Turn on thread page Beta

Why won't the UN help out the protesters in Bahrain or Syria, but will in Libya? watch

Announcements
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    What confuses me is why won't the UN intervene in the protests in Bahrain or Syria where the government is using force to get rid of them just like in Libya. Is there a double standard or do we just have to get rid of Qaddafi?

    Just want your thoughts on this although it is too early to say where the Libyan Intervention could go from now.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by captnibby1234)
    What confuses me is why won't the UN intervene in the protests in Bahrain or Syria where the government is using force to get rid of them just like in Libya. Is there a double standard or do we just have to get rid of Qaddafi?

    Just want your thoughts on this although it is too early to say where the Libyan Intervention could go from now.
    or Burma or the Ivory Coast-1 million homeless.Bahrain like Saudi Arabia is a US ally so it can get away with murder.

    Gaddafi is a long term western target.America bombed him in the 1980s.The current 'humanitarian disaster' gives the west a perfect pretext to invade.The rebels are safe in bengazi,but now they are attacking new towns with with close air support from NATO.A long civil war will kill more people.The traitor government in Benghazi is already preparing to sell 300,000 barrels of oil a day through the Qatar Government. Hillary Clinton has said Gaddafi was not a imminent threat to America but he may become one at some point, that is the same argument used against the illegal war in Iraq.

    The Arab league is nothing, its a pointless organisation. the African Union is against the NATO intervention there is no regional support, even if there was since when to hostile neighbors get to decide when its right to invade a country
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by James10000)
    or Burma or the Ivory Coast-1 million homeless.Bahrain like Saudi Arabia is a US ally so it can get away with murder.

    Gaddafi is a long term western target.America bombed him in the 1980s.The current 'humanitarian disaster' gives the west a perfect pretext to invade.The rebels are safe in bengazi,but now they are attacking new towns with with close air support from NATO.A long civil war will kill more people.The traitor government in Benghazi is already preparing to sell 300,000 barrels of oil a day through the Qatar Government. Hillary Clinton has said Gaddafi was not a imminent threat to America but he may become one at some point, that is the same argument used against the illegal war in Iraq.

    The Arab league is nothing, its a pointless organisation. the African Union is against the NATO intervention there is no regional support, even if there was since when to hostile neighbors get to decide when its right to invade a country
    Never been a fan of intervening in other countries affairs in the first place.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Oil.It's pretty much all about oil. It's sad but its true.I'm not a conspiracy theorist but Iraq, now Lybia.it's all oil.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by captnibby1234)
    What confuses me is why won't the UN intervene in the protests in Bahrain or Syria where the government is using force to get rid of them just like in Libya. Is there a double standard or do we just have to get rid of Qaddafi?

    Just want your thoughts on this although it is too early to say where the Libyan Intervention could go from now.
    They (the UN) have clearly stated the purpose of their intervention: civilian safety. Bahrain and Syria, while not perfect, do not have a leader who is waging a war against their own people. I do not deny that the people who are being harmed in Syria and Bahrain need help, but the situation is not nearly dire enough to warrant the entrance of the UN compared to what is taking place in Libya...
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by OneDestiny)
    They (the UN) have clearly stated the purpose of their intervention: civilian safety. Bahrain and Syria, while not perfect, do not have a leader who is waging a war against their own people. I do not deny that the people who are being harmed in Syria and Bahrain need help, but the situation is not nearly dire enough to warrant the entrance of the UN compared to what is taking place in Libya...
    +1.

    You're going to have to shout up above all the nuts though. You know, the type of people that bang on and on about "oil, man, its all oil" and "it's one big conspiracy."

    Sometimes I just think that we should airdrop these hippy pacifist nutters into a country with an ongoing civil war and see how long it takes them to crap themselves and beg for UN help.

    I'm leaning towards 5 minutes personally.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    The UN intervened in Libya not because it was the right thing to do, but because politically motivated and influential head of states (e.g. Cameron and Sarkozy) asked for it! What's been going on in Libya has been technically illegal (as per international law) for 40 years, but the UN did not sanction military intervention. Not until it was requested, and agreed upon.

    There is less political will to intervene in all those other countries. Whether the naive wish to accept it or not, one of (but by no means the most important) those reasons is petroleum (and this is both direct access, and indirect - how willing would Saudi Arabia be to sell on its oil if its close allies are attacked?). Morality comes very far down that list.

    Were morality the primary imperative for action, the UN would have initiated military action to prevent the torture of and rescue prisoners of Guantanamo bay. How many resolutions has the UN passed about this?

    If morality had much or any factor in UN decision making, 800,000 lives would have been spare in Rwanda in the 90s.

    So pause the disillusioned rubbish and accept the facts! We're not in Libya primarily, secondarily or to any significant extent, for the benefit of the Libyan people. We're there for our own political gains, period.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Squidgyness)
    +1.

    You're going to have to shout up above all the nuts though. You know, the type of people that bang on and on about "oil, man, its all oil" and "it's one big conspiracy."

    Sometimes I just think that we should airdrop these hippy pacifist nutters into a country with an ongoing civil war and see how long it takes them to crap themselves and beg for UN help.

    I'm leaning towards 5 minutes personally.
    I bet you guys are looking forward to the easter bunnies bringing you lots of eggs this year
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Quite simply put, it's NOT in their interests.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by R£SP£CT)
    Quite simply put, it's NOT in their interests.
    Pretty much this. The UN is basically America. And America only intervene when it's in their interest. Alas, most if not all countries are similar. It's hard to say yes to someone who wants to provide better services for their people at your expense and no to someone who wants to provide a better service to you at the expense of his people.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you think parents should charge rent?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.