Is it time for the UN to act?

1. 67

   superwagsposted 14 years ago

   As Gaddafi continues to attack his own people from the ground and air isn't it time that the UN did something about this situation. What is the point in this organisation if it is so utterly impotent?
   
   Reports of mounting civilian casualties, including children as young as five.
   
   The UK and France are calling for no-fly zone to prevent more attacks from warplanes and helicopter gunships, but won't do anything without UN backing.
   
   http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12673956

   replyreport
   1. 61

      readytoescapeposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      Then let the Europeans and African Union do it. Establishing a NO Fly Zone is an act of war that requires active Military operations. The UN can't do squat.
      
      One other question, if they establish this no fly zone Just who are they backing, does any one know yet what political factions are behind all these uprisings?
      
      Would you be supporting Islamic militants, Terrorist Organizations, Proponants of Shiria law, Supporters of the 12th Imam?

      replyreport
      1. 67

         superwagsposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         Well it's the Europeans who are pushing it. Plus the African union. It's the UN needs to pull their weight.
         
         This BS about "ooh well they might be terrorists" is not borne out by any facts.

         replyreport
         1. 61

            readytoescapeposted 14 years agoin reply to this

            Then the Europeans & Africans should enforce a No Fly Zone rather than urge the UN to apply pressure for US forces to do it.
            
            The people that are “screaming” for help are also the same people in all these rioting countries that cheered in the streets after in support of the 9/11 attacks.
            
            The BS is assuming they are not just by reports using the word “Democracy.”
            
            Tell me what if, after the US saves them they apply democracy and elect to support terror, an Islamic theocracy, ect.

            replyreport
   2. 61

      dutchman1951posted 14 years agoin reply to this

      By UN you mean American lives back on the line because France and England want it?????
      
      Let them do it, if the UN wants it, let them ask for French and English troops to go in.  It would be all on England however, because They'd have to wait 90 days for the French to detox and find Gas!

      replyreport
      1. 60

         John Holdenposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         In all fairness many British lives have been on the line because the US wanted it.

         replyreport
      2. 67

         superwagsposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         No, I mean UN. I think the Americans are increasingly behind a no fly zone. Obama has supposedly discussed this with Cameron and we had John Macain on Newsnight tonight arguing for it on behalf of the Republicans - I'm aware obviously that they are not in power.
         
         As part of a UN no fly zone I would expect American lives on the line along with European lives - though probably more of the latter given the location. This is what alliances are. This is why British ad French lives are being lost in Afghanistan and Iraq in an American lead coalition.

         replyreport
         1. 66

            Flightkeeperposted 14 years agoin reply to this

            Actually, I don't want the US to participate and would prefer that the UK and France take leadership.  I would not want our fabulous Obama to be accused of becoming like Bush and shooting from the hip and being a bully.  As one well respected hubber, Susana S, said "It's better to have a reputation as a country that wants to negotiate on an equal footing and not steam roller its own agenda onto other nations all the time."  And with that in mind, I agree with Dutchman.  Let the UK and France do it.  And I'm sure between the UK, France, and the UN, they can negotiate with Kadafi or however else that guy spells his name.

            replyreport
2. 48

   ShortStoryposted 14 years ago

   Time for the UN to "act"? LOL, good one!

   replyreport
3. 66

   Flightkeeperposted 14 years ago

   How do you think the UN should act on this?

   replyreport
   1. 67

      superwagsposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      They could at least threaten to enforce a no fly zone. Should this really be left up to the UK and France to lobby every single security council member on this? Gadaffi is bombing his own people who have no way of defending themselves.
      
      Why on earth don't the rest of the member nations see this is an unfolding massacre? They haven't even said that Gadaffi will face prosecution in the Hague. That could at least threaten those people around him - I doubt Gadaffi now cares.

      replyreport
      1. 66

         Flightkeeperposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         Well if not the UK or France, who should it be left up to?  If the Secretary General hasn't said or won't say anything about it, who should?

         replyreport
4. 66

   Flightkeeperposted 14 years ago

   I just read that the UN is "ready to roll" as soon as they get approval from Libya regarding allowing their relief team to come in and deal with the humanitarian crisis.

   replyreport
5. 60

   knolyourselfposted 14 years ago

   "As Gaddafi continues to attack his own people from the ground and air". Funny I thought the revolution was started by the people. That's what they been showing for weeks - the people attacking the government.

   replyreport
   1. 67

      superwagsposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      The people rebelled against a horrible dictator. They don't have planes or heavy artillary. Are you backing Gadaffi on this one then?

      replyreport
6. 66

   dannycarreyposted 14 years ago

   As the same situation was in Tunisia or Egipt nobody even thought of sending UN forces there. Situation in Libya is quite different as Libya has oil - so UN will "act" very fast in my opinion.

   replyreport
7. 60

   knolyourselfposted 14 years ago

   "Are you backing Gadaffi on this one then?". What exactly do you know about Libya? Gadaffi took the oil fields away from the western oil oligarchy. Instant Darth Vader. I really don't have an opinion since I only watch history and don't have to make it. But I am guessing if Gadaffi goes the US and the oil oligarchy takes over the county under the guise of democracy. Then comes military bases and the means to control North Africa.

   replyreport
   1. 67

      superwagsposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      I know as much about Libya as I did about Rwanda or Scebrenica. Two other situations where the UN were woefully slow to act.

      replyreport
8. 60

   Evan G Rogersposted 14 years ago

   Nope.
   
   It's time for us to reflect on the fact that the US has been propping up this Tyrant for decades.
   
   Take time and reflect on the fact that this slaughter was paid for by you.

   replyreport
9. 60

   knolyourselfposted 14 years ago

   "It's time for us to reflect on the fact that the US has been propping up this Tyrant for decades." Well that's a new one. You talking about Libya. How's that?

   replyreport
10. 60

    kephriraposted 14 years ago

    No, its already too late. The rebels are probably already all but beat, and by the time any action could be taken they definitely will be. When David Cameron (British PM) suggested enforcing a no fly zone it may have been possible, but not anymore.

    replyreport
11. 60

    knolyourselfposted 14 years ago

    superwags: Hadrian's Wall. Were the Pics the only people the romans could not conquer?

    replyreport
    1. 67

       superwagsposted 14 years agoin reply to this

       Eh? I missed your point there. You mean the Picts presumably, but still none the wiser...

       replyreport
12. 76

    brimancandyposted 14 years ago

    People act like this is the first time that a world leader has launched an attack on people in his own country. Did everyone forget about Iraq, and the whole nerve gas incident? Or the fighting in Bosnia? Or the every day fighting in Israel between the army and the people there?
    
    The only reason they are so worried about Lybia, is "drumroll" oil. Otherwise nobody would care what is going on there. And, the only reason the US is involved, is because The leader of Lybia has always been considered a threat to the United States. As, it seems almost every wealthy world leader is these days, that doesn't have ties to the White House.
    
    But, fighting in Lybia isn't really anything new. They media just decided that Afganistan was getting old, and wanted people to see all the other miserable crap that is going on in the world. And, obviously, once again. to gain support of the people to do something that might save another rich oil nation from being controlled by another wack job, that might end up being 10 times worse than the nutjob that is already in power.
    
    Gets very tiring after a while.

    replyreport