A U.N. evolution...A U.S. devolution?

I put this into category "whatever UN does it is always wrong" :idea:

But seriously i think it is important that any military operations conducted in Libya are made under UN mandate. If it were made without, by NATO or any individual country, say France, Britain or US then it would quickly turn, or at least seen as east - west campaign. Lot of damage has already been done in Middle East when liberators have turned -or at least seen as- invaders. It was very important to have Arab League behind this decision.

UN might be a bit of paper tiger with military actions but it is as strong members together decide. It has done some excellent job with some peace keeping operations and specially many non-military operations related to education, medical, election supervising etc etc. Things that have saved millions of lives. Things that no country couldn't have done alone.

Protecting civil population and giving this funny looking colonel a sign that genocides will be prevented is something that should have been done in many other places as well. But had nothing been done in Libya there would soon be genocide and we would have another million refugees in Europe.

"The current military actions have started to prevent Kadhafi from committing genocide."

"Genocide is the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group."

The Libyan government putting down an insurrection is definitely not genocide. The civilians and protestors we are protecting are AK47 carrying insurrectionists. Calling them protestors and innocent civilians is the same as calling the Iranians who stormed our embassy in 1979 with AK47's "college students" (which by the way is what they were called). These same misnamed college sutdents were the same people who held the embassy workers and our Marines hostage for 444 days. When did they find time to be college students?

Those that are comparing this to Iraq are using a very poor comparison. These same commenters seem to be calling the civil war an act of genocide by the Libyan government. If anyone wants to talk about genocide they might consider the mass killing of Kurds by Saddam's forces. This was an act intended to kill members of a specific "ethnic group" which actually is genocide.

I do not understand postings that condemn our country regarding Iraq and then cheer for stepping in to stop the misnamed genocide in Libya. I understand postings are intended to blow off steam and provide opinions, but this is definitely not a case of genocide. The Libyan government is killing insurrectionists who can stop be insurrectionists as a matter of choice. Being a member of a targeted religious, ethnic, religious or national group can not be so easily changed by such a simple matter of choice. I might have accepted calling them "Freedom Fighters" but this is not how they are portrayed by the media or our government. I would have even supported assisting Freedom Fighters, but calling them protestors and innocent civilians is simply not factual.

I remember having my hand kissed by civilians when we liberated Iraq. I also remember many of these same people becoming insurgants who attacked us and planted IED's. We are not welcome in Arabic or Persian Muslim countries and we will once again regret this action sometime in the future. I am not saying this to make a racial or religious slur...I am basing it on personal experience and history.

Historical Questions:

Does anyone recall the first war the United States became involved in that was not on our own continent?

How many times in our history have we used our armed forces to attack what is now known as Libya?

The "rebels" that are "fighting for democracy" are not friendlies. They represent the radicals in the region powered, and supplied, by Iran. The president was "Damned if he did or damned if he didn't" but what will happen with the no fly zone is make this situation a stalemate. It will drag on for years with no resolution. I like the idea that no boots will touch the ground but without boots you have a stalemate.

I don't understand how we can go into a country that is supposedly killing its own citizens yet two days before in Yemen they killed 45 and wounded hundreds of its citizens for protesting. We will not get into talking about the Congo, Darfur or Somalia (talk about genocide). This is all getting very complicated.

Later,
Richard

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DCasper

"The current military actions have started to prevent Kadhafi from committing genocide."

"Genocide is the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group."

The Libyan government putting down an insurrection is definitely not genocide. The civilians and protestors we are protecting are AK47 carrying insurrectionists. Calling them protestors and innocent civilians is the same as calling the Iranians who stormed our embassy in 1979 with AK47's "college students" (which by the way is what they were called). These same misnamed college sutdents were the same people who held the embassy workers and our Marines hostage for 444 days. When did they find time to be college students?

Those that are comparing this to Iraq are using a very poor comparison. These same commenters seem to be calling the civil war an act of genocide by the Libyan government. If anyone wants to talk about genocide they might consider the mass killing of Kurds by Saddam's forces. This was an act intended to kill members of a specific "ethnic group" which actually is genocide.

I do not understand postings that condemn our country regarding Iraq and then cheer for stepping in to stop the misnamed genocide in Libya. I understand postings are intended to blow off steam and provide opinions, but this is definitely not a case of genocide. The Libyan government is killing insurrectionists who can stop be insurrectionists as a matter of choice. Being a member of a targeted religious, ethnic, religious or national group can not be so easily changed by such a simple matter of choice. I might have accepted calling them "Freedom Fighters" but this is not how they are portrayed by the media or our government. I would have even supported assisting Freedom Fighters, but calling them protestors and innocent civilians is simply not factual.

I remember having my hand kissed by civilians when we liberated Iraq. I also remember many of these same people becoming insurgants who attacked us and planted IED's. We are not welcome in Arabic or Persian Muslim countries and we will once again regret this action sometime in the future. I am not saying this to make a racial or religious slur...I am basing it on personal experience and history.

Historical Questions:

Does anyone recall the first war the United States became involved in that was not on our own continent?

How many times in our history have we used our armed forces to attack what is now known as Libya?

---

I understand your argument. However, America started as a bunch of armed insurrectionists who succeeded because France put up a blockade. If you say that it is right for those people to be gunned down unless they surrender, that is a bit funny. Is it wrong not to wanting to be governed by a dictator anymore?

Besides, the word genocide is imo appropriate because the situation is thus that there is a large, organized group of people who don't want to be ruled by a dicator anymore. It is a stretch, but one could argue them to be of a different national group. And there is no doubt we are talking about a large group of people that will push up the desert equivalent of daisies. But if it makes you happier I'll look up the correct word for killing tens of thousands people who got fed up with a dictator in a funny hat ;)

There are 2 big differences with the war in Iraq. First, Iraq was stable. we did not like Saddam, but there was no legit cause to invade. And there was no insurrection going on with him trying to kill half the population.
The second issue is that the neighboring countries are set to be swamped by refugees. And that makes it their business.

I think that no boots will touch the ground to avoid becoming an occupying force. How I think it will turn out is this: we will enforce the no-fly zone and isolate the libyan government, and let them duke it out while the general population is not threatened. We will provide back channel support to the insurectionists, and as soon as kadhaffi is toppled, we will lift the no fly enforcment, withdraw, a let the insurrectionists set up their new government, hoping for the best.

"There are 2 big differences with the war in Iraq. First, Iraq was stable. we did not like Saddam, but there was no legit cause to invade. And there was no insurrection going on with him trying to kill half the population."


We justified the UN invasion of Iraq by using violations of United Nations sanctions that had been in place for more than ten years. We are currently attacking Libyan forces under the same United Nations that provided some of the same sanctions against Libya they provided against Iraq.

When we invaded Iraq...Saddam was still practicing genocide agaist the Marsh Arabs in the south and the Kurds in the North. This was the reason the UN ordered no-fly zones in the north and south of Iraq. In the south Saddam had cut off water to the marshes in order to defeat the Marsh Arabs. He also enforced a blockade around the marshy areas and killed the Marsh Arabs as they came out. The Kurds in the north had been fighting and defending themselves against the forces of Turkey and Saddam for decades prior to the US invasion and had even begged the US to intervene.

Another huge issue in Iraq was their own counter-intelligence forces did such a good job in providing mis-information that it actually contributed to the invasion. The counter-intelligence forces were using backdoor sources which they used to provide false information which contributed to the fear of Iraq's WMD's. While Iraq was outwardly stating they did not have WMD's, they were using the backdoor sources to say they had stockpiles of WMD's.

If you reall the UN weapons inspectors being denied access to areas for inspection, you will see Saddam was definitely hiding something. He denied access to areas such as Presidential Compounds which sounded fair. In reality what he referred to as presidential compounds were larger than some US cities. So what was Saddam hiding? He was hiding a lack of military strength from countries such as Iran. By providing the misinformation he actually helped justify the world fears of WMD's.

So why was Saddam misleading the world into believing he actually did have WMD'S...Iraq and Iran were sworn enemies that bordered eachother. Iraq used their counter-intelligence to leak information regarding WMD's as a way to appear stronger than they actually were in order to deter problems with Iran. Iraq had lost much of its' military strength in the first Gulf War and the war with Iran and needed to appear strong to their hostile neighbors. This assisted in the United Nations supporting and calling for the invasion of Iraq by coalition forces.

Iraq had also violated several UN mandates which legally allowed coalition forces to invade their country. Most people have forgotten about these mandates and only remember the WMD's which were not found in large quantities. Another item that is forgotten was that Saddam and his son's were offered the opportunity to leave which would have avoided the invasion of Iraq by UN Coalition Forces. Iraq had found itself between a rock and a hard place by choices of their own making.

Last but not least...one of the UN mandates that was used to justify the invasion was Iraq's continued violations of the UN No Fly Zones in the north and south of Iraq. Sound familiar...maybe deja vous.


Another Historical Question:

What sitting US President ordered attacks against Iraq due to the fact that Iraq had tried to kill President George H.W. Bush?

Answer:

President Clinton ordered several cruise missiles to be launched against Iraq as a result of Iraq ordering a team to kill the former President (George Bush Sr.).

Disclaimer: I am not using this post to justify the invasion of Iraq by UN Forces...I am simply pointing out some of the history that led up to the invasion. The justification came from the United Nations and not the President of the United States. If we do not remember and recall the past...we will repeat it.

Bruno, after reading my threads I hope that I am not coming across as argumentive. I enjoyed reading your well worded and well thought out posts which made me pause and consider your points and views. I am a conservative by nature, but I enjoy hearing other opinions as the best answer is usually:beer1: a combination of many points of view.

No worries. Ditto. :)

I realize that Iraq was a messy situation. I was against the invasion, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't have been dealt with differently. Of course it would have been better still if someone hadn't actually helped Saddam in power in the first place. ;) :p

No but in all seriousness, the refugee problem is a significant one that should not be underestimated. Think about the illegal immigrants crossing the US-Mexican border, but thousands of times worse. I agree that the UN is seizing this sugar coated opportunity to get rid of a dictator, yet that does not mean that there are no solid reasons for this action. Kadhaffi is cause of a very real, serious and imminent threat to the surrounding nations.

Sadly, a lot of people will die one way or another before the dust settles.
As long as no boots touch sand, I have hopes that this can at least have a swift end. It helps that there is a recognized leadership which can assume power as soon as Kadhaffi is gone.

Bruno, I agree completely. It is always terrible when situations like this occur. I can't think of a worse human situation than a civil war when family fights family and food and water become hard or impossible to get. It would be better if Gadaffi would just step down and leave the country. I hope most of the suffering can be avoided by people and countries helping eachother.

They are really lucky they have people like us to figure out their problems for them. Maybe they will get even luckier and the President and the United Nations will ask our opinion. I will be waiting by the phone just in case they do call. :thinking::thinking:

Problems in the middle east are a very sensitive topic for me. I have deployed to the middle east 4 times and I am currently waiting to hear if I will be going back for a fifth deployment.

During the run up to the war in Iraq I was one of the people who couldn't wait to go. I bought the WMD thing hook line and sinker. I quickly changed my thinking when the insurgancy started and we started sending dead Soldiers home to their families. I couldn't understand how people we were trying to help started fighting against us. I was stationed in Tikrit in 03-04 and saw first hand what it is like to watch trajedy spin out of control.

My worst fear is that history will show we were wrong and that Soldiers I knew died for nothing. My best hope is that history will show we were right and that Iraq is better off because of what we did. I would hate to think I put my family through several years of me being gone and finding out I was wrong in what I did. I am very proud of my service and consider a high point, but it also holds bad memories and experiences. I hope people can understand why I am not in a hurry to find my country involved in another war backing UN mandates. I am sure there are many veterans and non-veterans who would agree.

Well anyway... I have hijacked this post long enough and will not post on this thread again. Pray for our troops to be safe and to do what is right. May our troops always be blessed with swift victories and our enemies always be blessed with swift defeats that involve minimal casualties and suffering.

War is always a terrible option even though it's frequently romanticized (in my opinion for brainwashing/propaganda). So then the question is whether choosing no war is even worse option.

In most cases these choices are made by politicians, either elected, or monarchs, or dictators so regular people have less influence. I remember the big demonstrations worldwide against starting the war in Iraq, but the US president decided it's the right thing to do, so he started it anyways. It was his responsibility to make the choice one way or another, and it's the current president's responsibility to decide on the US military involvement in Lybia, or anywhere else in the world.

I think currently US has no alternative to getting involved in wars all over the world. I see this as the direct result of the amount of military spending. Also I think it's better (for US and everybody else) if it gets involved in wars that have the support of UN, rather than making unilateral decisions.