UN authorizes Military Action on Libya

N

newsjunky

Driving Instructor
I wonder how much cleansing has already happened? Gaddafi threatened to storm the rebel bastion of Benghazi overnight, showing "no mercy, no pity." The U.N. authorised "all necessary measures" -- code for military action -- to protect civilians against Gaddafi's forces.

I am not in favor of military action by the US.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2011/03/17/uk-libya-idUKLDE71Q0MP20110317
 
I kept avoiding this topic, because, quite frankly, I wasn't ready to read it. I am NOT ready to begin a military action there, particularly in light of our current "leadership".
 
.....while the Spectator n Chief finishes his golf game.

Let the blue hats take care of it. We need out of the UN anyway...
 
I can't believe that y'all agree with me on this. Finally some sanity. I thought that I would be the only one asking why we are intervening in a civil war here. This is the very definition of nation building. Where are Moammar's weapons of mass destruction? Who did he invade? What is righteous about shooting down the aircraft of a sovereign nation within their own borders when they pose no threat to the US or our allies?

We support "freedom"? Is that the answer? What about Darfur, Ethiopia, and Myanmar? Aren't their tin horn dictators just as abhorrent, if not more so, that Gadhafi?

Ask Kissinger, Kennedy, and Johnson what happened the last time we fought a war over ideology.
 
I bet the UN can't get the old dictator to step down to let a new government based upon democracy govern. It will be the same ole thing.
 
Foxmeister said:
I bet the UN can't get the old dictator to step down to let a new government based upon democracy govern. It will be the same ole thing.
Click to expand...
You're probably correct. You can't force him to step down without defeating him, and only the people of Libya can and should do that. No-fly zones become bombing attacks on military targets and then police actions with ground intervention, and then often all out war. There is no up-side for the US here. This is a problem not for the US or the UN to decide, but for the people of Libya to decide.

I even question if they actually want "freedom" or just jobs and welfare. There was no previous talk of "freedom" until the rebels realized that they could use that word to garner world backing for their cause. All previous protests were against the economic policies of the sitting government, not human rights or liberty. The "change" they seek could as easily become a sharia government as it could a democracy.

A war over ideology is a fools gambit. It is no better than a war over religion.
 
Laudable though the motives may be, are we (i.e. "the West") just getting embroiled in another long drawn-out saga with no particular end-point in view?

I also can't help wondering why we're involving ourselves here when we haven't in places like Zimbabwe and North Korea, some of whose people have been starving as a result of mis-government. :(
 
I saw on the news where Obama was talking tough about the UN resolution being enforced. He was giving the impression the US would participate in enforcing it.
 
UN Is beginning to enforce the "no fly" zone. I just saw a plane shot down (Fox News). I am not sure whose plane it was, French, I think. This is not over and I still think America needs to stay out of it. Pictures and video at this site:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/africa-mideast/international-forces-will-regret-coming-to-libya-gadhafi-vows/article1948431/
 
US and British forces have fired at least 110 Tomahawk cruise missiles into Libya.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gIPwhFHI0GgPjRjR-6dkPfBTaQ7w?docId=CNG.4ff2e782ea3c513ce60adb517b709f8e.1151
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top