The UN Security Council prepares to vote on a resolution imposing a no-fly zone and other...


The UN Security Council prepares to vote on a resolution imposing a no-fly zone and other military measures against Libya. Watch live here. View full resolution here (pdf).

From other sites
Comments (5)
  • 1980XLS
    , contributor
    Comments (3360) | Send Message
     
    I Think the horses have already left the Barn, Don't you think?
    17 Mar 2011, 06:36 PM Reply Like
  • dieuwer
    , contributor
    Comments (2910) | Send Message
     
    What happens when we have repeat of the Tiananmen Square protests? Bomb China??
    17 Mar 2011, 07:23 PM Reply Like
  • bob adamson
    , contributor
    Comments (4560) | Send Message
     
    Dieuwer –

     

    Yes it’s an imperfect world where the really big guys get a free pass to get away with things not permitted to smaller fry. Acknowledging that this is often so in practice, we should still not belittle the occasional good action simply because it would probably not be duplicated in certain other foreseeable circumstances.

     

    Agreed?
    17 Mar 2011, 08:11 PM Reply Like
  • Tack
    , contributor
    Comments (16175) | Send Message
     
    This is pure bully-ism, absent any lofty principle. And, even the no-fly zone is a weak-kneed approach to ignoring principles in an attempt to be politically correct and support "the people."

     

    No-fly zone? What's that mean? If you can win this engagement on the ground, Mr.. Ghaddafi, it's OK, but if you want to kill people with planes, we're indignant? This is childish political nonsense.

     

    If the U.S., or any other sovereign, is committed to Ghaddafi's removal by force and wishes to engage therein, then, they should have the "cojones" to launch a full-scale military effort and dispense with all the tissue-thin obfuscations of no-fly zones. This is just a travesty.

     

    Personally, I am firmly against intervention because there is no threatened U.S. interest that is served by a no-fly zone or an invasion. In fact, U.S. interests may be threatened if Ghaddafi, the only true organized power, is removed and further civil war and/or Islamic fundamentalism takes his place. I suppose our politically-correct government cares not a whit to assess this "realpolitik" reality, as long as they can be seen as doing 'good "for 'the people."

     

    Libya is an internal affair, or at worst, one to be resolved by Arab nations, themselves. If we don't like the outcome because we fell genuinely threatened, at that time, then, we can take direct military action to protect our own interests, which is the only justification for U.S. involvement.
    17 Mar 2011, 08:49 PM Reply Like
  • fxmaven
    , contributor
    Comments (1469) | Send Message
     
    For once we agree Tack.

     

    But you forget the west is bankrupt, and needs cheap oil, and is therefore willing to sacrifice its sons and daughters to keep the military industrial complex going. so there is no choice but to intervene.

     

    therefore we most likely see a failed intervention, leading to chaos and even higher oil prices (and inflation/recession if not in the cards already)
    17 Mar 2011, 10:38 PM Reply Like
DJIA (DIA) S&P 500 (SPY)
ETF Hub
ETF Screener: Search and filter by asset class, strategy, theme, performance, yield, and much more
ETF Performance: View ETF performance across key asset classes and investing themes
ETF Investing Guide: Learn how to build and manage a well-diversified, low cost ETF portfolio
ETF Selector: An explanation of how to select and use ETFs