The UN Finally grows a pair!

bernardo mac · 18-03-2011 02:19AM

At last some hope for Libya but none for Limerick

Redlion · 18-03-2011 02:34AM

Deleted User wrote: »

In fairness, Libyan Semtex killed many an Irishman back in the 80s.

Gadaffi is the closest thing to an enemy Ireland has.

The Russians will be disappointed

SafeSurfer · 18-03-2011 02:38AM

Deleted User wrote: »

In fairness, Libyan Semtex killed many an Irishman back in the 80s.

Gadaffi is the closest thing to an enemy Ireland has.

Would it be fair to say that the Israeli secret service have put more Irish citizens lives at risk in recent years than Gadaffi?

ejmaztec · 18-03-2011 02:41AM

Oils well that ends well.

c_man · 18-03-2011 03:04AM

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Would it be fair to say that the Israeli secret service have put more Irish citizens lives at risk in recent years than Gadaffi?

No. Not really.

Manic Moran · 18-03-2011 05:00AM

Seaneh wrote: »

Another Rwanda? Its been happening for over half a Decade in Sudan. The world looks away because the islamic northern government controls the oil fields and export it to the developed world. So nobody cares that government helicopters provide air support to the government armed and funded militias who raid the south every day and agape through Darfur non stop. Murdering and displacing millions of tribesmen and christians.

As long as the oil keeps flowing, nobody gives a ****.

The oil stopped flowing in Lybia, the US, Russia and UK start making noise because they aren't getting their cheap oil anymore.
Time to send in the planes.

There are a couple of other issues in play, if you must give it full consideration.

Firstly, the fact that the Rwandan or Sudanese governments haven't historically pissed people off. I don't recall Rwandan agents blowing up airplanes over the UK or setting bombs at German nightclubs. Sudanese government agencies did not, as far as I can recall, provide munitions to paramilitary groups to be used to shoot up Rome or Vienna airports, let alone that little scrap going on in the British Isles. Westerners would be most pleased to see Gadaffi unceremoniously removed.

Secondly, the realities of geography. You can plonk an aircraft carrier and a Marine Expeditionary Unit in the Meditteranean twenty miles from Tripoli or in the Persian Gulf. Doing anything at all productive becomes quite troublesome in Rwanda.

And thirdly, simple publicity. Most people know where Libya is. Most people don't even care where Rwanda is, let alone know where it is. Rwandan refugees aren't going to sail across the water to seek asylum in Italy, as Libyan ones might and Tunisian ones have. Libya is considered to be a relative modern country, 'one of us', albeit under dodgy leadership. Rwanda and Sudan are primitive backwaters which don't resonate with the public.

Combine all three together, and you get some pretty understandable rationale for the different reactions even if none of the countries had any oil at all. Kosovo had no oil, but points 2 and 3 applied, it was enough to warrant NATO involvement.

NTM

Seaneh · 18-03-2011 05:05AM

no...
America, and especially The UK have been perfectly happy to rub Gadaffi's belly and play nice for the last decade exchanging trade and arms concessions in exchange for cheap oil. The UK sent military personal to train Lybia's elite soldiers last year Ffs, once the oil stopped being shipped, they act concerned.

Its that simple.

Manic Moran · 18-03-2011 05:10AM

Seaneh wrote: »

no...
America, and especially The UK have been perfectly happy to rub Gadaffi's belly and play nice for the last decade exchanging trade and arms concessions in exchange for cheap oil.

As opposed to what other choice? Once Gaddafi had said 'sorry' and kept to his own devices, with no internal rebellion, what could they have done? Might as well just deal with the situation at hand.

The UK sent military personal to train Lybia's elite soldiers last year Ffs, once the oil stopped being shipped, they act concerned.

Its that simple.

If continued oil was the only thing they were concerned about, all they would have had to do was just shut up, not bomb anyone, not declare support for anyone, and after Gaddaffi had finished up cleaning house, return back to business as usual. This is a very inefficient way of going back to the status quo ante of oil imports.

NTM

Seaneh · 18-03-2011 05:12AM

also. The reason the US and the west in general done do anything is Sudan is because if they do.

A) the oil stops flowing north.

The Saudis, Qatar, Iran and the Emiraties kick up a fuss and decrease output making oil prices soar.

Biggins · 18-03-2011 10:16AM

HellFireClub wrote: »

http://www.breakingnews.ie/world/un-approves-no-fly-zone-over-libya-497675.html

At last, the UN stands up for humanity, this side of millions of people being blown to bits by another insane dictator. They have just approved a no fly zone over Libya and the birds are in the air now to enforce it...

johngalway wrote: »

Not before time. Was just thinking this afternoon that the entire war would be over before the UN removed it's finger from it's ass.

Its too little, too late. The hundreds, if not thousands that are dead in the last few weeks are to their shame.
Once again we see just how friggn' useless they ar at the UN at dealing with such matters and the sometimes the two opposite faces of them.

alchemist33 wrote: »

Good job. But what will they do about Bahrain?

Absolutely fcuk all.
...Well maybe except the usual useless political statements of "the will of the people should be respected" - then they will carry on on again individually as countries buying their oil stocks from the Royal Family, which are are just as equally oppressive and murderous as Gadaffi.
...But The royal family there are controlling/sitting on THEE worlds biggest oil natural resources/stocks so that makes a difference, so its business as usual!

Son Of A Vidic · 18-03-2011 10:55AM

OP I wouldn't quite say the UN grew a pair. It's more a case of the usually dithering and foot dragging by the Muppets. The Arab league backed a no fly zone last weekend. Since then, the Libyan rebels have received a fair kicking and lost a lot of ground. Of course this may very well have been avoided, if the UN quickly followed the example set by the Arab League. But the UN doesn't do speed and inefficiency, so maybe they should do the honorable thing and change their name back to the old League of Nations. Because they've become equally inept and impotent.

johngalway · 18-03-2011 10:55AM

Biggins wrote: »

Its too little, too late.

We'll see. One thing the no fly zone will absolutely have to do is remove Gadaffis helicopters from the air. Jets are easily enough controlled.

There will be a big negative effect on pro Gadaffi soldier/militia/whoever moral when one of their biggest assets is removed. Momentum is critical, if the rebels can start winning a few small battles they may be joined by others who think it's timely to switch sides.

smk89 · 18-03-2011 11:05AM

HellFireClub wrote: »

http://www.breakingnews.ie/world/un-approves-no-fly-zone-over-libya-497675.html

At last, the UN stands up for humanity, this side of millions of people being blown to bits by another insane dictator. They have just approved a no fly zone over Libya and the birds are in the air now to enforce it...

I hope those birds are angry birds. Then all you need is one black one to take half the map

Predator_ · 18-03-2011 11:16AM

Deleted User wrote: »

In fairness, Libyan Semtex killed many an Irishman back in the 80s.

Gadaffi is the closest thing to an enemy Ireland has.

No you got it backwards, his Semtex killed many an enemy. He is a friend of the Irish.

MagicSean · 18-03-2011 11:21AM

Their speedy response reminds me of this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zN4haC-MoR4

18-03-2011 12:37PM

Predator_ wrote: »

No you got it backwards, his Semtex killed many an enemy. He is a friend of the Irish.

if you think shoppers in Belfast and London are enemies of the Irish then your
not representative of the Irish people. How dare you claim that they are enemies of the Irish.

Your as bad as Gadaffi:mad:

Morlar · 18-03-2011 12:46PM

I think they should be left alone to take care of their own internal disputes. My view is that if you overthrow a leader and facilitate the installation of a weak regime it will be divisive and probably not last very long, then what are you going to be left with.

Einhard · 18-03-2011 12:50PM

Predator_ wrote: »

No you got it backwards, his Semtex killed many an enemy. He is a friend of the Irish.

I didn't realise that British school children and pensioners were my mortal enemy. Thanks for clearing that up. Should I go out now and strangle the next one I see?

Micky Dolenz · 18-03-2011 12:54PM

Morlar wrote: »

I think they should be left alone to take care of their own internal disputes. My view is that if you overthrow a leader and facilitate the installation of a weak regime it will be divisive and probably not last very long, then what are you going to be left with.

Thats sounds remarkably like Ireland.

Morlar · 18-03-2011 01:01PM

Micky Dolenz wrote: »

Thats sounds remarkably like Ireland.

My point is that the west militarily interfering in countries that haven't declared war on them does not leave a great track-record.

In the last couple of decades, somalia, afghanistan, Iraq being the most notable examples. The fact that Russia, India, Brazil, China and Germany did not vote in support of this but abstained should be a clue. In the west the opinion of Russia is ignored, which is a shame imo.

ArseBurger · 18-03-2011 01:06PM

HellFireClub wrote: »

Imagine where we'd be now if back in 1916 when the Brits circled the GPO with their artillery and started shelling the place, we had a UN mandate that had a pair of Apache's dropping into Talbot Street, right behind Captain Maxwell at the junction there on O' Connell Street as he started bombarding the GPO...

Nope. Ireland doesn't have any oil. And British rule did a better job of running the nation than the locals.

fontanalis · 18-03-2011 01:33PM

Phew, with Libya being the only country where peopel are being killed on a daily basis there may finally be peace one earth.

Einhard · 18-03-2011 01:36PM

fontanalis wrote: »

Phew, with Libya being the only country where peopel are being killed on a daily basis there may finally be peace one earth.

Surely it's a good thing to take a small step, that to take none at all? If the no-fly zone is a success, I doubt the Libyan people will be quite so cynical.

fontanalis · 18-03-2011 01:41PM

Einhard wrote: »

Surely it's a good thing to take a small step, that to take none at all? If the no-fly zone is a success, I doubt the Libyan people will be quite so cynical.

Fair enough; but this UN no fly zone (followed by possible bombings) doesn't guarnatee success. Wasn't one imposed on Iraq in the 90's followed by bombings and sanctions; and the population suffered not Hussein.
I don't mean to sound cynical (as I'm aware of some of the things the rebels are sufefring) but there seems to be a bit of a whiff of "lets show Gadaffi some action and every thing will be ok" about this thread. This could even solidify Gadaffis position. Like someoen said earlier sometimes people need to sort out their own mess; if the West can offer assistance without making a pigs ear off it then ok, but interference in other countries can seriously backfire.

Morlar · 18-03-2011 01:45PM

Einhard wrote: »

Surely it's a good thing to take a small step, that to take none at all?

Military intervention in a soveirgn power who has not declared war on you is categorically not a small step. The way this is marketed is that 'we will keep the forces of the west out of harms way'. In reality the talk has already moved to air strikes against Libyan ground targets. This could easily escalate into a limited ground intervention. If pilots are downed or captured, planes shot out of the air this will also escalate. If Gaddafi is overthrown and the rebels go on a killing spree of his supporters I wonder what the reaction of britain france and the usa will be then ?

eamo12 · 18-03-2011 01:45PM

HellFireClub wrote: »

http://www.breakingnews.ie/world/un-approves-no-fly-zone-over-libya-497675.html

At last, the UN stands up for humanity, this side of millions of people being blown to bits by another insane dictator. They have just approved a no fly zone over Libya and the birds are in the air now to enforce it...

Didn't they do that in Iraq???

Dirk Gently · 18-03-2011 01:48PM

alchemist33 wrote: »

Good job. But what will they do about Bahrain?

Prop up the ruling regime and minimise any bad news on our tv screens

fontanalis · 18-03-2011 01:55PM

Will there be anti war protests over this?

Morlar · 18-03-2011 01:58PM

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12776418#video

#
BREAKING NEWS: Libyan government calls an immediate ceasefire, saying it is acting to protect civilians in acordance with the UN Security Council resolution.

#
1230: Carl Bildt, Foreign Minister of Sweden tweets: "Seem things are slowly moving in the right direction on UN&Libya. But stop Gaddafi only beginning. Building new Libya the real challenge."

I think this is far from over. The UN resolution stays on the table, and the Gaddafi response is basically in line with what they have been saying all along, 'they are protecting civilians'.

Einhard · 18-03-2011 02:22PM

fontanalis wrote: »

Fair enough; but this UN no fly zone (followed by possible bombings) doesn't guarnatee success. Wasn't one imposed on Iraq in the 90's followed by bombings and sanctions; and the population suffered not Hussein.
I don't mean to sound cynical (as I'm aware of some of the things the rebels are sufefring) but there seems to be a bit of a whiff of "lets show Gadaffi some action and every thing will be ok" about this thread. This could even solidify Gadaffis position. Like someoen said earlier sometimes people need to sort out their own mess; if the West can offer assistance without making a pigs ear off it then ok, but interference in other countries can seriously backfire.

I agree with much of that. Too many people are demanding an intervention with no thought to the potential consequences. However, I don't think the fact that abuses by other regimes warrant no intervention, should always preclude such action.

Morlar wrote: »

Military intervention in a soveirgn power who has not declared war on you is categorically not a small step. The way this is marketed is that 'we will keep the forces of the west out of harms way'. In reality the talk has already moved to air strikes against Libyan ground targets. This could easily escalate into a limited ground intervention. If pilots are downed or captured, planes shot out of the air this will also escalate. If Gaddafi is overthrown and the rebels go on a killing spree of his supporters I wonder what the reaction of britain france and the usa will be then ?

It's a small step in the context of what fontanalis was talkign about, ie all the other regimes which abuse their people.

The UN Finally grows a pair!

Comments