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

While remaining quite mum on his position in regard to Libya prior to the U.N. decision, Obama backs a U.N. directive to implement a no-fly zone over Libya. If I understand correctly, the U.N. is open to using air and ground forces to in effect render Gaddafi (whom I'm convinced is Gene Simmons long lost brother, but that's another topic) powerless and the rebels victorious.

I always thought the U.N. considered itself a peacekeeping outfit stepping into situations where armed conflicts had ended (to prevent a resurgence) or to ensure that peace treaties were adhered to by both sides mutually agreeing to such treaties?

The recent directive by the U.N. seems to me to be a departure from the way it's acted in the past. In my opinion, it seems the U.N. in the Libya conflict is initiating a flex of its muscle. Conversely, it seems as though Obama has devolved U.S. security initiative in this case to the U.N.

Maybe I'm reading too much into this? Maybe Obama feels that the time for global governance via the U.N. is now?

My gut tells me that something has changed here. Also, the U.N. must have changed something since I believe the U.N. Security Council's five permanent members (UK, US, France, Russia & China) must all agree on any action, actions other than observation, etc. I don't think Russia or China agreed to the no-fly initiative. I'm confused. if something has changed with this new action, almost assuredly it will pass by and evolve without any real concern or debate among the American people.

Any thoughts? I welcome hearing from anyone who may very well believe that the planet SHOULD be governed by a single body such as the U.N. and individual sovereignty should be done away with.

Chris L

I was under the impression that the no-fly zone was to protect the civilians. I don't consider this an act of flexing its muscles when there are reports that the dictator is launching air strikes against the population. I admit that I haven't thoroughly researched this, though.

Here are the details on Resolution 1973 which declares a ceasefire and establishes the no-fly zone. 10 nations voted for, 5 abstained (incl. China & Russia), and 0 against, thus it passed.

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 ChrisL

I welcome hearing from anyone who may very well believe that the planet SHOULD be governed by a single body such as the U.N. and individual sovereignty should be done away with.

I think the world should let me rule for awhile. I am a married body, but with enough power I could act like a single one. My first act as world dictator would be to reduce ebay fees. The second thing I'd do is take a hot bath and lay down for a long nap. The rest I can figure out as I go

Barack citizen-of-the-world Obama will make sure he never takes a stand that will make him look like George Bush, so he had to wait for the UN to officially request his help before he'd act interested

President Obama has now committed our forces to take a side in the Libyan civil war. I listen to him talk about saving civilian lives while Secretary Clinton talks about protecting the protestors. They are both speaking about the same groups and want us to believe they are innocent civilians. The problem is that the people Secretary Clinton and President Obama are talking about are the armed rebels (insurrectionists) that we are watching running around with AK47's fighting their own government.

I am not a peace monger and still serve in the Army Reserve with 4 deployments to the middle east. I do not understand why we are becoming involved in another war in another Muslim country. We are not liked, nor are we welcome in the middle east.

As I sit watching this on the television I am noticing the Arab League that asked for our help is strangely absent in this operation. I would love to hear the opinion of others even if they are totally opposite of mine.

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.