The United Nations, after the support of the Arab League, voted to impose something we WANT

[RollWithIt]

For nearly a decade I've complained that George W Bush did not get UN authorization for his attack on Iraq. In fact, they used false information and STILL failed to get support.

We WANT the United Nations to have real power in forming coalitions to prevent bloodshed. That is a FACT. In order to prevent bloodshed you must use some force.

You CAN control the skies and enable your allies on the ground to overcome a dictator.

It is clear to me that within the last week the Obama Administration realized that Ghadaffi was going to be able to retake the entire country and massacre his opposition.

They decided to side with both the French and British Governments who had been calling for heavy military intervension for well over a week.

The International community agreed to let French, British, and United States Air & Navy Forces operate out of bases in Italy and Spain to conduct the implementation of a no fly and no attack zone in Benghazi.

This is the implementation of that International Agreement. A true example of the West trying to do what is right. It is one of the few times that the UN has gained such an overwhelming power.

ALL OF THIS IS LEGALLY SANCTIONED BY THE GLOBAL COMMUNITY VIA THE UNITED NATIONS. UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

[Davis_X_Machina]

1. If we want it...

...it must be bad. DU much?

[RollWithIt]

3. Ah, DU, it has become the twilight zone of Progressive Politics...

Everyone so confused by reality.

[ItNerd4life]

50. LOL, how true.

People changing facts to support their self righteousness. Core values seem to be disappearing.

On edit: Sadly I realized you wouldn't understand the sarcasm of my post.
Your facts are as untruthful as Bush's for going into Iraq.

[jefferson_dem]

4. Some here feel destined to be depressed...

No matter what...

[Davis_X_Machina]

5. We're looking at...

...the international relations version of the trolley problem, which everyone knows has one right answer.

[RollWithIt]

7. ermmm

I flip the switch to run over 1 person if it means saving more than 1. Although I might ask the ages and family status of everyone. If it was available.

ETHICS.

[Davis_X_Machina]

10. There's a lot of support...

...for effectively not throwing the switch here.

Apparently oil changes things. And Bush.

[RollWithIt]

12. Confused what your position is?

Are you saying that there is great support for not using an international coalition to prevent a massacre in Benghazi? Because as of now we're talking about a UN vote unanimously approved to create a no fly and no attack zone around Benghazi. The protection of civilians.

So other than the International Community UNANIMOUSLY supporting this what support do you find for having done nothing?

[Davis_X_Machina]

14. DU is overwhelmingly against doing anything....

..and isn't that what really matters?

[RollWithIt]

15. Well, the thing about this board.... you can still present a viewpoint

And win.

[Davis_X_Machina]

16. Consistency...

...would require the bulk of DU to have opposed US entry into the League of Nations, ratification of the UN Charter, and have endorsed Bob Taft over Eisenhower and Truman at any given point in the 1950's.

Which does make one wonder.

[RollWithIt]

17. And finally....

I understand your viewpoint.



/bow

[psychopomp]

20. You cannot factually claim a unanimous approval

given the abstentions. If you don't mind, how is this intervention mandated by the UN Charter? I'm confused here, as IIRC the charter prohibits this kind of intervention in a country's internal affairs.

[Jackpine Radical]

22. I think not when those internal affairs involve the massive slaughter of the citizens.

For example, would it have been right for he UN (had it existed) to intervene in Germany to stop the holocaust (if there had been a reasonable way for it to do so)?

[Davis_X_Machina]

23. Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter....

...sets out the UN Security Council's powers to maintain peace. It allows the Council to "determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression" and to take military and nonmilitary action to "restore international peace and security.

The determination is left to the Council. The resolution is number 1973.

You may notice Russia and China, both with vetoes, abstained. The African states on the Council voted 'aye'.

[Union Scribe]

32. If you aren't depressed by war, you're missing something pretty important

as a person.

[jefferson_dem]

2. K/R.

Thanks.

[Keith Bee]

6. Same

[vaberella]

8. Excellent post. I may not agree with this move 100%, but your statements are true. n/t

[RollWithIt]

9. Thanks...

It is impossible to agree on everything but I would hope that people will begin to recognize the importance of a UN sanctioned military engagement. Keep in mind, two weeks ago Secretary of Defense Gates was downplaying this very possibility? Why? Because it was assumed that the United States would have to take a lead role. Instead the FRENCH let it be known that with our satellite and cruise missile support THEY would impose the no fly zone. Not us. No US planes needed for direct combat.

Eight years ago assholes were talking about FREEDOM FRIES AND THE UNITED NATIONS.

Now we're talking about FRENCH airplanes leading our coalition.

Obama said, "I'll be your huckleberry."

[vaberella]

18. Agreed. Diplomatically this was an excellent move and even if someting may go wrong.

God forbid. It was done with the international community and for that reason alone---I don't think anything will go wrong. I just have my reservations. Thank you again for the enlightening post and definitely highlighting the extraordinary importance of this issue.

[xchrom]

11. Unrec

[RollWithIt]

13. I think you really rec'd it... nt

[xchrom]

24. I think you wanna make out with me. Nt

[Metric System]

19. Excellent post. International consensus + UN approval. What a difference!

[DevonRex]

21. Very well said. Nt

[indepat]

25. When it's all over over there in Libya, how are we gonna' tell the good guys from the bad guys and

how long will an occupation be required to sort this all out? Years? Decades? And at how much cost in blood and treasure, surely the brunt of treasure expended to be funded by reductions in social security and Medicare benefits, if what's going on in Washington now is any indication. :shrug: :patriot:

[jenmito]

26. Exactly! Who here thinks the Arab League would've supported Bush's invasion of Iraq?

I can't BELIEVE how many Dems. are equating what Obama is doing (or more precisely, what he's SUPPORTING doing) to what BUSH did in invading Iraq!

[former9thward]

29. The Arab League is NOT supporting the current military actions.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/arab-league-condemns-broad-bombing-campaign-in-libya/2011/03/20/AB1pSg1_story.html?hpid=z3

[jenmito]

31. Yes they are. They "walked back" from that statement and reiterated their support for it.

CNN and MSNBC both reported that. Andrea Mitchell just reported it AGAIN.

[former9thward]

35. I posted my link. Why didn't you post a link?

There is nothing on the CNN website.

[jenmito]

36. I don't have a link. But I have been watching MSNBC and CNN and heard it. If you

watch MSNBC you'll hear it reported.

[former9thward]

27. You say the United Nations but it was 10 countries out of 192.

I wonder what the vote would have been if the General Assembly had been allowed to vote. No it was not Unanimously approved unless you have your own special definition of unanimous. There were 5 abstain votes which you of course know. What "International community" do you speak of? It was Italy and Spain which allowed the use of bases in their countries. Nobody else dictated or "agreed" to that. This is a third war against a Muslim country. I am glad you wish to own it.

[jenmito]

33. Sorry to inform you, but Richard Engel just reported that the people do NOT see this

as an "invasion" like the Iraq War, which the Arab world viewed extremely negatively. He said they're CELEBRATING this action, they have big-screen TVs put up in Tahrir Square with speakers set up, showing Al Jazeera's very favorable coverage of the events. They see this as "just" and as a "humanitarian intervention."

[former9thward]

34. And we know Richard Engel and NBC would never shade the truth.

[jenmito]

37. He speaks the language and translates what they say right in front of the cameras. And if you

don't believe HE'S telling the truth, how 'bout believing Hisham Melhem of Al Arabiya, who said something along the same line? HE said this is being celebrated by the people, that Obama getting the Arab League and the UNSC to sign on was a great move, and that the Libyans are very grateful for the help? You can believe what you want. If it makes you feel better to equate Obama to Bush, go for it. But the Libyan people aren't.

[former9thward]

38. Since you don't provide links to any of your assertions

I don't believe you or the MSM. These are the same people who have defended Bush to the end and pushed his WMD line.

[DevonRex]

41. It was on tonight's news broadcast. Are you saying she is lying?

[former9thward]

42. What was on "tonight's news newcast"?

The fact the Arab League has rejected this current military adventure? http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/arab-league-condemns-broad-bombing-campaign-in-libya/2011/03/20/AB1pSg1_story.html?hpid=z3 Was it on the same broadcasts that have been warmongering for the last 10 years to get people to support wars against Islamic nations? What Libyan people? A few hundred rebels? Did someone take a poll?

[jenmito]

43. I posted a link for you tonight on another thread proving I'm right:

Arab League chief: We respect UN resolution on Libya military action

Amr Moussa reiterates support for international enforcement of no-fly zone over Libya despite earlier comments suggesting concern by actions taken by Western powers.

http://www.haaretz.com/news/international/arab-league-chief-we-respect-un-resolution-on-libya-military-action-1.350888

[former9thward]

44. When was he lying, then or now?

It has to be one or the other. I think it is now because the Arab League is not providing any support to the adventure. With the exception of Qatar which had offered four planes which have yet to take off.

[jenmito]

45. Amr Moussa, the one who made both statements, is running for president of Egypt,

and as more than one Arabic commentator said, he was trying to have it both ways for political reasons. He thought he could play both sides of the fence, so he could take credit for whatever happens. He did not speak for the rest of the Arab League as was made clear by his latest statement. You asked for a link and you got it. I accept your apology whether you give one or not.

ETA: Nice try moving the goalpost.

[former9thward]

46. Nice try saying this is "an international action"

Where is all the Arab participation?

[jenmito]

47. Why are you trying to change the subject AGAIN? You were wrong.

I gave you the link you asked for. You're welcome.

[Ignis]

28. UN =/= UN Security Council

:banghead:

[stevenleser]

48. and you think this matters in this discussion why? n/t

[PVnRT]

52. Check the UN charter

Military matters are decided by the Security Council. It has always been that way. In this case, the UNSC is the UN.

[Drunken Irishman]

30. .

[mmonk]

39. Legal globally, yes. Constitutionally is another question.

It requires the executive branch go to congress for authorization or declaration.

[and-justice-for-all]

40. well all that does not mean it is right....

I am opposed to any US intervention into any countries internal conflicts.

[ItNerd4life]

49. Bush had TWICE the countries supporting Iraq than Obama does

Bush also went and got approval from a Democratic Congress. Obama didn't!

It wasn't unanimously approved. It's amazing how Republicans lie about facts to make a point....Oh wait, it's Democrats doing it now.

[jenmito]

51. Bush didn't get approval of the UNSC let alone the Arab League! Obama didn't lie about

the reasons for the no fly zone (and no troops on the ground). The Libyans WANTED us in there and were celebrating once the bombing of Qaddafi's airstrips started. Why do people insist on comparing what Obama and the others are doing to Bush and his unilateral war based on lies???