Libya and the UN/US

[Wayu]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/af_libya

If you've been following international news at all recently, you should know that the UN Council has decided that a no-fly zone over Libya was necessary. France struck first with fighter jets, followed by British fighters and 112 Tomahawk cruise missiles by US Navy forces - 2 destroyers and 3 submarines.

Russia and China abstained the vote took place. This marks the greatest international effort in an uprising since Iraq.

This action was incurred by Moammar Gadhafi, Libya's current president, who hammered down on protests calling for democracy following Egypt's successful protests earlier in the year. The protesters took up arms against the government in retaliation, forming the bloody revolution that is currently taking place.

US president Barack Obama has said that the actions of the US and its allies is "unfortunate" but "necessary in order to protect the civilians" of Libya.

No-fly zones typically do not involve ground forces. The US in particular has alluded to vying away from using ground forces in particular, and seems to be limiting its involvement in the affair - the Navy missiles and B2 stealth bomber missions.

So, that being said, what do you guys think about the situation? Is the UN intervention justified? Should the United States be playing a role or not? Has the Libyan government lost its legitimacy?

EDIT: The Yahoo! news article has been updated. British and French warplanes bombard Gadhafi's tanks as they advance westward during the second day of Operation Odyssey Dawn. As quoted;

In an attack that carried as much symbolism as military effect, late Sunday a cruise missile blasted a building in Gadhafi's residential compound, near his iconic tent. It was not known where Gadhafi was at the time, but it seemed to show that while the allies trade nuances over whether his fall is a goal of their campaign — he is not safe.

-Wayu

[raijz]

We're gonna get screwed on gas prices anyway. So why not.

[FOkyasuta]

Im suprised they actually gave a damn for once. Because i mean that genocide that took place there a couple of years ago was pretty bad but they didnt give a damn and the U.N was all like, "Were peace keepers, Not peace makers." But you deny the fact that you started that whole fiasco. Back on topic. The only reason the US does give a damn is because like raijz stated above, "Were gonna get screwed on gas prices anyway." Throw gas into the matter an the US invades the subject like wild fire.

[Wayu]

To be fair, no ground forces will be involved in a no-fly zone.

I should put that in the opening post.

-Wayu

[Dhylec]

Ousting dictators is a good thing for the suppressed people, but unstable nations can lead to more chaos. Also, US/UN striking Libya or not, gas prices ain't getting any lower since the conflict began. It's a difficult situation either way.

[Split]

Not only is it justified, it should have happened much sooner.


The Libya No Fly Zone and Anal Thumbing Deliberations

A play in half an act, by Split



Russia: Hey China, wanna go sit around with our dicks in our hands and our thumbs up our asses?

China: Hells yeah! Sounds like a fun way to past the time.

U.K., France, U.S.: Uhhh guys? You know thousands of innocent civilians are dying in Libya right now right? Remember that power hungry Moammar Gadhafi asshole? He decided to kill his people en masse because they wanted to be treated like human beings. Yeah, evil motherfucker. What you two need to understand is that we can totally stop him, our militaries each being several times more powerful than Libya's individually and much more than that together; however, in order to help, you need to let go of your dicks, and remove your thumbs from your asses.

Russia: But it feels so good! No way.

China: But how are we going to secretly take over the world by helping a country?

U.K., France, U.S.: You don't even have to help! Just stop keeping us from helping!!

China: I don't knoooow...

Russia: Okay okay okay, I just came up with a compromise. How about this: we wait for more people to die. A lot more. When the death toll reaches, oh, let's say 6000, we'll start to lazily wriggle our thumbs out of there.

China: I like that. Then by the time they're actually out, it will have reached almost 10,000!

Russia: Exactly.

U.K., France, U.S.: Okay, look. You guys don't even have to be in this from a moral standpoint: You have an economic stake in it too! Part of the reason Ghadafi is power tripping is because he controls the crude in the area. You two are among the top 5 fossil fuel consumers in the world, both of you with huge countries to support. Of both of us here, only the U.S. uses more than you.

Russia: Yeah...but we really are trying not to risk helping anyone else, even economically.

China: True, but we also want it to look like we tried. So we'll wait until it's too late. Plus this thumb feels so good in my ass...mmmm....

Russia: Oooo...oh, yeahh...

U.K., France, U.S.: Gross

[Yata The Prophet]

All this for Obama to get re-elected?
/turns off the T.V. in disgust

[Palle]

Hey, if regime change is the name of the game, better hit up Yemen next, but not before severing diplomatic ties with Saudi Arabia.

"Oh wait, no more oil coming in from overseas? Guess we might have to take our thumbs from our asses and fund research into real energy solutions."

...yeah, I can dream...

[Wayu]

Everyone seems to be focusing solely on the United States. What about France, who attacked first? Or the United Kingdom?

EDIT: The Yahoo! news article has been updated. British and French warplanes bombard Gadhafi's tanks as they advance westward. As quoted;

In an attack that carried as much symbolism as military effect, late Sunday a cruise missile blasted a building in Gadhafi's residential compound, near his iconic tent. It was not known where Gadhafi was at the time, but it seemed to show that while the allies trade nuances over whether his fall is a goal of their campaign — he is not safe.

The opening post has also been updated to include this information.

-Wayu

[AOI_Tifa_Lockhart]

I think the UK swung from one extreme to the next. It took them weeks to discuss a no fly zone, but failed to implement it due to nearly every country having different agendas but trying to mimic having a collective idea. A united European decision sounds plausible considering the European courts and the general idea of uniting Europe, but a decision of every country within to be the same in a short period of time and then acted upon? No that'd never happen, ever. Politicians live for debate and are seemingly incapable of a simple yes/no answer. With such a mindset how can any issue be resolved promptly?

The UK went from debating and generally doing nothing when this all kicked off and then being chastised by the media for allowing workers to remain trapped in Libya etc etc. Thus they finally got off their posteriors and sent in a plane and ship to rescue people etc. Which seemed fair enough, a no fly zone also seemed like a good idea but this idea was passed around for weeks and debated, no action was taken. I suppose they hoped the situation would sort itself out. Even today on the radio William hague was pressed for an answer regaridng a ground assault, or indeed how long the aerial assaults would continue for, a typical politician he was evasive of every single question and refused to be pinned down for answers, literally takign 3 minutes to wriggle his way out of answering one question decisivley. It's worrying leaders of countries are never transparent in their motives or ideas. Sure some might have brilliant idea,s but they get put to governments, discussed, rejected by some and approved by others, and the whole idea gets drawn out far too long and then a law is passed which is a shadow of the original concept...anyways I digress somewhat.

Now, when they see the rebels almost being quashed by the Libyan armoured vehicles they decide to go against typical political procrastination and go for a full on aerial assault. Now the Arab community isn't too sure if this was a good idea, as for me...I genuinely don't know. At present much of the Middle East feels it's time for change. The West is just trying to avoid ruffling the feathers of the oil heavy weight countries, while promoting peace, freedom of speech and all other human rights liberties etc etc.

It's a very confusing situation, made worse by the weeks of indecision and now a sudden drastic action which seems to be unecessarily forceful compared to their previous dilly dallying. If this is what freedom of speech entails what's it's point, if all we're left with is indecisive baffoons :S


Tifa