It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by RichardPrice
Nice to see the UN/NATO thinks it has the right to interfere in a governments internal operations....
Originally posted by CanadianDream420
Originally posted by RichardPrice
Nice to see the UN/NATO thinks it has the right to interfere in a governments internal operations....
That's what happens when you openly bomb and praise the death of protestors.
Sorry.
I know they have oil and U.S gov't cracks down on their own protestors..
It's just that kind of world.
Originally posted by Daedalus3
While I didn't quite intend this to be a political thread (more of a tactical one rather), but my opinion is that anything with a UN mandate is quite legitimate and justified.
However, we are talking about a UN mandated no fly zone here, not a full blooded unilateral invasion. That to against a fat dictatorial and delusional regime which came to power through a coup (4 decades ago!) and is trying to bomb its people who are revolting..
Sort of different from the the other scenarios.
Why wasn't it applied in Darfur? Well you got me there.
Originally posted by thebozeian
reply to post by RichardPrice
Richard I whole heartedly agree with you and what's more consider the following.
If the UN is so interested only in the altruistic ideals of freedom of expression/ freedom from fear or death, and NOT anything to do with oil, then where the hell are they in Myanmar? Or for that matter why haven't they formally re-entered North Korea? After all nobody believes that either of those two countries is a democratic and peaceful paradise now do they?
LEE.
Not at all because we are facing escalation of this conflict that is still very one-sided in terms of the capacity of Gaddafi to do damage on the civilian population. I don't think there is any lack of moral clarity about this. There are real arguments about what would actually work best, whether it is a no-fly zone or support for people on the ground.
My own view is that a no-fly zone would be extremely effective in redressing the balance - the imbalance - we are seeing at the moment.
Originally posted by Virgil Cain
reply to post by Daedalus3
A question: If they could get to the pilot, wouldn't they send in a team to "clean up" the wreckage? I imagine that there are some pieces of equipment that they would prefer not to have floating around. An airstrike might accomplish the same thing, but it seems there are a number of people milling about. Is there a procedure they follow in theses circumstances or is it addressed on a case by case basis?