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

The UN is an impotent organization. It always has been. However by authorizing this action what it really is doing is giving legitimacy to other countries meddling in others affairs. If we were to step into what we perceive as wrong all over the world we'd need the draft reinstated and we'd be totally bankrupt in short order.

Bigspendur, absoultely correct. In it's 60 + year history, the UN has never done anything it set out to do. We should have learned from the failure of the League of Nations, organized after WW I.

Originally Posted by thebigspendur

The UN is an impotent organization. It always has been. However by authorizing this action what it really is doing is giving legitimacy to other countries meddling in others affairs. If we were to step into what we perceive as wrong all over the world we'd need the draft reinstated and we'd be totally bankrupt in short order.

I'd take that idea one step farther. I think the U.S. should pull out of the UN and eject all the representatives from our country. If they wanted to keep the UN going, cool but we don't need to keep pouring our money and our troops into operations involving such a BS organization. They can simply take it to Geneva or somewhere else. Barry says we won't send in ground troops. To that I say, I guess we'll see what we see. George W said the Iraqis were going to help pay for the war too. I'm pretty sure that never did come to pass.

It's true, the UN is worth nothing particularly with regard to any sort of military operation. It's best outting to date has been the Korean War and even then look who did most of the heavy lifting.

There's two possible outcomes here, neither of which is very attractive. 1. We all know the proud warrior culture of the French, how long will it really be before our "allies" lose interest and go home and the whole thing turns into an American/British operation (see also Afghanistan). Gee, just what we need another Middle Eastern $hit hole we can fill with freshly printed money. This of course will be added to the already enormous tab my grandkids and their grandkids will already spend their entire lives paying off.

2. U.S. troops under UN command...yeah...it sets a very bad precident and that's all I'm gonna say about that.

At the end of the day fellas it's a no win situation. If we're successful in ousting or killing the maniac in charge, who's to say the maniacs that replace him aren't just as bad, if not worse. Muslim Brotherhood, Sharia Law, Death to Infidels, etc. and as has already been said, regardless of how many American kids die to improve any Middle Eastern country, we will always be the Great Satan, the Invading Infidels, etc. and if you think there's a single country in the Middle East that would return the favor you're very badly fooled. Maybe I'm becoming cynical in my old age but I just don't see where there is a damn thing or person in Libya that's worth one American GI dying over.

there isnt, but you also must remember, were not fighting there for american interests, but we are there to make our beloved president, look good to the rest of the world.

Imo, there are several causes for the UN intervention, and why this is different from e.g. Iraq.

The current military actions have started to prevent Kadhafi from committing genocide. Something which he had already started. If anything, the current resolution is a bit on the late side, considering the death toll.

Still, better late than never, and violating the sovereignity of a country is not a decision to be made lightly. However, the large population of Benghazi has requested a no fly zone, and this seems to be allowed by the UN charter in cases like this
http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?...4&jumival=6408

I think it is ironic to hear Americans balk over the UN violating the sovereignity of Libya. That argument was nowhere to be heard when the US invaded Iraq without proof and despite reports from the UN inspectors that there were no WMD. And sovereignity didn't mean anything when the CIA abducted people and shipped them off to gitmo, syria and Egypt. Sovereinity didn't mean squat during the cold war, nor did it when the CIA put Saddam in power and toppled the democratic government in Iran in the 60s.

Yet now there is a genocide in progress, the UN is taking swift action with the agreement of all permanent members of the security council, and the US is suddenly yammering about the UN seeking world domination.

Actually, the situation is similar to the American struggle for independence, when the French put up a blockade for the English ships, cuting off the English supply chains, and enabling the rebels to beat the English oppressor.

Btw, there is a very good reason why France and severl neighboring countries are anxious to stop kadhaffi. The revolution started as an internal matter and the UN had no jurisdiction. This was similar for Tunesia and Egypt for example. The problem is that he has lost enough control that half the country is revolting, yet he still controls the military.

At this point, the internal situation has gotten so bad that hundreds of thousands of refugees are fleeing to neighboring countries. It has gotten so bad that those regions are at risk of becoming destabilized themselves, or at least swamped with hundreds of thousands of people who have nothing, and nothing left to lose. This puts the entire region at political and economical risk.

It is this what has the UN allowed to take action, and it is this why those neighboring countries are taking action. If they don't, then they face an invasion from the refugees when the massacre begins in earnest, and that will destabilize their own country and put it at risk.

It is true that the US has no bone in this conflict, but the UN and especially the neighboring countries (of which France is one) have solid reasons for this action, aside from the humanitarian angle of not allowing the population of benghazi to be shelled to death.

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

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?

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.