# 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:** 5
**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 20, 2011, 8:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-n-libya/575154/81 "2011-03-20T20:50:55Z")
At least he wrote “quash” instead of “squash”. Gotta give him credit for that! ---
**Author:** ![Otocor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/d07c76/32.png) [@Otocor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Otocor)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2011, 9:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-n-libya/575154/82 "2011-03-20T21:14:02Z")
> [@spark240](#): > > Which is it? Are “internal affairs” nobody’s business or everybody’s business? At this point in time, it is both. As it stands, borders exist and a country has a right to treat those within its borders as it sees fit - it must maintain a method to secure peace among its denizens. The United Nations, through speech giving and open discourse, should actively encourage countries to dissolve their borders - not so that we develop a one-world nation, but so that we return to what this planet used to be - just one world. If an influential nation like China or Canada dissolved its borders, then other countries would follow suit. In other words, the United Nations should give the encouragement - but it is up to the individual countries themselves to actually commit the act. > [@Ravenman](#): > > First of all, the UN has no troops – countries may volunteer to send troops to various peacekeeping missions, or they may decline. It is totally up to the countries that may wish to participate. That is just semantics. Troops are sent to fight battles in the name of ‘peacekeeping’ by the United Nations, therefore they do, in fact, have troops. Perhaps non-paid mercenaries might be more accurate, but since ‘troops’ is the commonly used term, it fits here. > [@](#): > > Second of all, the UN is not “constantly” sending troops to fight battles. The number of times that the UN has authorized countries to go to war in the past six plus decades is very small. Very, very small. In recent years, the United Nations has been sending troops to fight seemingly in perpetuam. It is ironic that they “fighting others” peacekeeping - that is complete Orwellian doublethink. > [@](#): > > Third of all, the whole point of the United Nations isn’t just to have a forum to let diplomats talk, it is " to develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights . . . [and] in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion." How can friendly relations be developed when violence is often encouraged? Violence does not beget friendship - when was the last time you argued with a random individual and walked away as their best friend? There was this band from the 1980s called “Def Leppard.” They had a song called “Action, Not Words.” The UN should be about “Words, Not Action.” > [@](#): > > Really. Did George Bush send F-16s in to New York City after 9/11 to strafe people in the street? This is a non-sequitur. The Libyan uprisings are a prolonged, organized uprising with the complete intent of uprooting a formerly peaceful national government, while the attacks on 9/11 were a relatively random attack by non-nationals. George W. Bush did do the equivalent of strafing people in the street by attacking the problem at its source - the Middle East. However, it was not in his jurisdiction to do so as he needed to invade more than one country to attempt to root out those that caused his nation harm. The Libyan government is acting as any rational individual or group would do. When a snake is provoked, does it not bite? When a bee stings, do you not swat at it? ---
**Author:** ![gravitycrash](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/977dab/32.png) [@gravitycrash](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gravitycrash)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2011, 9:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-n-libya/575154/83 "2011-03-20T21:15:17Z")
The Arab League chief is now whining about the bombing of civilians because they didn’t authorize this. Way to cover your asses guys. You can never go wrong with slamming those meanies from the West right? ---
**Author:** ![Superhal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Superhal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Superhal)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2011, 9:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-n-libya/575154/84 "2011-03-20T21:39:09Z")
The UN is very involved. They have headed off major conflicts with diplomacy since the 50’s. It’s sad that you never hear about their successes because there is no war, but only their failures. ---
**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 20, 2011, 10:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-n-libya/575154/85 "2011-03-20T22:04:32Z")
Where the hell did they get the name: Operation Odyssey Dawn? ---
**Author:** ![Declan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ecae2f/32.png) [@Declan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Declan)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2011, 10:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-n-libya/575154/86 "2011-03-20T22:13:05Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Where the hell did they get the name: Operation Odyssey Dawn? Usually its computer generated, twitter has a number of people posting exactly how the pentagon comes up with operational names. Normally the name of the operation is designed so that the nature of the operation, the location of that operation, or the timing of the operation is not given away. Declan ---
**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 20, 2011, 10:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-n-libya/575154/87 "2011-03-20T22:38:41Z")
Well they succeeded with Odyssey Dawn, because that don’t give away nothing. Unless they think that this is going to be 10 years of meandering around the Med. ---
**Author:** ![marshmallow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/df705f/32.png) [@marshmallow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/marshmallow)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2011, 10:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-n-libya/575154/88 "2011-03-20T22:50:33Z")
So what’s the plan when the rebels get rolled? A decade of sanctions, then we invade, set up some bases, and chillax? ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2011, 10:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-n-libya/575154/89 "2011-03-20T22:58:44Z")
> [@flickster](#): > > And poof, Arab League support vanishes into thin air > > [Associated Press](http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iRRC-Ij_xoxpHpSxJd-LVDd1JHXQ?docId=999067b967b7412c83d7cce7921da560) The Arab League supported a no fly zone; they did not support air strikes. They have not changed their stance. ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2011, 11:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-n-libya/575154/90 "2011-03-20T23:11:46Z")
How did they think we would achieve a no fly zone? There is a report on right now with Kadaffy’s compound shown with missile holes in the roof. They apparently are trying to put his lights out. ---
**Author:** ![CoolHandCox](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/coolhandcox/32/16233_2.png) [@CoolHandCox](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CoolHandCox)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2011, 11:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-n-libya/575154/91 "2011-03-20T23:17:15Z")
> [@Otocor](#): > > How a country decides to treat its people is up to that specific country - not to a group of individuals from the other side of the planet. I’m not clear what you’re saying…What if that country decides to gas it’s citizens to death by the millions? Wrong to intervene? Or are you saying, if a rebel group decides to revolt, it’s up to that State, and only that State, to put down the revolt? I can get behind that some. But, when your methods of putting down a revolt involve the direct targeting of civilians/not trying to minimize civilian casualties, and you’re unelected, then I’m not. It’s not disturbing (anymore) to protect civilians at the expense of sovereignty. ---
**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 20, 2011, 11:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-n-libya/575154/92 "2011-03-20T23:29:01Z")
> [@RickJay](#): > > The Arab League supported a no fly zone; they did not support air strikes. They have not changed their stance. Do you have a cite for that? Did we, like, \*forget \*to tell them that you can’t have the former without the latter? ---
**Author:** ![Otocor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/d07c76/32.png) [@Otocor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Otocor)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2011, 12:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-n-libya/575154/93 "2011-03-21T00:00:08Z")
> [@CoolHandCox](#): > > I’m not clear what you’re saying…What if that country decides to gas it’s citizens to death by the millions? Wrong to intervene? > > Or are you saying, if a rebel group decides to revolt, it’s up to that State, and only that State, to put down the revolt? I can get behind that some. But, when your methods of putting down a revolt involve the direct targeting of civilians/not trying to minimize civilian casualties, and you’re unelected, then I’m not. It’s not disturbing (anymore) to protect civilians at the expense of sovereignty. Why should we intervene? What is ‘peace’? To some in the west, ‘peace’ is ‘happiness, prosperity, a state of calm’ et cetera. But who are we to impose our definition of peace on another country? What if killing is their idea of peace? Not everyone thinks the same exact way and holds the same exact idea of what is and what is not ‘peaceful.’ ---
**Author:** ![CoolHandCox](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/coolhandcox/32/16233_2.png) [@CoolHandCox](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CoolHandCox)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2011, 12:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-n-libya/575154/94 "2011-03-21T00:23:10Z")
> [@Otocor](#): > > Why should we intervene? What is ‘peace’? To some in the west, ‘peace’ is ‘happiness, prosperity, a state of calm’ et cetera. But who are we to impose our definition of peace on another country? What if killing is their idea of peace? Not everyone thinks the same exact way and holds the same exact idea of what is and what is not ‘peaceful.’ Not we (the west I presume), the UN. Theoretical representatives of the world. We just have the capacity to enforce what was authorized. 15 States weighed in from across the globe on the [resolution](http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2011/sc10200.doc.htm#Resolution). None tried to redefine what constituted a threat to international peace. One weighing in was Lebanon, here’s what they said: > [@](#): > > NAWAF SALAM (Lebanon) said that Libya was suffering heavily, with hundreds of victims dying and thousands displaced. Faced with those risks and the great danger of those crimes, the United Nations had acted earlier, but Colonel Qadhafi had not heeded those actions. **Lebanon, agreeing with the League of Arab States, had then called on the Security Council to establish measures to protect civilians.** The Libyan authorities had lost all their legitimacy and **the resolution was aimed at protecting Libyan civilians**. > > He stressed that the resolution would not have as a consequence occupation of “even an inch” of Libyan territory. **He hoped that the resolution would have a deterrent role and end the Libyan authorities’ use of force.** He reaffirmed full support for the county’s sovereignty, the need for full cooperation between the United Nations and the League of Arab States, pursuant to Chapter VIII of the United Nations Charter, and the necessity of a peaceful solution to the situation. The resolution was fraught with hope for Libya and its people, he concluded. Also, and not related to the above, but the resolution is not just a ‘no-fly zone’ resolution. It’s broader. As written (and envisioned), anything and everything can be attacked, even if it’s unrelated to planes in the sky. There are multiple parts to the resolution, enforcing a no-fly zone is only one of those. ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2011, 12:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-n-libya/575154/95 "2011-03-21T00:26:30Z")
Libya is tricky. I don’t think we should interfere with other countries to impose our value system. But in Libya the people were fighting to get free from Kadaffy, who our government hates. We did not cause them to fight against their government. We will profit from ending his reign. When Kadaffy said he would slaughter his own people, should we sit by? I doubt they are in the process of setting up a Democracy. Who knows how it will end? There are about 65 dictatorships in the world. Do we line them up and take them down? Where would we get the right? ---
**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 21, 2011, 12:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-n-libya/575154/96 "2011-03-21T00:28:42Z")
If anyone wants to read the UN resolution, you can get a pdf of it here. [http://www.un.org/Docs/sc/unsc\_resolutions11.htm](http://www.un.org/Docs/sc/unsc_resolutions11.htm) ---
**Author:** ![Martini\_Enfield](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/martini_enfield/32/11123_2.png) [@Martini\_Enfield](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martini_Enfield)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2011, 12:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-n-libya/575154/97 "2011-03-21T00:47:13Z")
> [@flickster](#): > > Frankly, I don’t really give a damn if Gadhafi wipes out rebels trying to overthrow him. Just as I would care if the rebels were on Gadhafi’s doorstep. Seems to me when you try to overthrow a government, there is an inherent risk that comes built in and if you are not successful, things will likely end badly for you. It’s the risk you take. More or less exactly my feelings on the subject too. I’m by no means a Qaddafi supporter and whilst I hope for a swift and peaceable ending to the situation (fat chance, I know), I would have thought part of the gamble involved in trying to overthrow a Government is that you might lose and the Government might not be too pleased with you afterwards. Incidentally, has anyone actually asked the Colonel how _he_ prefers his name spelt in English? There’s something like 30 different ways of doing it and hardly anyone seems to be able to agree on it, so surely some enterprising reporter has actually asked the man (or someone official in his Government) if there’s a preference one way or the other? ---
**Author:** ![Peremensoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ce7236/32.png) [@Peremensoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peremensoe)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2011, 1:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-n-libya/575154/98 "2011-03-21T01:11:55Z")
> [@Chris Suellentrop / Slate](#): > > In 1986, most publications, including the AP, adopted “Gadhafi” as the new standard. Why? The Libyan leader had sent letters to American schoolchildren and a minister. The typed name over his Arabic signature: Moammar El-Gadhafi. (Before that, he had refused to Romanize his name.) I also recall reading once that the Colonel was asked directly and said it didn’t matter; the Arabic (never in dispute) was the real name. Al Jazeera seems to feel that “Gaddafi” represents the median pronunciation across the arabophone world. ---
**Author:** ![Lazy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/9fc29f/32.png) [@Lazy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lazy)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2011, 2:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-n-libya/575154/99 "2011-03-21T02:58:14Z")
> [@gonzomax](#): > > How did they think we would achieve a no fly zone? I am guessing they assumed it would be through the threat to shoot down planes, rather than pre-emptively attacking airports and so on. I think there was also the expectation that the resolution would act as a deterrent to Gaddafi, leading him to adopt a ceasefire during which a peaceful outcome could be achieved. At least that is what many are saying. And I think Gaddafi did in fact institute a ceasefire, at least officially. It obviously wasn’t given much of a chance to produce any results. Of course it may have just been a ploy, but I think the opportunities for finding a peaceful resolution during the ceasefire should still have been taken, until it was clear that the ceasefire had been called in bad faith. For practical as well as moral reasons–there is a saying in chess: the threat is stronger than the execution. ---
**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 21, 2011, 12:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-n-libya/575154/100 "2011-03-21T12:08:02Z")
> [@Otocor](#): > > That is just semantics. Troops are sent to fight battles in the name of ‘peacekeeping’ by the United Nations, therefore they do, in fact, have troops. … > In recent years, the United Nations has been sending troops to fight seemingly in perpetuam. It is ironic that they “fighting others” peacekeeping - that is complete Orwellian doublethink. Ok, it is pretty clear that you don’t understand the first thing about peacekeepers. They are not “fighting others,” they are invited by both sides of a conflict to sustain conflict resolution efforts. You might want to see the movie Hotel Rwanda to understand just how far the blue helmets are from being an offensive military force. Things like what the UN has authorized in Libya is NOT peacekeeping, so perhaps that is why you are so confused. > [@](#): > > The UN should be about “Words, Not Action.” From time to time I’ve had opportunities to closely track UN action on a number of issues. Holy Jesus Christ, the amount of talking vs acting is out of control. > [@](#): > > The Libyan government is acting as any rational individual or group would do. When a snake is provoked, does it not bite? When a bee stings, do you not swat at it? Two issues: first, I do not believe that it is valid to compare a revolt against an oppressive, despotic country with a revolt against a modern participatory democracy. People should be bringing down despotic governments, but trying to overthrow liberal democracies is something only done by those who want to turn back the clock on human rights. Second, you can’t be serious about defending the way in which the Libyan armed forces are trying to stop the revolt. Do you actually support massacres? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-n-libya/575154.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-n-libya/575154.md?page=6)