[identity profile] 404.livejournal.com posting in [community profile] talkpolitics
Time magazine has an interesting OPed piece advocating for US intervention into Libya, the story is here: http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/08599205747000;_ylt=AlaQAT8F0gGOcLmOzYJ421RH2ocA;_ylu=X3oDMTE0cTIyYjdyBHBvcwMyBHNlYwN5bi1yLWItbGVmdARzbGsDLWxpYnlhJiMzOQ--#mwpphu-container

[Poll #1714840]

I think we should stay out of it, there is nothing that the US can do to help the rebels without 1) they losing legitimacy and 2) we coming across as sticking our noses in another place they don't belong, giving the groups that already hate us another reason to shout "I told you so". Besides, I thought this was the purview of the UN, anyways: to help mediate conflicts and so forth.

(no subject)

Date: 7/3/11 18:18 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] the-rukh.livejournal.com
Why would they want to? Because it's going to look silly if they impose a no fly zone next year after nobody's bombing anybody? :P

(no subject)

Date: 7/3/11 22:02 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] abomvubuso.livejournal.com
Won't be the first time they've looked silly.

(no subject)

Date: 7/3/11 22:21 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] the-rukh.livejournal.com
That's very true, and its unfortunate that the UN does have to deal with a lot of bureaucracy that sometimes renders it infective, but I think that the alternatives would be worse. I don't want to see individual countries just decide they have UN mandate to do whatever they please, and I don't want to see the UN just running off on adventures and regretting it later. Perhaps there are some structural things that need changed so it can respond quickly in cases where its clear that some leader is bombing the civilians of the country they lead, but I don't see any other alternatives being better. US running in? Nope, any other country? Probably not. What else we got?

In the end though, even if the UN ends up not helping out and saving civilians, warcrimes need to be drawn up.

(no subject)

Date: 7/3/11 23:45 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] anfalicious.livejournal.com
This. After all, we've seen how well "decisive action" worked in Iraq. Although Iraq War I went well, I wonder why that was? Probably had something to do with global unanimity for action combined with an actual threat with solid objectives.

US intervention in Libya would just end up being another US "freedomising" clusterfuck; as every non-UN sanctioned US expedition has been.

(no subject)

Date: 8/3/11 01:18 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] whoasksfinds.livejournal.com
the difficulties associated Iraq II had nothing to do with the UN, and everything to do with the complexity and scope of the mission. UN approval would have made little difference.

(no subject)

Date: 8/3/11 10:09 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] anfalicious.livejournal.com
The lack of UN approval is the key point. The rest of the world said "ah, no, this will be a giant clusterfuck for no valid reason" and the US said "STFU FRRRREEEEEEEEEEDDDOMMMMMMMMM!!!!!"

(no subject)

Date: 8/3/11 14:49 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] whoasksfinds.livejournal.com
no, the key point is the complexity and scope of the mission. to a large extent, UN approval basically rests on that.

Credits & Style Info

Talk Politics.

A place to discuss politics without egomaniacal mods


MONTHLY TOPIC:

Failed States

DAILY QUOTE:
"Someone's selling Greenland now?" (asthfghl)
"Yes get your bids in quick!" (oportet)
"Let me get my Bid Coins and I'll be there in a minute." (asthfghl)

June 2025

M T W T F S S
       1
2 34 5 678
910 1112 131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
30      

Summary

OSZAR »