posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 04:31 PM
reply to post by billxam
Yeah ive noticed that as well.. Ive seen some media outlets go into the no troops thing coupled with countries in the M.E. not all that keen on
American Military presence. Speculation is to get the point across this is not a "unilateral US" action, but a UN action lead by Europeans and
Middle East nations.
As far as the ships off the coast go, Pentagon briefing was talking about 112 missiles being launched. I didnt get all the finite details on that
(cruise missiles or what). I am assuming since it was the Pentagon that they were American.
This is pretty intresting for a few reasons, but the one glaring discrepancy I see is the no fly zone itself. All of the UN no fly zone resolutions
specifically dealt with stopping the targeted country from using air assets. It allowed UN forces to only defend against attacks from the ground.
In this case, UN aircraft are authorized to engage ground targets regardless if they were fired on, removing the defense provision and allowing an
Essentially the UN just sided with the rebels and is actively assisting to over throw the Libyan Government.
I am curious if this is going to be a one time fluke, or if its the start of a new doctrine... If its a start, then Pandoras Box is going to be opened
and anytime the citizens of a country do mass demonstrations to remove their government, the UN will be right there with them.
China....Iran.....Syria....Saudi Arabia..... Bahrain....etc etc etc etc...
While ive always complained about the UN being spinless, does anyone else think the pendulum just massively swung into the opposite direction? Have we
finally reached a point in the affairs of the planet that actions are going to replace words now?
Good thing? Bad thing?