Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by arabcnesbit)
    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?
    That's just article 5, one part, of the treaty, there are other articles that come in to play in other situations.
    Offline

    15
    Google NATO images and this comes up...
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Weird how thinking that a bunch of countries individually forming a coalition together to handle the situation in Libya effectively did better than a bunch of countries that have formed a coalition together (NATO)

    Sad though, they're giving air support but so what? Not like they'e dropping missiles, guns, tanks for the rebels, they're still outmanned and outgunned and will not win against Gaddafi as they are - fact. Seems like a bitter stalemate unless something else is done
    • Political Ambassador
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by arabcnesbit)
    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?
    Thing is. We don't have strategic interests in Libya. I only speak for the UK and US here but nether country gets large amounts of oil from Libya. We have private interests yes BP and no doubt other US companies had oil licences. But by intervening in what was never going to be a cut and dry intervention has just cost these companies money.

    True true. The UN seems to have a bad reputation for standing by and doing nothing. They need a full military force really made up off troops from all nations for operations like this.
    • Political Ambassador
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by lukejoshjedi)
    Weird how thinking that a bunch of countries individually forming a coalition together to handle the situation in Libya effectively did better than a bunch of countries that have formed a coalition together (NATO)

    Sad though, they're giving air support but so what? Not like they'e dropping missiles, guns, tanks for the rebels, they're still outmanned and outgunned and will not win against Gaddafi as they are - fact. Seems like a bitter stalemate unless something else is done
    CIA is going to start traning them through use of private contractors(ex special forces)

    Egypt is arming them Qatar is selling oil on their behalf (if they keep the oil towns they will have some hope)

    And the International community seems to be leaning more and more towards arming them thoroughly.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drewski)
    That's just article 5, one part, of the treaty, there are other articles that come in to play in other situations.
    I forget about article 23 c)iii)

    All members are allowed to secure foreign oil reserves as long as the divvy them up fairly between their buddies depending on who dropped the most bombs on said foreign nation.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aj12)
    Thing is. We don't have strategic interests in Libya. I only speak for the UK and US here but nether country gets large amounts of oil from Libya. We have private interests yes BP and no doubt other US companies had oil licences. But by intervening in what was never going to be a cut and dry intervention has just cost these companies money.

    True true. The UN seems to have a bad reputation for standing by and doing nothing. They need a full military force really made up off troops from all nations for operations like this.
    Oh but we were going to. The US doesn't, hence why they're trying to get as far away from the whole thing as possible. It will cost us more if the oil contracts went to the Russians or the Chinese.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    I hope Britain secure no oil from Libya.
    • Political Ambassador
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by R£SP£CT)
    I hope Britain secure no oil from Libya.
    We don't need to. In fact all this intervention has done is **** up any oil contracts we did have.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    http://www.google.com/search?sourcei...n+to+take+over

    http://www.todayszaman.com/news-2391...operation.html

    http://uk.reuters.com/article/2011/0...72N3CL20110324

    The UK, Italy, France, the US all called on NATO to take over operations as no one wanted to be in command of this operation. It is that lead country that will essentially get blamed, which is why NATO was "urged" to take over to make it not look like one entity was doing all the work or leading the work, but a collective, which is essentially what NATO is.
 
 
 
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.