|
About bloody time!
|
View this Thread in Original format
| jester |
U.N. resolution authorizes 'all necessary measures' to protect civilians from attacks by Gadhafi's forces
This is what I hate about bureaucrats and a democratic society, it takes forever to vote on something. |
|
|
| VDub |
| Time for the invasion?? |
|
|
| Engine9 |
| quote: | Originally posted by VDub
Time for the invasion?? |
they have some oil, right? |
|
|
| WittyHandle |
| So what does "all neccessary measures" mean? Does this leave the possibility of ground troops open? |
|
|
| hardcore trancer |
| I just heard that Canada is sending some fighter jets to join the rest of the gang.:o Iraq all over again here we go... |
|
|
| CMR |
Way to not read, guys! :rolleyes:
"Diplomats indicated that air strikes from a coalition led by Britain, France and the United States could be imminent; however, the UN resolution rules out sending foreign ground troops."
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/a...0311168561.html |
|
|
| CMR |
| quote: | | Originally posted by hardcore trancer Iraq all over again here we go... |
Yeah...not even close to being comparable situations.
But "herp a derp, 'murrika after their oil!", right? |
|
|
| hardcore trancer |
| quote: | Originally posted by CMR
Yeah...not even close to being comparable situations.
|
Perhaps it is not comparable yet but all the signs are pointing to the way Iraq was dealt with. |
|
|
| Prometheus Xex |
| quote: | Originally posted by hardcore trancer
I just heard that Canada is sending some fighter jets to join the rest of the gang... |
 |
|
|
| CMR |
| quote: | Originally posted by hardcore trancer
Perhaps it is not comparable yet but all the signs are pointing to the way Iraq was dealt with. |
Again, not even close.
The main difference being that Iraq was a case of the US barging in there based on faulty evidence and against the advice of the rest of the world, and proceeded to occupy the country with no real plan for recovery after deposing of the dictator.
In Libya, there is an ongoing civil war in which the organized rebel forces (the recognized Libyan government for some countries) has requested help (in the form of a no-fly zone), which was voted on and supported 10-0 by the UN Security Council. There is no plan amongst the non-Libyan countries to occupy or even kill Gaddafi, but rather to paralyze his army to minimize civilian casualties and presumably help in the National Transitional Council in being victorious. |
|
|
| Yohan |
so... does this mean every 'dictatorships', as described by UN is going to get their asses handed to them by the 'world police'?
don't get me wrong. i'm all for kicking dictators' asses but it's a little hypocritical when the world was all chummy with Qaddafi just last year. and perhaps the biggest dictatorship in the world, aka China, is still all smiles.
protecting civilians my ass. protecting civilian is probably like tertiary concern when this resolution was written up. more like a PR exercise to me. (look at me, US/UK/France, etc. we are saving democracy!) |
|
|
| CMR |
| quote: | Originally posted by Yohan
don't get me wrong. i'm all for kicking dictators' asses but it's a little hypocritical when the world was all chummy with Qaddafi just last year. and perhaps the biggest dictatorship in the world, aka China, is still all smiles. |
The difference in China or in Libya just a few months ago is that the countries aren't engaged in a civil war, with said dictators massacring their own people. This time, once again, the National Transitional Council (rebel government) was calling for the implementation of a no-fly zone, so its not a case of the "world police" just wantonly stepping into the affairs of other countries. |
|
|
|
|
