sandbagging other countries’ efforts to kick some ass. I’m saying that if the US not rushing out to take the lead on this matter is of such a great operational concern for Canada and its six F-18s, then I am questioning what the hell good is it to have F-18s if it is too difficult to actually use them without US support. Please keep in mind that I support the UN’s action, and think that the US SHOULD be engaged in Libya operations because it is the right thing to do. But I reject criticism of the US which seems to imply that we are somehow doing wrong to other countries who are more forward-leaning that the US is at this point. ---
**Author:** ![Candyman74](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ad7895/32.png) [@Candyman74](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Candyman74)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2011, 4:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-n-libya/575154/23 "2011-03-18T16:45:36Z")
> [@Mtgman](#): > > Did the US lobby for and vote for the resolution to create a no-fly zone? Yes. No. The US resisted it until yesterday, when it finally agreed to support such a resolution. Now that the resolution has gone through, countries like the UK and France have immediately committed air assets. I don’t know if the US has done or not. ---
**Author:** ![Candyman74](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ad7895/32.png) [@Candyman74](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Candyman74)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2011, 4:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-n-libya/575154/24 "2011-03-18T16:47:36Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Assuming the US gets involved, whose job do you think it will be to rebuild the country after the civil war is over? The invasion of Iraq was an act of sheer idiocy, in part because the UN didn’t authorize it. It’s a no-fly zone. The resolution specifically prohibits any kind of occupation or invasion force. ---
**Author:** ![Candyman74](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ad7895/32.png) [@Candyman74](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Candyman74)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2011, 4:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-n-libya/575154/25 "2011-03-18T16:48:57Z")
> [@Alessan](#): > > Pretty much, yes. Very few nations, if any, have force projection capabilities even approaching that of the U.S.; I don’t think any European nation, other than Russia, can operate away from its own borders for long without American support. Sure they can. The UK operated just fine in the Falklands, and is in Iraq and Afghanistan. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2011, 4:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-n-libya/575154/26 "2011-03-18T16:50:27Z")
> [@](#): > > It’s a no-fly zone. The resolution specifically prohibits any kind of occupation or invasion force. Yes, but that doesn’t mean one won’t be necessary. Maybe after the war a stable coalition forms capable of putting together a framework of government. Maybe it doesn’t, and Libya turns into Afghanistan or Somalia. > [@](#): > > Sure they can. The UK operated just fine in the Falklands, and is in Iraq and Afghanistan. The UK operated just fine in the Falklands from aircraft carriers that are no longer in service. The UK has operated in Iraq and Afghanistan from friendly airbases. Have any of Libya’s neighbors offered to allow NATO forces to operate from their soil? ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2011, 4:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-n-libya/575154/27 "2011-03-18T16:54:24Z")
> [@BlinkingDuck](#): > > Let me get this straight…the U.N. interfered in a countries civil war? > > Maybe this is just me (it probably is) but isn’t that a bit…disturbing? To be franck, what I find disturbing is that it didn’t interfer in some other places, like the ex-Yugoslavia and Rwanda. ---
**Author:** ![tagos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@tagos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tagos)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2011, 5:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-n-libya/575154/28 "2011-03-18T17:00:37Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Yes, but that doesn’t mean one won’t be necessary. Maybe after the war a stable coalition forms capable of putting together a framework of government. Maybe it doesn’t, and Libya turns into Afghanistan or Somalia. > > The UK operated just fine in the Falklands from aircraft carriers that are no longer in service. The UK has operated in Iraq and Afghanistan from friendly airbases. Have any of Libya’s neighbors offered to allow NATO forces to operate from their soil? Cyprus, southern France and the nato air bases in Sicily are great aircraft carriers thanks. Not to mention France has an aircraft carrier there anyway. ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2011, 5:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-n-libya/575154/29 "2011-03-18T17:03:14Z")
> [@Candyman74](#): > > It’s a no-fly zone. The resolution specifically prohibits any kind of occupation or invasion force. You’re right about occupation or invasion, but wrong about it being only a no flight zone. In fact the resolution allows about anything to protect the civilian population, except except sending troops on the ground. My understanding is that what is envisioned is basically a “no-move zone”. Land forces and ships (Libya has used her navy both in bombings and for landings) would be valid targets, AFAIK. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2011, 5:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-n-libya/575154/30 "2011-03-18T17:13:21Z")
> [@Ludovic](#): > > The U.N. allowed intervention to prevent genocide. I do indeed find this disturbing. Or maybe not. I don’t see “genocide” happening in Libya. Not to minimize the deaths and suffering there, but it’s not genocide. ---
**Author:** ![madmonk28](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/madmonk28/32/20811_2.png) [@madmonk28](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/madmonk28)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2011, 5:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-n-libya/575154/31 "2011-03-18T17:26:06Z")
> [@Ryan\_Liam](#): > > Wasn’t that unilateral action? The UN was slow to get involved, but UNMIK was established in 1999: [United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Interim_Administration_Mission_in_Kosovo) ---
**Author:** ![SanVito](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sanvito/32/2805_2.png) [@SanVito](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SanVito)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2011, 5:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-n-libya/575154/32 "2011-03-18T17:58:14Z")
> [@Ryan\_Liam](#): > > Wasn’t that unilateral action? It wasn’t UN, but it was NATO, and included: United States, United Kingdom, Germany, France, Italy, Canada, Spain, Portugal, Denmark, Turkey, Netherlands and Belgium. The mission was codenamed ‘Operation Allied Force’, except in the US for some reason, maybe that’s why some Americans think they took on the serbs single-handed. ---
**Author:** ![jjimm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ba8739/32.png) [@jjimm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jjimm)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2011, 6:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-n-libya/575154/33 "2011-03-18T18:46:44Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > I am inclined to say that bombing Quaddafi’s thugs is a good thing, but jesus freakin’ Christ, can the rest of the world do one goddamn military action without the United States having to provide the huge bulk of forces and funds?? Sierra Leone. Cote D’Ivoire. > [@](#): > > If France, Canada and Britain can’t handle the Libyan military threat despite the proximity of European military bases and the advanced state of their own miltiary hardware, then perhaps they should just give up having air forces. There is a strong probability, in my opinion, that the US had to be got on-side before something the UK and France had been pushing for would receive UN approval. And ‘on-side’ seems to include participation. In other words, we were prepared to go it alone, with a UN mandate, but to get the UN mandate, the US wanted in. So don’t get pissed off at US participation when the US _wanted_ to be in the fray. ---
**Author:** ![China\_Guy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/779978/32.png) [@China\_Guy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/China_Guy)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2011, 7:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-n-libya/575154/34 "2011-03-18T19:23:18Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > What I find most interesting about this is that there is a wide world consensus that something must be done - not just in the U.N., but individual countries are taking action. Canada is sending six F-18’s to help maintain a no-fly zone. France is requesting the help of the U.S. and committing its own forces. > > And yet, the Obama administration seems to be completely AWOL. What’s with that? I thought Obama was all about multinational efforts and the UN? Why isn’t he listening to them now? Apparently, Hillary and Bill Clinton are just hopping mad at Obama right now for disengaging. It doesn’t make any sense to me. Sheesh, do people equate the nightly news and blogosphere with diplomacy or action? Sam - do you have a cite for the Hillary and Bill being hopping mad? Or something to indicate that Obama has been disengaging rather than engaging behind the scenes? One should note that both China and Russia, who have a history of vetoing such interventions in another country’s sovereign internal affairs, did not veto the UN resolution. Coincidence that the Obama administration has been improving relations with both China and Russia? ---
**Author:** ![Lemur866](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lemur866/32/434_2.png) [@Lemur866](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemur866)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2011, 7:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-n-libya/575154/35 "2011-03-18T19:42:31Z")
> [@China\_Guy](#): > > Sheesh, do people equate the nightly news and blogosphere with diplomacy or action? Sam - do you have a cite for the Hillary and Bill being hopping mad? Or something to indicate that Obama has been disengaging rather than engaging behind the scenes? > > One should note that both China and Russia, who have a history of vetoing such interventions in another country’s sovereign internal affairs, did not veto the UN resolution. Coincidence that the Obama administration has been improving relations with both China and Russia? It’s amazing what you can accomplish if you don’t care who gets the credit. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2011, 7:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-n-libya/575154/36 "2011-03-18T19:44:34Z")
> [@jjimm](#): > > Sierra Leone. Cote D’Ivoire. I’m not as familiar with Cote D’Ivoire, but I seem to recall that Kenya supported the operations in Sierra Leone. If your point is that Britain and Canada are the equals of the Kenyans in terms of expeditionary capability, I think we are making the same point. > [@](#): > > There is a strong probability, in my opinion, that the US had to be got on-side before something the UK and France had been pushing for would receive UN approval. And ‘on-side’ seems to include participation. In other words, we were prepared to go it alone, with a UN mandate, but to get the UN mandate, the US wanted in. So don’t get pissed off at US participation when the US _wanted_ to be in the fray. You are misunderstanding my point. **Sam Stone** seems to be implying that Obama is holding up other countries from beginning their military action. I’m saying that if other countries want to go ahead, they should be free to do so. And if they are not going ahead because they depend on certain military capabilities to be provided by the United States, they need to fix their friggin’ military so we don’t need to hold their hands all the time. ---
**Author:** ![Peremensoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ce7236/32.png) [@Peremensoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peremensoe)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2011, 7:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-n-libya/575154/37 "2011-03-18T19:49:04Z")
I’m getting the feeling that this is deliberately proceeding without a majority-American logistical basis–Italian bases and the _Charles de Gaulle_ instead of the _Enterprise_, and so on. ---
**Author:** ![WreckingCrew](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wreckingcrew/32/4080_2.png) [@WreckingCrew](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WreckingCrew)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2011, 8:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-n-libya/575154/38 "2011-03-18T20:28:36Z")
France also has an Air Force base at an airport in Chad, though it may even be further from Tripoli than mainland France is. > **[N'Djamena International Airport](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N%27Djamena_International_Airport)** > > N'Djamena International Airport (IATA: NDJ, ICAO: FTTJ) (Arabic: مطار انجمينا الدولي; French: Aéroport international de N'Djaména) serves N'Djamena, the capital city of Chad. It is the country's only international airport. The airport is dual use, with civilian and military installations on opposite sides of the single runway. > The airport resides at an elevation of 968 feet (295 m) above mean sea level. It has one runway designated 05/23 with an asphalt surface measuring 2,800 by 45 metres ... ---
**Author:** ![Ludovic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ab992/32.png) [@Ludovic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ludovic)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2011, 8:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-n-libya/575154/39 "2011-03-18T20:43:03Z")
> [@spark240](#): > > I’m getting the feeling that this is deliberately proceeding without a majority-American logistical basis–Italian bases and the _Charles de Gaulle_ instead of the _Enterprise_, and so on. Because Italian intervention will look so un-imperialistic compared to American help 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2011, 9:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-n-libya/575154/40 "2011-03-18T21:57:23Z")
It looks like the Americans are [finally getting involved](http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/af_libya). [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-n-libya/575154.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-n-libya/575154.md?page=3)