So why aren't the ...

[szh]

..." civilians being protected" here?

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/ ... tter-daily

Maybe the UN should enforce another "no fly" zone and attack the ground forces here too?

Z

[IBCoupe]

The UN resolution doesn't only authorize a no-fly zone.

http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/ ... penElement

Protection of civilians
4. Authorizes Member States that have notified the Secretary-General, acting nationally or through regional organizations or arrangements, and acting in cooperation with the Secretary-General, to take all necessary measures, notwithstanding paragraph 9 of resolution 1970 (2011), to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, including Benghazi, while excluding a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory, and requests the Member States concerned to inform the Secretary-General immediately of the measures they take pursuant to the authorization conferred by this paragraph which shall be immediately reported to the Security Council;
5. Recognizes the important role of the League of Arab States in matters relating to the maintenance of international peace and security in the region, and bearing in mind Chapter VIII of the Charter of the United Nations, requests the Member States of the League of Arab States to cooperate with other Member States in the implementation of paragraph 4;

No Fly Zone
6. Decides to establish a ban on all flights in the airspace of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya in order to help protect civilians;
7. Decides further that the ban imposed by paragraph 6 shall not apply to flights whose sole purpose is humanitarian, such as delivering or facilitating the delivery of assistance, including medical supplies, food, humanitarian workers and related assistance, or evacuating foreign nationals from the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, nor shall it apply to flights authorised by paragraphs 4 or 8, nor other flights which are deemed necessary by States acting under the authorisation conferred in paragraph 8 to be for the benefit of the Libyan people, and that these flights shall be coordinated with any mechanism established under paragraph 8;
8. Authorizes Member States that have notified the Secretary-General and the Secretary-General of the League of Arab States, acting nationally or through regional organizations or arrangements, to take all necessary measures to enforce compliance with the ban on flights imposed by paragraph 6 above, as necessary, and requests the States concerned in cooperation with the League of Arab States to coordinate closely with the Secretary General on the measures they are taking to implement this ban, including by establishing an appropriate mechanism for implementing the provisions of paragraphs 6 and 7 above,
9. Calls upon all Member States, acting nationally or through regional organizations or arrangements, to provide assistance, including any necessary overflight approvals, for the purposes of implementing paragraphs 4, 6, 7 and 8 above;
10. Requests the Member States concerned to coordinate closely with each other and the Secretary-General on the measures they are taking to implement paragraphs 4, 6, 7 and 8 above, including practical measures for the monitoring and approval of authorised humanitarian or evacuation flights;
11. Decides that the Member States concerned shall inform the Secretary-General and the Secretary-General of the League of Arab States immediately of measures taken in exercise of the authority conferred by paragraph 8 above, including to supply a concept of operations;
12. Requests the Secretary-General to inform the Council immediately of any actions taken by the Member States concerned in exercise of the authority conferred by paragraph 8 above and to report to the Council within 7 days and every month thereafter on the implementation of this resolution, including information on any violations of the flight ban imposed by paragraph 6 above;

[szh]

Okay ...

Z

[szh]

And it is getting worse: http://www.time.com/time/world/article/ ... tter-daily

Of course, since they don't have oil, no UN intervention needed, right?

Z

[IBCoupe]

Don't know. I'm not the UN.

But if I accept your premise, what are you looking to get? What's the aim with this line of reasoning? That because we don't act everywhere it's appropriate means we shouldn't act anywhere, even if it's appropriate?

Have you thought through your criticism to find a point?

[szh]

Huhn? Isn't it obvious what my point is? I have only been harping on it in a number of threads!

Z

[IBCoupe]

Apparently, it's not obvious to me.

[szh]

I guess not. Unfortunate.

Z

[srellim234]

IB- It's about the money, not the human rights. Even to the U.N.

[szh]

Yeah ... it's too bad that Ivory Coast does not supply oil to the US or Western nations!

Z

[IBCoupe]

I don't think it's about only the money. There are many a rich country that the UN could raid that it doesn't (I'm looking at you, Saudi Arabia).

Maybe it's not only about the human rights, but those certainly do factor in, unless you think this UN is different than the UN that operates in Somalia and Afghanistan.

But again, I'll ask: should we not act to help Fred because we failed to act Larry? That's where this line of reasoning goes.

[heliochrome85]

I don't think it's about only the money. There are many a rich country that the UN could raid that it doesn't (I'm looking at you, Saudi Arabia).

Maybe it's not only about the human rights, but those certainly do factor in, unless you think this UN is different than the UN that operates in Somalia and Afghanistan.

But again, I'll ask: should we not act to help Fred because we failed to act Larry? That's where this line of reasoning goes.

maybe so but the timeline is more like, "we helped fred but didn't act to help larry." had the situation been reversed, as in your line of thinking, the ivory coast situation would have preceeded libya, and thus any libyan intervention would have demonstrated a fundimental shift in worldview on the part of the UN. since it doesnt, the question must be asked, "if the US/UN are the global police, why are they not involved in the Ivory Coast situation?"

[IBCoupe]

And I'll point to a thing that Aud was always happy to point out: you can't sue the police for failing to protect you from crime. Similarly, not every crime can be prosecuted, or even investigated.

The UN can't afford to be everywhere. Does the situation in the Ivory Coast suck? Yeah. Is there something for the UN to do about it? Yeah. Is it possible that they won't conjure the funds/international support needed? Yes.

I would be perfectly fine with action in the Ivory Coast. But I'm not going to hold up the Ivory Coast as an argument against Libya, because the logic doesn't support it.

[szh]

To me, the logic is obvious. Therefore, I treat it as a failure on the part of the US and UN, given the stated reasons for intervention in Libya.

And thus certainly a strong indictment of those reasons. Therefore, I look for other possible reasons for what was/is happening: one of which is "it's the oil, stupid!" possibility.

Z

[IBCoupe]

It's not only the oil. I'm not going to argue that it doesn't play a role, but that's not the only reason we're in Libya. Yes, that might be what distinguishes, in your mind, this from Ivory Coast, but there are instances where the UN acts where no oil is at stake, too.

Yes, if you look at these two situations and slap on some blinders to ignore the rest of the world, you could say the oil is the reason. But that's a dumb thing to do.

[szh]

Not dumb at all, IMHO. If you ignore oil, you are ignoring one major reason for some of our actions (and, yeah, yeah, there are others - revenge in Afghanistan's case for example).

Since there is a clear example of where we went in "for the oil" control! And others where we didn't intervene - sometimes till too late for the people - because oil was not involved.

The problem is that this "selective" policing is what the rest of the world has difficulty with the UN (and, by extension, the US).

So, yes, I strongly believe the UN (and thus the US) need to better articulate the policy and, then, the actions taken according to that policy.

Z

BTW, I, for one, simply don't believe for a moment that the Libya intervention was an altruistic "for protecting the people" - it was clearly oil and revenge motivated! And, if you don't see that, then you are the one with blinders on!

[IBCoupe]

Who said to ignore oil?

[szh]

If you ignore oil, you are ignoring one major reason for some of our actions (and, yeah, yeah, there are others - revenge in Afghanistan's case for example).

Sorry ... in this sentence, I used "you" generically, not personally.

Z

[IBCoupe]

I think I knew that (I wrote it yesterday, though, so maybe I didn't), but I don't know who is arguing that oil doesn't come into it. The oil means that there's more at stake for the region and world.

But that doesn't mean that there aren't other factors, too, and my cynicism has it's limits. Revenge for what? Lockerbie? That seems implausible. What seems more likely is that Libya got 24-hour news coverage around the world, and Ivory Coast gets a five minute blurb, once or twice a week on NPR.

It's not that the UN doesn't care about Ivory Coast, it's seemingly that nobody cares about Ivory Coast.

[IBCoupe]

Update:

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/201 ... ast-leader

Intrasigent Ivory Coast leader Laurent Gbagbo is under attack again. This time UN and French troops are besieging his home in Abidjan. The New York Times reports half of Gbagbo's home has collapsed. Over the weekend, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon says Gbagbo supporters attacked UN peacekeepers and civilians with heavy weapons.

Ban says Gbagbo tricked UN peacekeepers last week, claiming he wanted to talk about a ceasefire when he really used the lull in fighting to regroup his troops and spread out his heavy weapons. Gbagbo loyalists then tried to bomb UN headquarters in Abidjan, the home of the French ambassador and the local headquarters of his rival, internationally acknowledged president Alassane Ouattara.

But today's action could stall his advance. The Guardian reports French forces are attacking certain targets in Gbagbo's neighborhood. French military spokesman Maj. Frederick Daguillon says "It will continue until he steps down or at least until he is pushed back into his residence. If he wants to stay there like a prisoner then he can." Gbagbo won't ever again have the option of a ceasefire. [Copyright 2011 National Public Radio]

[AZhitman]

The French say they had no one there.

The UN says they weren't involved.

The US says, "Nope - not us either."

Someone's full of crap.

[szh]

The French say they had no one there.

The UN says they weren't involved.

The US says, "Nope - not us either."

Someone's full of crap.

Wait, wait! I know, I know ... it must be Bush's fault!

Z

[stebo0728]

The French?!?

Were they throwing livestock at Qudafi's forces? Farting in his general direction perhaps?

[szh]

So ... when should we expect the UN and US to get involved here? Are the warplanes and cruise missiles on the way or not?

"Bahrain: Is a US ally torturing its people?"

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/ ... tter-daily

Z

[Cold_Zero]

..." civilians being protected" here?
Z

Easy, I think it is a matter of jurisdiction. Every time there is civil unrest in Côte d'Ivoire, the French send in Légion étrangère. Problem solved. I am also glad that Germany bowed out of the operations in Libya (the US spending 608 million is something I am not proud of). I do have to confess, I did smile at the fact that the French Marine nationale didnt even wait for the ink to dry on the treaty before they started their bombing because the West mocked President Sarkozy, who pushed for the operation heavily.

I find this whole Libyan operation a farce and can be nothing more than about oil, or payback for bad blood with the US. The US has sat on their hands during the genocide in Rwanda, a bloody civil war in Sierra Leone and more recently genocide in Congo, with rebels using rape and torture as a weapon. You want to talk about saving and protecting civilian lives? Get real.

[IBCoupe]

Ivory Coast was over four days before you posted that, Z. Once the former President was captured, the military basically switched sides to the new guy without any trouble.
http://www.npr.org/2011/04/11/135324874 ... t-captured

[szh]

..." civilians being protected" here?
Z

Easy, I think it is a matter of jurisdiction. Every time there is civil unrest in Côte d'Ivoire, the French send in Légion étrangère. Problem solved. I am also glad that Germany bowed out of the operations in Libya (the US spending 608 million is something I am not proud of). I do have to confess, I did smile at the fact that the French Marine nationale didnt even wait for the ink to dry on the treaty before they started their bombing because the West mocked President Sarkozy, who pushed for the operation heavily.

I find this whole Libyan operation a farce and can be nothing more than about oil, or payback for bad blood with the US. The US has sat on their hands during the genocide in Rwanda, a bloody civil war in Sierra Leone and more recently genocide in Congo, with rebels using rape and torture as a weapon. You want to talk about saving and protecting civilian lives? Get real.

Did you miss the sarcasm in my post?

Re-read the Libya thread to see why I posted what I posted here.

Z

[szh]

Ivory Coast was over four days before you posted that, Z. Once the former President was captured, the military basically switched sides to the new guy without any trouble.
http://www.npr.org/2011/04/11/135324874 ... t-captured

Really? It was all over on April 2nd (my first post in this thread)?

I don't think so ...

Z

[IBCoupe]

No, it was over on April 11th, four days before you posted this:

So ... when should we expect the UN and US to get involved here? Are the warplanes and cruise missiles on the way or not?

But on a closer look, it appears you weren't referring to the Ivory Coast anymore. I can't keep track of your outrage. Would you please leave your goalposts alone?

[szh]

No, it was over on April 11th, four days before you posted this:

So ... when should we expect the UN and US to get involved here? Are the warplanes and cruise missiles on the way or not?

But on a closer look, it appears you weren't referring to the Ivory Coast anymore. I can't keep track of your outrage. Would you please leave your goalposts alone?

The title was in the post. And pretty clear. I can't keep track of your inability to read. Would you please stop reacting without reading the entire post and the content at the link?

Z