The Situation in Libya

Everyone who's actually been following the news is familiar with what's going on in the country. Personally, I think Qaddafi or however you spell his name is going to get toppled eventually.

What do you guys think?

 

Whats going on in Libya?

 

People are raging against insane dictator with very spiffy clothing. People took few cities. Khadaffi is currently taking em back.

 

@The Arizonan: Not without foreign help he won't.

 

WTF the UN actually does something and we don't get to see any smexy blue berets on the ground ><

But yeah the west will make the rebels win now. Especially since the UN has allowed them to bomb targets.

 

As always U.N. waits till the very last minute to actually do something. On top of that Egypt is supplying the rebels with arms. This thing can finally get moving again.

 

The UN does stuff?

 

geeehehe xD
what exactly does UN stand for? oO

 

United Nations-who-don't-do-anything.

But a UN which does too little is better than one that does too much

 

oh i see ^^

 

This does set a precendent since i'm pretty sure this is the first time the UN has gone to war to throw out a "legitimate" government.

Then again it really is NATO voting for itself to go to war.

 

Huh? Every single thing you just wrote is untrue. It wasn't just NATO who was responsible for the resolution passing and this sets no precedent as something very similar was used in Serbia 20 years ago. Also the U.N. didn't pass resolution about removing any sort of government from power it is there only to stop bombing of civilians.

 

Well China, Russia, Brazil, Germany (In nato but politcally poor to go to war) and India abstained.

What the UN said to my understanding

As the Arab league (I know politically motivated) has said NATO isn't just making a no flyzone they are making a fully commited effort to end the control of the Gadaffi government.

I was unaware the UN had taken similar action in Serbia. But it's close air support and no fly zone were different resolutions at different times and all 5 permanent SC members supported the close air support.

 

India is not member of the U.N. security council and quite frankly I don't give a damn what the Arab leagues interpretation of the resolution is. The bottom line is that the resolution is not about removing Gaddhafi from power and if NATO end up doing that (hopefully indirectly rather than directly) I won't lose any sleep over it and it won't be the fault of the U.N. but NATO forces.
So far the West is doing pretty good job of trying and not escalating the conflict into a hunt for Gaddhafi.

 

India is currently a member of the secruity council.

I'd love to see him go and personally don't care that much if NATO decides to just bomb the bejebus out of him. But interesting to see both NATOs desire for UN approval and the UN approving something which is tantamount to signing off on a war to stop gaddafi.

 

Ah I was looking at the 1 January 2010 – 31 December 2011 group for the security council.

 

The only thing the UN is good for is the security council.

Also, the UN is not so much a 'failed' Government Organization of states, but it just never reaches a resolution or they take their sweet time. Especially with so many states that have their own agendas and interests.

As for libya, I think as long as the U.S. doesnt commit soldiers to the ground, its fine, although our Foreign policy is garbage and really lacks any 'real' foundation or standards. We typically do play cowboy in the middle east.

Libya planned on bombing rebels, as well as civilians. As the UN Sec Council also took into consideration humanitarian problems, it would only make sense to stop the air raid and commit to a no fly zone. As America, France and Britain are hegemonic states, its an unsaid norm that they protect civilians as a responsibility. Although that doesnt always happen as with the case in RWANDA when Clinton didnt commit troops and the genocide happened.

the Arab Nation contradicted themselves if anyone really caught that.

They were for the No Fly zone initially., but seeing how the arab league is also totalitarian, it would only make sense that they would back out because perhaps they are the next nation to go through a revolution as Tunisia, Egypt and Libya are going through, and they would want to use their air power against rebels. But that is just what I think on what I read and how I see it. What if the UNSC committed to a no fly zone of the Arab league nations?

Obama could reform our foreign policy a bit, but with the way "national Interests" are defined and "national security" is thrown around, I wouldnt expect it anytime soon.

***Edit

Also, the only people on the security council that matter are the 5 hegemonic powers (the winners of WW2, China, Russia, France, UK and US). The others on the UNSC can say w/e they want, but if 1 of the 5 veto it, its veto'd regardless. This is why the No fly zone gone without problems, becuase no one on the 5 big didnt reject it.

 

"The only thing the UN is good for is the security council." Uhm... no?
If U.N. does something right with reasonable consistency it's things like W.H.O. and humanitarian work.

 

Boson,

I just think the U.N. could be better. the U.N. is more of a adviser body than anything else from my point of view. Sure the U.N. does humanitarian aid, and a few other things beneficial for humanity and 3rd world countries, but it also has failed at alot of things as well such as coming to resolutions regarding sanctions placed on countries for practicing government and religious persecutions as well as disobeying human rights.

 

Sure, but what many people don't understand is that to actually do something about those, they'd have to aggressively interfere in countries that refuse to work along. If you look at the necessary scale of such an operation, we'd have to start world war three and then occupy half the world.