Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Political Ambassador
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    I'm sorry but anyone who has been following the no fly zone must realize what a **** 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/worl...-Misurata.html

    And then that air strikes are coming far to slowly

    http://www.time.com/time/world/artic...063547,00.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 **** up operation
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    Couldn't agree more.

    +1
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    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.
    • Political Ambassador
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (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.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    NATO only took over to make it look like a broad multinational effort.
    • Political Ambassador
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Imprimatur)
    NATO only took over to make it look like a broad multinational effort.
    Playing international politics with people's lives.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fallen)
    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.
    Exactly this!!!

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

    1
    ReputationRep:
    NATO is a joke, the UN is an even bigger joke and neither of them are particularly funny.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Meh, international politics is just one big **** up after another.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fallen)
    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.
    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.
    • Political Ambassador
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by arabcnesbit)
    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.
    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.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aj12)
    I'm sorry but anyone who has been following the no fly zone must realize what a **** 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?
    I guess what I am getting at here is why is Nato being used if its just going to lead to a half assed **** up operation
    Well duh..it stands for "Not-A-true-organisation"...
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    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.
    • Political Ambassador
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by 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.
    Why two months?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (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?
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
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.