Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame
I would bet my life savings on no ground forces (especially from the U.S.) in Libya. Air strikes are one thing, but escalating with an already stretched-thin U.S. military force is diplomatic suicide. If anything, there is going to be a no-fly zone with French and/or Arab League aircraft doing any sort of strikes.
Also keep in mind that NATO does not engage if even one member is against it.
That all said, I fully expect Russia and/or China to veto this. If they don't, it will be abstentions and will probably condemn an attack of any sort, further weakening the effectiveness of the Security Council.
|
Sounds like they're going to abstain instead of veto. Even if they do abstain, I think this does the opposite of what you just said -- it shows the SC can actually get something done, albeit after agonizing amounts of talking and debating, and with it almost being too late.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by northcrunk
The resolution does allow 'protecting of citizens' with any force neccessary, millitary intervention will be allowed with this resolution
|
That's the whole point of it.