To want us to butt out of Libya's business

[bupcakesandcunting]

I know there are reasons for why we probably can't or for why were are obliged to "help" but I have a bad feeling about this. I feel like we're poking at a hornet's nest with this one and we're going to get stung.

AIBU to wish that we could just keep out of this? Can any clever MNers with more knowledge talk about why we are obliged to help/what the consequences will be if we don't stop with the no-fly zone? I read that the Arab Leaague are a bit at us already and I don't think we should be annoying them, really. The whole thing worries me quite a bit :(

But the UN isn't the world's policeman.

It's just a room where people meet to talk.

Plenty of people in the UK are saying we shouldn't be in Libya, because we can't afford to. Would British voters elect a party who went in to every country?

What's your answer Hecate? To turn our backs on everyone? If we can't help one country, we shouldn't help any? The cynicism is understandable, but not helpful. And it purveys a negative view of the UN. Would the world be better without the UN, do you think?

Then China would be the world's policeman.

Yes Concordia, because our country is legally obliged to intervene in preventing massacre and genocide. I would say we're ethically obliged too.
It's not legally obliged to provide childcare for DV counselling, or even the counselling.
Sad, emotive stuff.

Sorry, I meant topic, not stuff.

except that was not my point. my point is not whether we should or should not be in libya, my point was if this is justified in libya, it should be justified in somalia, it should be justified in bahrain... my point is the selectiveness. why is one dictator supported by the west and another toppled when they both treat their people the same?

one is our mate so we keep him there - we support him! one is not so we go in to get control of the supplies.

how they treat their people is not what determines whether or not we send troops in.

please read my posts, I implore you. i have never said that we should not get involved.

in any case, the un is a club, truly controlled by who bungs most into the kitty.

he who pays the piper calls the tune...

I know, I know, I did read your posts. It's just it's very easy to say how hypocritical the West is, we all know the history, we all know it's true. But it's not actually helping anyone out there.

Here is why there has been selectiveness up to now.

As you know only too well, there is no dictator in Somalia to topple. A no fly zone would be useless. The country is in anarchy. The best option would be for NATO to occupy the country, unite the tribes, kill terrorist group Al-Shabaab and impose democracy. It's just not that simple.

The wheels are already in motion for Bahrain. There will be a special session at UNHRC this week on what is happening there. Just as this Libya action began. Watch this space.

As for the other dictators... Saudi, China, Burma, Iran, North Korea, Turkmenistan, Sudan, Zimbabwe, Eritrea... well, either they are at least in conversation at the UN and the Human Rights Council and at least are promising on the surface to improve, they aren't currently committing genocide, or the countries are so closed the west, or even the press, can't get in to get current evidence of atrocities that will stand up before the Security Council.

The UN is not allowed to just commit regime change. That is illegal. They can only take military action to protect people.
Obviously Iraq happened with the UN's backing.

I've got to sign off now, but it's been an interesting debate, albeit with no conclusion

earlier post, please read withOUT the UN's backing. It's definitely time for bed

Here's a pessimistic bit from the CBS website today:

""Libya is a big deal and not helpful to the world economy. At a minimum: Oil supplies disrupted, oil price increase is a drag on growth, war expenditures rip another unbudgeted hole in the budget ... Worst case: All of the above, plus: Qaddafi survives and Libya is split between east and west (Benghazi and Tripoli). Egypt exerts dominance over the Benghazi half. Qaddafi teams up with al Qaeda and unleashes a wave of terror in Western Europe in revenge for U.K., Italy and French participation in the coalition, Russia rearms Qaddafi, China gets the oil and Europe is driven closer to Russia (energy dependence now with no nuclear coming online and no Libyan oil). Over time, this starts to look like Iraq from 1991-2003, with a no-fly zone and ineffective oil-for-food sanctions and Saddam (now Qaddafi) still in power and a permanent thorn in our side. ... Markets hate uncertainty and this situation has nothing but."

An even more rogue and treacherous Qaddafi aligning with al Qaeda and using its oil to trade for arms, as well as other parts of the region, such as Yemen, spiraling out of control, isn't a future that the West wants to see."

Yemen is not out of control. At least not anymore then usual, since it has a long history of unrest.

The people are working in a generally peaceful manner to change their government.

As for a Libyan civl war spreading to other Arab countries, that is highly, highly unlikely.

Link to BBc report on Yemen. Three senior military commanders joined the protestors today, and tanks deployed on streets of the capital. Live fire into crowds since last Friday. Well beyond even Yemeni "normal".

Yes, it's called an uprising. Good for them.

Western pearl clutchers who'd rather the people suffer under a 'stable' dictatorship need to STFU. Not a term I usually use, but it's about as polite as I can be about such thinking.

Anyone else see tonight's "Real Crime with Mark Austen".

Lovely timing - it reviewed the Yvonne Fletcher case.

I only read the first two pages (in a bit of a rush and started getting panicked so thought I'd look it up quickly) and I found this which answers the question about why nobody else is getting involved. According to the BBC article, US, France, UK, Belgium, Denmark, Italy, Canada, Spain and Qatar have all signed up to help and sent in a collection of their own fighter planes. Sure, the majority of those countries sent in a fraction of what US, UK and France have done, but at least the UK isn't the only country to be ruffling Russia's feathers.

Why are you worried about Russia?

Western pearl clutchers who'd rather the people suffer under a 'stable' dictatorship need to STFU. Not a term I usually use, but it's about as polite as I can be about such thinking.

I guess I am included in that. Well, I feel the same about people who have strong opinions but live in the Uk and get their info from their "newspapers".
I bloody well live here, work here and am entitled to my opinion. You STFU.

Jasminetom - My remark was clearly aimed at meditrina as it was her who complained about Yemen not being stable. And I do far more then read the papers thanks.

I wasn't complaining.