In September 2005, at the United Nations World Summit, all Member States formally accepted the responsibility of each State to protect its population from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. At the Summit, world leaders also agreed that when any State fails to meet that responsibility, all States (the “international community") are responsible for helping to protect peoples threatened with such crimes and that they should first use diplomatic, humanitarian and other peaceful methods. Then, if such methods are inadequate and if national authorities are “manifestly failing” to protect their populations, they should act collectively in a “timely and decisive manner” -- through the UN Security Council and in accordance with the Charter of the UN -- by using force.

The World Summit Outcome Document further stresses the “need for the General Assembly to continue consideration of the responsibility to protect”.

From - http://www.un.org/preventgenoc...responsibility.shtml

Well said Kaytee. I agree with all that you say. It just is not our right to interfere. If we did, then why do we not sort Mugabee out and the like. As much it is sickening watching what is going on from the comfort of our armchairs, we still have no right to send in the armed forces. It is a real tragedy  for all the Libyans and foreign nationals involved over there, but we and the U.N. should keep our distance and see what happens. If Gadaffi has dangerous chemical and biological weapons up his sleeve (as has been reported to unleash on his own people, and the rest of us) then it will be a different matter.

No offence Cologne and i know youre entitled to your views, but I think (like I said on here a few days back,) that we need to keep our sticky beaks out of the East's business.  This country has its own problems and can ill afford to survive as we're so broke, never mind spending billions of pounds someone elses war.  (Not to mention the cost of British soldiers lives!)  No we definately should not intervene.  It's nothing to do with us. I am sick of the west butting into other peoples wars and conflict. 

He cant get away with murdering his own people Cameron has basically now said he will do what we have to and not to rule anything out as far as military action goes,how we do it goodness knows as his government has carried out  all these cuts on the forces and have already made redundancies  perhaps he may realise now this was a mistake as we need our soldiers/ planes /ships weapons etc if we are asked for help we should give it until then I think we should keep out of it or it could turn into another Iraq war and the question being once again would it be legal.

Marg. This is the dilema. We will be damned if we do (intervene) and damned if we don't.........

A 'no fly zone' would give them, at least, a fighting chance of survival.
Nobody is suggesting a full blown invasion, as far as I know, but it's going to look pretty bad, if we don't at least try to prevent the slaughter of more civilians.

Blizzie I know what you are saying and have agreed he should not get away with it, when we invaded Iraq I remember looking at my telly when they were trying to pull down the statue of saddam the Americans assisted them it was brilliant viewing,but the people of Irag soon turned against us saying we should not interfere etc A no fly zone is good but it could lead to more military action,I think it would be better if they asked for our help and then us give them all the help which is needed rather than take things into our own hands,as Sezit said we are damned if we do and damned if we dont..

 Back atcha! 

We operated no fly zones over Northern Iraq, to protect the Kurds, and Southern Iraq, to protect the Shia, for ten, or more years, Marge, between the first and the second Gulf Wars. It prevented Saddam slaughtering more Kurds and Shias, from the air, at least.

To be honest, I believe the Iraqis would not have turned against us, if the aftermath hadn't been handled so badly. The vast majority wanted to be free of Saddam and were shocked that we kicked him out of Kuwait and then left him still in charge of them. The UN sanctions regime was a pointless mess, which allowed him to carry on building his palaces, while letting his people suffer.

As for the Libyans, they are asking for help, and I hate to think how they will feel about the international community, if we just stand by and allow wholesale slaughter, again.

a no fly zone  will only work if gaddafi's pilots respect it, which i doubt they will, which will mean we will get into shooting them down  in order to enforce  it, and shooting  a libyan  plane down is in itself an act of war, so   if gaddafi doesnt  go, we'll get hauled into the conflict anyways.

Blizzie I did not realise they had asked for our help if so the International Community will help they will not stand by and watch innocent people being murdered

Hi jacksonb

Blizzie......anything done to support the Libyans would have to have UN approval.....and that ain't going to happen anytime soon. Moreover, to enforce a *No Fly Zone* the Libyan air defences would need to be *disabled*...and that is several steps too far at the moment and wouldn't be approved by the UN Security Council unless a humanitarian disaster, such as Kosovo,was actually seen to have occurred. Other than that, then the west has no business there

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Ho...ideo/201103115943530
 
 
(Watch the full interview via sky interactive)