Could Italy's Past and Proximity Influence Their Potential Involvement in Libya?

[Pattonias]

Should the UN decide to enforce a no-fly-zone over Libya would that mean that UN forces would shoot down any Libyan military aircraft that fly above their own country? Has anything like this ever been done before anywhere else?

 

[russ_watters]

Yes, no... Why would we do that?

 

[Proton Soup]

UN are worthless as military agents. they stood by in Rwanda, then got slaughtered with the rest.

if somebody must be sent, let the europeans handle it. they're the ones depending on libyan oil.

 

[Pattonias]

This is the why ==>http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/babylonbeyond/2011/02/libya-un-officials-says-a-no-fly-zone-may-be-necessary-to-protect-civilians.html" I'm just wondering if there is any real precedence for something like this. I know this isn't the best article, but it is mentioned fairly frequently in most articles about the conflict.

 

[Proton Soup]

yeah, so?

 

[Pattonias]

What?

Your saying there is precedence, but it must be so common place that it warrants no discussion?

 

[WhoWee]

UN are worthless as military agents. they stood by in Rwanda, then got slaughtered with the rest.

if somebody must be sent, let the europeans handle it. they're the ones depending on libyan oil.

I suppose a case could be made to have Italy go clean up their mess - good idea!

 

[Proton Soup]

What?

Your saying there is precedence, but it must be so common place that it warrants no discussion?

i think the UN is full of people who think they are the center of the universe, with lots of chiefs and no indians. so, a "high-ranking official" means squat.

there is precedent, but it is that they can never agree to do more than send blue helmets to make a presence. then UN can pretend it is doing something.

you actually think UN will act forcefully? i don't think so.

 

[cobalt124]

The U.N. can't enforce anything. They were never mandated to.

 

[russ_watters]

This is the why ==>http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/babylonbeyond/2011/02/libya-un-officials-says-a-no-fly-zone-may-be-necessary-to-protect-civilians.html"

She sounds like she hasn't even begun to put a rational thought into the implications of what she's proposing. The world is currently staying out of what is purely a civil war. Any little military action means you're all-in and the military and political implications of joining a civil war in the ME can't be overstated.

I'm just wondering if there is any real precedence for something like this. I know this isn't the best article, but it is mentioned fairly frequently in most articles about the conflict.

Not really. The two closest I can think of are:

1. Yugoslavia, 1993, UN/NATO no fly zone over Bosnia to prevent Serbs from bombing it. This was done partly to stop a civil war, but there was actual genocide/ethnic clensing underway, which is not the case in Libya. This was also on NATO's "home turf", against Europeans, not in a Mid-East terrorist's hornet's nest.

2. After the first Gulf War, no fly zones were set up over the northern and southern edges of Iraq to protect civilians that Saddam liked to kill. Big difference between this and that: we were already at war with Iraq.

 

[WhoWee]

Again, Italy is the logical choice to intervene.

http://content.usatoday.com/communi...out-libya-with-britain-france-and-yes-italy/1

"Italy colonized Libya in the decades before World War II, the two countries are located near each other, and Libyan refugees are already landing in Italy."

Italy is also a large trading partner - oil.