U.N. <---> Libya

[Markxxx]

@Ravenman

…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?

First you have to be careful, remember the massacres and mass graves in Romania, many which turned out not to be true. While it’s nearly a cert that such has happened in Libya, remember it is happening elsewhere right now. Just don’t believe all you hear.

The real question is why Libya?

Right now Bahrain and Yeman have done as such, will we see No-Fly zone over there as well? What about Burma and the Ivory Coast and North Korea?

Of course the pat answer is, if you see six fires burning and only have enough water to put one out, you don’t let them all burn, you put the one you can, out.

The side effect is more nations are going to want nukes? Do you really think anyone would risk a no-fly zone over a nuclear armed Libya

In the end it amounts to the West doesn’t like Gaddafi and Libya is close enough to actually do this and finally they have oil.

As for interfering in a country, that’s how the world works. It was the French who through out Bokassa in the Central African Empire (now Republic), it was the Cubans who proped up Angola and Ethiopia. It was the US who split apart Columbia to build the Panama Canal.

That’s how the world works then and works now

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@Markxxx

The side effect is more nations are going to want nukes? Do you really think anyone would risk a no-fly zone over a nuclear armed Libya

You mean like how the US is currently performing air strikes over a nuclear-armed Pakistan?

[squabi01]

@Capitaine_Zombie

You do realize that if that sentiment had been the prevailing one at Louis XVI’s court, the USA you currently know would not have come to exist?

True Capitaine Zambie, True! A part of this I’m worried about is, somehow a few of our Cruise missles missed their target and hit Gadhafi house!

We should let the Libyan people take care of that if they so wish.

[RickJay]

@Ravenman

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.
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.

To be fair to the UN, what’s wrong with lots of talking?

After all, we have some 200 sovereign nations in the world. They’ve got to engage in diplomacy, and so you might as well invest diplomatic legitimacy in some sort of central body. If you abolished the UN because it talks too much, by the following Monday the world’s nation-states would be wondering where they could set up a new one.

Sometimes, however, one must take action. Preferably you take the UN route not to please the UN itself - the UN has no legal or sovereign authority - but simply because it quashes a lot of argument and objections out of the gate and gives the action some degree of legitimacy, however tenuous.

[gonzomax]

What is tenuous about it? When the UN gives us a decision we like, we act on it like it was holy writ. Saddam was defying the UN mandates. It gave a thin veneer of morality to the Bush invasions. He used it for Regime Change, which is what he wanted anyway.
This UN vote, with Arab League backing ,is even better.