Is NATO a joke?

I'm sorry but anyone who has been following the no fly zone must realize what a cock up Nato is making of the whole thing.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-13074189

Firstly this, the operation gets handed to Nato yet many of the countries did not even A want to be there and B have a clue what their aims are for Libya. Is it a No Fly Zone or a regime change? Are we supporting the rebels or just protecting civilians?

It seems since Nato took over firstly air strikes are being mucked up we have already heard the rebels say Nato is not doing enough http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8432907/Libya-Nato-not-doing-enough-to-protect-Misurata.html

And then that air strikes are coming far to slowly

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2063547,00.html

The Americans have pulled their ground attack aircraft so there now seems to be a pretty big gap in operational capacity.

Why is this even a Nato OP? Surely it should be under British or French control seeing as those two countries are doing the most (bar America who does not want command)

I guess what I am getting at here is why is Nato being used if its just going to lead to a half assed cock up operation

(edited 13 years ago)

Scroll to see replies

Reply 1

spazman21

Couldn't agree more.

+1

Reply 2

*Hakz*

NATO can't possibly save all everyone. IMO, they are trying their best but maybe it is dragging on for too long.

Edit: If you oppose to my view, at least tell me why or tell us your opinion instead of countless negs.

(edited 13 years ago)

Reply 3

Aj12

Original post by *Hakz*

NATO can't possibly save all everyone. IMO, they are trying their best but maybe it is dragging on for too long.

It just seems as if they are to slow to react to what is a highly fluid situation. God help us if this was a real war.

Reply 4

Fallen

Original post by Aj12

It just seems as if they are to slow to react to what is a highly fluid situation. God help us if this was a real war.

Its not really that I disagree with you, but they have a lot of things to take into account.

Taking the wrong action, or even what is seen to be the wrong action, will affect the future of Lybia, future relations with a whole region, oil price, etc. a lot.
NATO has to be very careful not to piss anyone off and get the Arab states involved, which also means working at their pace.

Reply 5

Imprimatur

NATO only took over to make it look like a broad multinational effort.

Reply 6

Aj12

Original post by Imprimatur

NATO only took over to make it look like a broad multinational effort.

Playing international politics with people's lives.

Reply 7

*Hakz*

Original post by Fallen

Exactly this!!!

It's not as easy they way people think it is.

Reply 8

arabcnesbit

NATO is a joke, the UN is an even bigger joke and neither of them are particularly funny.

Reply 9

*Hakz*

Original post by arabcnesbit

NATO is a joke, the UN is an even bigger joke and neither of them are particularly funny.

I kind of agree with you but it is unfair to label NATO or the UN in such a way.

Both, if the wanted to, could easily destroy the whole Libya. But what that be a positive thing? No.

It is difficult for them to plan and set out what to do in order not to put civilians life in danger. They are trying to prevent a genocide and massacres from happening and it will take a bit of time for them to come up with a safe plan for them and the civilians.

Reply 10

In2deep

Original post by arabcnesbit

NATO is a joke, the UN is an even bigger joke and neither of them are particularly funny.

This x 1000. Couldn't have said it better.

Reply 11

jumpingjesusholycow

Meh, international politics is just one big **** up after another.

Reply 12

Fallen

Original post by arabcnesbit

NATO is a joke, the UN is an even bigger joke and neither of them are particularly funny.

So what is your plan which saves civilian lives, ad hears to the UN resolution, pleases all our trading partners and allies in the Middle East and around the World, does not backtrack on promises already given by individual nations, is cost effective, does not drag on for years and years, and all the other million constraints?

Also, if you make one teeny weeny muck up in the exceptional risky and complex task of firing high-explosives from fast moving, high altitude planes, then everyone is going to cry and whine and say you aren't doing enough.

Or would you sit back on the sidelines and hum while the voices of protesting millions are silenced by a dictator who, by his own admission, will 'show no mercy'.

We are damned if we do and damned if we don't. But I prefer the kind of damned where millions of lives are also saved on the way.

Reply 13

arabcnesbit

Original post by Fallen

What does any of this have to do with whether NATO or the UN are joke organisations?

Why should they pick and choose in what countries they intervene in or not?

Either you observe international law and withhold it, in all cases, or you don't. The current route we take of intervening when it suits us and ignoring it when it doesn't is worse than never taking any action at all, in my opinion, and in doing so makes NATO and the UN irrelevant and thus joke organisations.

(edited 13 years ago)

Reply 14

Aj12

Original post by arabcnesbit

Problem is you have to be realistic the West do not have the money or resources to intervene in what would end up being at least 20 plus countries.

Reply 15

username533239

Original post by Aj12

Well duh..it stands for "Not-A-true-organisation"...

Reply 16

Drewski

UN basically seem to use NATO as their 'armed wing' for operations.

The resolution behind the actions seems relatively unambiguous, but the 'how' behind the 'why' is, as ever, rather vague.

If we're there more than 2 more months, it's all going to go tits up, royally.

Reply 17

Aj12

Original post by Drewski

Why two months?

Reply 18

Drewski

Original post by Aj12

Why two months?

- it'll become very hard to keep up the public interest and therefore public support for servicemen being, yet again, deployed for 'a war in a sandy place'.
- our resources are already unbelievably stretched and don't have the longevity they used to, especially as the cuts are still being made to the frontline, which includes some of the sqns, aircraft and ships currently deploying to aid this campaign
- after that there basically won't be any more targets to hit and unless the UN revises it's mandate, we'll just be left performing airshows over Tripoli.

Reply 19

arabcnesbit

Original post by Aj12

Problem is you have to be realistic the West do not have the money or resources to intervene in what would end up being at least 20 plus countries.

Wasn't NATO supposed to be a treaty in which "an attack on one was an attack on all"? What member of NATO was attacked by Libya?

I understand your point, I just wish we wouldn't be so two faced about our foreign policy. If we said, we have interests in Libya and we're going to secure them then fine, but they can't pretend they're doing it solely on humanitarian grounds and ignore all the other human rights abuses around the world.

Concerning the UN, there shouldn't be dominant parties involved in these operations. If they want to pretend that they're the world police then it should be a global effort not just US, France and UK. How does that represent the United Nations of the World? Do you really want me to list the atrocities committed while the UN stood back and watched?