UN authorises military action against Gaddafi

[Chris]

"The 15-member security council voted in favour of a resolution authorising "all necessary measures short of an occupation force" to protect civilians."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/17/libya-un-security-council-air

[Natalie Severn]

....and what celebrations are going on by the so called "rebels" -I suppose they think maybe we are not going to die!
Bahrain has been invaded by Saudi Forces so hopefully the UN will draw up another resolution to protect the people there from the Saudi invaders if the situation worsens.
Norma

[Errata]

"The 15-member security council voted in favour of a resolution authorising "all necessary measures short of an occupation force" to protect civilians."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011...ty-council-air

Well this isn't going to end well.

[Chris]

....and what celebrations are going on by the so called "rebels" -I suppose they think maybe we are not going to die!

Well, I suppose they are relieved that someone is going to do something to help them, rather than standing idly by and watching them get slaughtered. That's human nature for you.

[Errata]

Well, I suppose they are relieved that someone is going to do something to help them, rather than standing idly by and watching them get slaughtered. That's human nature for you.

Do we really help people when we do this? Haven't we historically screwed this up on a colossal scale? I mean, the entire 20th century is essentially a guide book on how to NOT meddle in foreign affairs.

[Chris]

Do we really help people when we do this? Haven't we historically screwed this up on a colossal scale? I mean, the entire 20th century is essentially a guide book on how to NOT meddle in foreign affairs.

Oh, I don't know. I think we got some things right. Hitler, for example.

[The Good Michael]

Chris,

Okay. I'll give you Hitler. We really need to sort out Palestine. That is one of the biggest keys to peace in the Middle East. It might be that no one really wants peace there, however, and if so, then there is no solution.

Mike

[Chris]

Okay. I'll give you Hitler. We really need to sort out Palestine. That is one of the biggest keys to peace in the Middle East. It might be that no one really wants peace there, however, and if so, then there is no solution.

Call me a hopeless idealist, but I think if there is a move towards democracy in the Arab world, that will be very conducive to sorting out Palestine.

[The Good Michael]

Call me a hopeless idealist, but I think if there is a move towards democracy in the Arab world, that will be very conducive to sorting out Palestine.

Maybe, but Israel needs to become democratic too, with equal rights for all citizens. After that, we may have something.

Mike

[Chris]

Maybe, but Israel needs to become democratic too, with equal rights for all citizens. After that, we may have something.

I wasn't trying to imply that Israel was blameless - or to imply anything about blame at all, in fact.

[jason_c]

Do we really help people when we do this? Haven't we historically screwed this up on a colossal scale? I mean, the entire 20th century is essentially a guide book on how to NOT meddle in foreign affairs.

Thats a sweeping statement that im sure South Koreans would dispute.

[The Good Michael]

I wasn't trying to imply that Israel was blameless - or to imply anything about blame at all, in fact.

Chris,

I know you weren't. I was just making a suggestion of what else would be an important factor... in my opinion.


Cheers,

Mike

[The Good Michael]

Thats a sweeping statement that im sure South Koreans would dispute.

You know jason, it's hard to tell what would have happened in Korea had the North taken over the country. The North's misery has a lot to do with playing people against each other, but not giving in to either side. The Russians warned them against attacking, but they did anyway. The Chinese didn't enter into the affair until late in the game. Kim was far more favored by Koreans in general than Rhee. Anyway, I'm just not sure what would have happened had America stayed out of things. The three years I was there, I didn't like very much about South Korea. They are still the hermit kingdom.

Mike

[jason_c]

You know jason, it's hard to tell what would have happened in Korea had the North taken over the country. The North's misery has a lot to do with playing people against each other, but not giving in to either side. The Russians warned them against attacking, but they did anyway. The Chinese didn't enter into the affair until late in the game. Kim was far more favored by Koreans in general than Rhee. Anyway, I'm just not sure what would have happened had America stayed out of things. The three years I was there, I didn't like very much about South Korea. They are still the hermit kingdom.

Mike

To me this is an important part of the debate. We dont know for sure what the outcome would have been had different decisions been taken historically(im talking of numerous conflicts here not just Korea).

Their is a tendency in some quarters to blame Western intervention on many of todays ills. Ills that i believe owe as much to localized politics/ethnic conflict than to do with Western intervention.

This tendency leads some to blame the West frequently leads to tiring arguements of Western hypocrisy or a "blame the West first" attitude. A case in point being Natalies post on this thread. No offence to Nats but ive yet to see her NOT jump on the side of any "oppressed "minority in any debate(ok i exaggerate). But in this case shes putting "rebels" in quotation marks and believes its more important to point out double standards than the issue at hand, Libya.

[Errata]

To me this is an important part of the debate. We dont know for sure what the outcome would have been had different decisions been taken historically(im talking of numerous conflicts here not just Korea).

Their is a tendency in some quarters to blame Western intervention on many of todays ills. Ills that i believe owe as much to localized politics/ethnic conflict than to do with Western intervention.

This tendency leads some to blame the West frequently leads to tiring arguements of Western hypocrisy or a "blame the West first" attitude. A case in point being Natalies post on this thread. No offence to Nats but ive yet to see her NOT jump on the side of any "oppressed "minority in any debate(ok i exaggerate). But in this case shes putting "rebels" in quotation marks and believes its more important to point out double standards than the issue at hand, Libya.

I think of course that local politics is the primary problem in any local problem. You are absolutely right.

But I think it's worth noting that we tend to do more harm than good. Getting rid of Hitler was good. But there likely would have been no climate for the Nazi party if Germany hadn't been slapped with crippling and highly unfair war reparations for WWI. The Middle East is a mess, and we do have a habit taking out leaders and installing worse ones, but mostly the problem is that the entire region was mapped out by their old imperialist masters who paid no attention to culture and native population. And then they were quite possibly deliberately unclear as to why they made the decisions they did. So now there is an independent country that is non homogenized, and no one knows why those choices were made, or what the expectations are. It's just baffling sometimes.