Libya no-fly bid 'legal without UN'

Libya no-fly bid 'legal without UN'

uk.news.yahoo.com

The Government has signalled that the imposition of a no-fly zone over Libya - to protect the civilian population from Colonel Muammar Gaddafi's brutal crackdown - could go ahead without the backing of the United Nations.

Foreign Secretary William Hague said that while "ideally" such action would be sanctioned by a resolution of the UN Security Council, it was not necessarily essential.

(visit the link for the full news article)

Basically we knew it was on the cards, and now the Uk government are pretty much saying this is going to happen with or without UN consent in my opinion.

I dont think its a matter of if a no fly zone will be implemented but when now. I also think it could turn out very bad for everyone involved.

FOR GOD SAKE UK..!! By all means evacuate our people and help evacuate anybody else who wants to leave but the Anti - Gaddaffi Libyan protesters do not want you there, and neither do I..!! Stay out of it..!!

Thoughts?

MooseVernel

uk.news.yahoo.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

reply to post by Fitch303


My speakers dont work

So unfortunately i am unable to grasp the relevence of that video to this situation

Please elaborate for me

Moosevernel

"President Bush met with the UN leader and made it clear the US will act without the endorsement of the UN""

Black Bush goes on to say....."If the UN doesnt like it they can sanction me with their army, Oh wait the UN doesn't have an army. You know what I would do if I didn't have an army??? I'd shut the f*ck up, that's what I would do if I didn't have an army......I'd SHUT! THE! F*CK! UP!"


Literally the PERFECT video for this subject lol

reply to post by moosevernel


A no -fly zone would help protect the demonstrators two ways without the need to boots on the ground:

First, it would shut air attacks by pro-Gaddafi forces; Second, it would keep more mercenaries from getting in.

The Libyans don't want boots on the ground, but most are pleading to the international community to do something to end the air attacks.

If the UN can't pull its collective thumb out of its butt, NATO can, perhaps with help from the Egyptian and Tunisian airforces.

Originally posted by Fitch303
"President Bush met with the UN leader and made it clear the US will act without the endorsement of the UN""

Black Bush goes on to say....."If the UN doesnt like it they can sanction me with their army, Oh wait the UN doesn't have an army. You know what I would do if I didn't have an army??? I'd shut the f*ck up, that's what I would do if I didn't have an army......I'd SHUT! THE! F*CK! UP!"


Literally the PERFECT video for this subject lol

edit on 1-3-2011 by Fitch303 because: (no reason given)

HAHA yes it is

I love Dave Chapel

Thanks for breaking that down for me btw

reply to post by mydarkpassenger


i just think this would cause more problems than it would solve.

Do we honestly think this man will just sit idly by and not fight back with everything he has. Who knows what gadaffi is packing.

I think this has the potential to blow up much much larger than it is already and i dont want that to happen tbh.

Edit to add: They have already stated that the first thing to do would be airstrikes against AA equipment and strongholds. Probably resulting in sparking a full scale war, not just with Gadaffi but also his allies. NOT GOOD.

IMO a no fly zone is not enough. We need to get in there and deal them a swift and decisive blow. Take out their WMD facilities and communications, then roll in the tanks and heavy armour. Its the only way. These half hearted measures like no fly zones just make the west look weak.

reply to post by ReptilePete


Or just let them solve it for themselves without the need for another war we cant afford. A complete waste of soldiers lives and actually being somewhere we are not wanted (again).

reply to post by moosevernel

well the UK cant afford to keep all its forces, can't make them redundant because of the uproar, what else are they going to do with them. Sad, tragic but unfortunately logical.

reply to post by moosevernel


So you would rather sit by and let thousands of people be slaughtered?

I don't understand this line of reasoning.

reply to post by ReptilePete


Certainly not sending them to possible death in another unneccasary war..!!

But i see your point i guess but i dont pretend to know the answer.

I dont know that worries me a bit as I was just reading on this earlier and found this article talking about how Russia had shot down the No Fly Zone idea in the UN.

Russian NATO ambassador Dmitry Rogozin cautioned against moving militarily against Gadhafi without U.N. authorization.

"If someone in Washington is seeking a blitzkrieg in Libya, it is a serious mistake because any use of military force outside the NATO responsibility zone will be considered a violation of international law," Rogozin told Russia's Interfax news agency in Brussels.

www.foxnews.com...#

Doesn't sound like a good idea to push on without the UN on this one to me.

Originally posted by MikeboydUS
reply to post by moosevernel

 

So you would rather sit by and let thousands of people be slaughtered?

I don't understand this line of reasoning.

It saddens me to no end. But they are casualties of basically a civil war in thier own country. It is no business of ours. They do not want foreign intervention. Nuff said.

reply to post by MikeboydUS


Well I would have to say on this one that the people of Libya intiated this action with full knowledge of the consequences. I do not see how they could have expected anything less being that they went up against a Dictatorship in the first place.

Furthermore what right do we have to interfere? Does this mean we should go assist everyone in there revolutions? The funny thing to me is that these people are fighting for there freedom and yet we want to give them fake freedom by saying here let us help you to gain your independance even though it won't be as satisfactory for you in the end because you didn't necessarily do it yourself. Oh by the way we don't really like that guy you picked so meet Jim here he is an American but hey no worries about technicalities we think he would be perfect as your new leader.

You know I mentioned this once before and I will mention it again. Back in the early 50's through the early 80's we were fighting against Communism. The argument was that Communism was forcing it's will upon the world and making countries become Communist and that America had to preserve democracy by ensuring that Democratic countries were not forced into Indoctrination by the Communist. Now it would seem that America is doing the same thing with our strange form of Socialistic Democracy. So now we are the ones imposing our beliefs and governmental system on others? So does that mean America is the new Russia?

reply to post by moosevernel


So its ok if he kills a million of his own people because its internal?

Are you human?

The opposition have requested for help, but they don't want any foreign troops deployed in Libya.

reply to post by Phantom28804


No, America is not the new Russia. China is the new Russia. Russia is more like the old Germany who in turn are like the old Japan. No. Usa is still Usa. UK however is much more like the old France. France is a bit like Belgium used to be though. Italy, Greece and Spain are all much of a muchness IMO.

reply to post by ReptilePete


Well it was more of a figure of speech then anything else seeing as how it would seem America has a new found hobby of trying to impose Democracy on the Middle East

reply to post by MikeboydUS


When did i ever condone his actions?

Why are you questioning my Humanity?

Phantom28804 said it better than i ever could.

And as i said they are casualties of thier own civil war that they instigated against thier own oppressive government. We are not world police.

A picture speaks a thousand words so they say.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/81ff7f1a03cf.jpg[/atsimg]