Get News & Views Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
UN Security Council Backs No-Fly Zone and Air Strikes
UN votes in favour of resolution authorising 'all necessary measures short of an occupation force' as Tripoli warns of counterattack
British and French military aircraft are preparing to protect the Libyan rebel stronghold of Benghazi after the UN security council voted in favour of a no-fly zone and air strikes against Muammar Gaddafi's forces.
Gaddafi loyalists in Libya. The Libyan defence ministry said it would target all air and maritime traffic in the Mediterranean in the event of foreign intervention. (Mohamed Messara/EPA) With Gaddafi's troops closing in on Benghazi, the French prime minister, François Fillon, said "time is of the essence" and that France would support military action within hours of the vote. But US sources were more cautious, speaking of action in days rather than hours.
Fighter jets and bombers could take off from French bases along the Mediterranean coast, about 750 miles from Libya. Several Arab countries have promised to join the operation. Washington supported the resolution, a complete turnaround after weeks of resisting no-fly zone proposals, but has not yet said what role, if any, it would play in military action.
The 15-member security council voted in favour of a resolution authorising all necessary measures, other than occupation, to protect civilians under threat of attack, including Benghazi. Ten members voted in favour, with five, including China, Russia and Germany, abstaining. The resolution ruled out putting troops on the ground.
Al-Jazeera TV showed rebels in Benghazi last night celebrating after the no-fly vote was announced. Gaddafi called the vote a "flagrant colonisation" and warned of dire consequences.
He also threatened that no mercy would be shown to residents of Benghazi who resisted him, and that he was ordering an attack on Benghazi beginning last night.
Earlier, his regime issued a strong warning that it would target all maritime traffic in the Mediterranean if it was targeted by foreign forces.
In a statement broadcast on Libyan television, the defence ministry said: "Any foreign military act against Libya will expose all air and maritime traffic in the Mediterranean Sea to danger and civilian and military [facilities] will become targets of Libya's counterattack."
Residents and a rebel spokesman reported three air strikes on the outskirts of the city on Thursday, including at the airport, and another air raid further south. There was also heavy fighting in residential areas of nearby Ajdabiya, where around 30 people were killed, the TV station al-Arabiya reported.
The UN resolution was co-sponsored by Britain, France, Lebanon and the US.
A security council source said the resolution would impose a no-fly zone over Libya but that was no longer enough. "The resolution authorises air strikes against tank columns advancing on Benghazi or engaging naval ships bombarding Benghazi," he said. Nato would have to meet before committing any forces.
The US secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, who is visiting Tunisia, said a no-fly zone would "require certain actions taken to protect the planes and the pilots, including bombing targets like the Libyan defence systems." David Cameron spoke to leaders of Arab countries on Wednesday night and yesterday to persuade them to take part. The US had demanded Arab involvement to ensure that the west could not be accused of imposing its will on the Arab world. The prime minister also spoke to African and European leaders as he lobbied for support for the resolution.
Speaking outside the UN security council in New York, Alain Juppé, the French foreign minister, said there was "reason to anticipate that some Arab countries will participate". But he said a land invasion was out of the question. "For us and in the resolution itself there is no question of having people on the ground in Libya."
Germany, which opposes a no-fly zone, remained sceptical about the value of military action. In an interview with the Guardian, Germany's foreign minister, Guido Westerwelle, said Berlin strongly opposed any military intervention in Libya or the use of air strikes against Gaddafi.
Westerwelle warned that the consequences of western military intervention were 'unpredictable' and could affect freedom movements in the Arab world. "Your own instinct is to say 'We have to do something'. But military intervention is to take part in a civil war that could go on for a long time. Germany has a strong friendship with our European partners, but we won't take part in any military operation and I will not send German troops to Libya," he said.
Instead, Westerwelle said there were non-force options that could still be used against Libya, including 'targeted sanctions, political pressure and international isolation."
"Considering alternatives to military engagement is not the same as doing nothing,' he said. He declined to say how Germany would vote ahead of this evening's vote in the UN security council.
William Hague, the foreign secretary, said the resolution was necessary "to avoid greater bloodshed and to try to stop what is happening in terms of attacks on civilians". The British and EU criteria for a no-fly zone – a demonstrable need, a clear legal basis and broad regional support – had all been met, he added.
"This places a responsibility on members of the United Nations and that is a responsibility to which the United Kingdom will now respond," Hague said in remarks at the Foreign Office shortly before heading for talks in Downing Street with Cameron around 11pm last night.
The air operation will be led by the US, Britain and France with help from other countries, including members of the Arab League. French planes will operate from bases on its Mediterranean coast. British planes are expected to fly from the sovereign base at Akrotiri in Cyprus.
"It will be a coalition of countries that have come together," one British government source said. Cameron and Barack Obama discussed the operation in a phone call. Ministers were holding talks late into the night in Downing Street to discuss the next steps.
The prime minister has ripped up his diary today to hold an emergency cabinet on Libya in the morning. He will then make a statement to MPs who are meant just to be discussing backbench private members' bills in the Commons.
Sir Malcolm Rifkind, the former foreign secretary, told the BBC: "I'm absolutely delighted. Without action of this kind, Benghazi would have been a bloodbath. By the standards of the last 20 years, this is a remarkable vote. This is a tremendous morale booster for Libyans."
Washington backed the resolution after the Arab League joined the calls for a no-fly zone. The Obama administration was stalled by a split between Clinton, who favoured the no-fly zone, and the defence secretary, Robert Gates.
Gates, although opposed to the no-fly zone, redeployed US naval vessels close to the Libyan coast and told the president that the military was capable of fighting on a third front. Speculation as to which countries would participate included Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Qatar.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
117 Comments so far
Show All"tabled by Britain, France and Lebanon"
Hezbollah sticking the boot into Gaddafi and getting revenge.
Indeed.
Here comes more killings for natural resources......
This whole plan is based on Tom Barnett's 2004 explosive and heavily studied book "The Pentagon's New Map" --- in which the entire swath of countries he calls the "GAP" are to be absorbed into the "OLD CORE" (which is the Western empire), and to be prevented from falling under the influence of the "NEW CORE" (easy to guess -- BRIC).
The geo-strategic plan is an up-dated version of the 1990's PNAC plan that precipitated the Iraq and Afpak wars --- but now expanding to include N. Africa, all Middle East, and South Central Asia.
This is a MUCH bigger and more carefully planned global war map for the current global Empire (politely called the "CORE") to engage in during the 2011 to 2020 time-frame.
Anyone who does not include in their research and analysis Barnett's "The Pentagon's New Map" is woefully underestimating the breadth, depth, and scope of this plan to expand from Iraq and Afpak wars to the full "GAP" (from Tunisia through Libya, Egypt, the whole Middle East, and all the way to the Chinese and Indian boarders).
As Cheney was infamous for saying, this is "BIG TIME" for the global Empire --- and must be stopped before it precipitates WWIII.
Alan MacDonald
Sanford, Maine
Liberty over violent empire -- People's Party
Let us recap: The Arabs, French, and British are sorted out as to their priorities. The US sits on its hands. No surprise there.
The Colonel states clearly that "there will be no mercy" to civilians in his invasion of Benghazi. He states that he will shoot down "civilian airliners over the Med" and shoot up (and sink) "civilian ships in the Med." No surprise there. He has been doing that for over 20 years. With impunity.
So: considering the tech advantage the West has, it can with zero risk demolish the aircraft, naval vessels, tanks, and gun carriages of the Colonel, and then he can go slug it out with the revolutionaries toe-to-toe, on the ground. Under those conditions, I predict he loses.
Then we are finally rid of this psycho killer madman, who mocks the world and slaughters the innocent, and loots his country. Why you would not seize the moment to dispose of this tin-pot dictator is beyond me.
What is unjust about defending those who would seek freedom from tyranny but lack the weapons to make it a fair fight?
It's not clear to me that this revolt is about "Freedom & Democracy;" rather, it seems like a civil war between tribes and there is no guarantee that the rebels will establish democracy.
The US needs to get its troops out of the middle east, not open up a new front.
That's right.
The US-NATO military is pretty desperate to create a diversion from its other debacles - Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia etc - hoping this one will be an easy win and create a perception of 'popular support' for 'humanitarian intervention'.
Still, this intervention is against the UN charter - except when sanctioned by the Security Council. Why Russia and China only abstained from voting instead of vetoing, is hard to understand considering how they may be up for 'humanitarian intervention' next. Unless they feel strong enough not to see it as a threat, and wishes NATO 'good luck' - i.e. bad luck - in the hope NATO will be bogged down in yet another sapping adventure, and tear apart in the process. The right-wingers in power in France and UK are at odds with their populations and much of EU on this intervention.
It's still baddd news for peace in the world.
Here is a radical concept that you - and a lot of Americans - can't seem to get through your American exceptionalism-riddled skulls: why is it any of our fucking business? Why do Americans think they are the cop of the globe? Why do Americans think they need to send their military behemoth to every single country every time there is even the slightest inkling of a war or a fight? Has it ever occurred to Americans that every country on this planet has the inalienable right to manage its own affairs WITHOUT our freaking intervention? Of course not. Especially if there is oil under the ground in that country.
It is a LIBYAN affair. Not American. NOw we are going to go and spend god knows how many BILLIONS of $$ that we don't have to get embroiled in a Libyan CIVIL WAR between warring factions there. Portions of Libyan citizens rose up against their leader. Good for them. They must have known that by doing so they would incur the wrath of that leader, and that fighting would ensue. Duh. They accepted that risk when they rebelled, and now they are fighting him and his armed forces. There will be deaths, there will be injuries. They knew that, too, when they rebelled. They obviously thought it worth the price or they wouldn't have risen up against Ghadaffi. Again: Good for them.
And again: how is their rebellion ANY OF OUR FUCKING BUSINESS??
The U.S. needs to quit sticking its nose where it does not belong. We could spend those billions of $$ on the American people, our unemployed, our crumbling infastructure, our failing educational system. What a radical concept!
Help me out here. Why should the people of LIBYA suffer for the sins of GW Bush and Obama?
Bush is no longer in office - other than being a criminal tool of the US neoconmen, his only link to a play by the US and hegemonic powers in Europe and Asia for the Libyan oil would be through his membership in the petro-club subunit of the US oligarchy. He shouldn't be part of this set of scoundrels. I would, however, include Netanyahu, Cameron, and Sarkozy in this group of opportunists, with Obama, Netanyahu, and those respective nations that they represent as the highly criminal element of the wrecking crew.
"So: considering the tech advantage the West has, it can with zero risk demolish the aircraft, naval vessels, tanks, and gun carriages of the Colonel, and then he can go slug it out with the revolutionaries toe-to-toe, on the ground. Under those conditions, I predict he loses."
Would you also predict that there are no civilian casualties?
"who mocks the world and slaughters the innocent, and loots his country. Why you would not seize the moment to dispose of this tin-pot dictator is beyond me."
There are many tin-pot dictators in the world, for example, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain. Do you propose that they all be removed by foreign militaries?
How does one treat two groups of clashing thugs? in this case, western imperialists versus the Libyan dictator? First, and foremost, we as westerners must condemn our own imperialist thugs for exploiting for imperialist ends the current plight of the Libyan people. If we could wrap the thugs' necks around fence posts we would, and we're working on it.
Second, we must condemn the Libyan dictator for failing to support the Libyan people's better interests, but we can't support western imperialists meddling in their affairs. What we can do is use the events as greater motivation to further establish our network of solidarity among the world's people, so that Libyans and everyone else can more easily cultivate a greater awareness of what we need to do to advance universal equity/justice and keep ourselves free from classist/imperialist oppression.
"we must condemn the Libyan dictator for failing to support the Libyan people's better interests"
I am assuming your statement is issued in ignorance. You need at least to acknowledge that he has used the oil money to provide excellent health, education, housing and unemployment benefits. Even the poor are well off in Libya. That was not so when his predecessor, the US puppet Idriss was on the throne. The oil profits went overseas instead, and the people were poor. And it will not be the case when the next US puppet is installed, either.
"I am assuming your statement is issued in ignorance. You need at least to acknowledge that he has used the oil money to provide excellent health, education, housing and unemployment benefits. Even the poor are well off in Libya. "
So have the rulers of Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Kuwait, UAE, Oman, etc. I await your support of them.
"And it will not be the case when the next US puppet is installed, either."
Why not? See, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Kuwait, UAE, Oman, etc.
I shall attempt to call a spade a spade in each case. You cannot say that the Libyans were poor, or not looked after. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libya#Economy
P.S. You must know that the Saudi royal family rely on US military power for their existence. They are already US puppets.
No, the Libyans are not poor. So what? Is that that great an achievement, given the amount of oil that Libya has? Libya is not a country with few / no natural resources. It has a lot of something that the rest of the world values. That is is not poor, should be a basic requirement.
"P.S. You must know that the Saudi royal family rely on US military power for their existence. They are already US puppets.
.."
Yes. Yet, Saudis are not poor. Nor are the people of the other oil-rich gulf Arab countries controlled by US puppets. In fact, some of them have extremely high standards of living, where in essence, everything that is considered basic public necessities, healthcare, education, basic living expenses, are provided by the government. The puppetry has not resulted in them being poor.
Saudi Arabia, & Kuwait, UAE use a strictly limited definition of citizenship to create a huge class of 'foriegn" workers who have virtually no rights and are hardly sharing inn the benefits of Saudi society.
In Libya, the sharing of the oil wealth has been both broader and deeper.
Your comparison is quite flawed, rfloh
"Saudi Arabia, & Kuwait, UAE use a strictly limited definition of citizenship to create a huge class of 'foriegn" workers who have virtually no rights and are hardly sharing inn the benefits of Saudi society.
"
Not really. All countries do this. All countries have the "strictly limited" definition of citizenship that SA, Kuwait, UAE, have.
"In Libya, the sharing of the oil wealth has been both broader and deeper.
"
Has it? Do non-citizens in Libya have the exact same rights as locals? Furthermore, do ALL non-citizens in Libya, regardless of where they are from, regardless of whether they are in Libya as engineers etc, or manual labourers have the same rights as citizens (in the Gulf countries, it is manual labourers whom are exploited and have few rights)
"Speculation as to which countries would participate included Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Qatar."
You see, those entities do not represent the Arab people. Those are dictatorships themselves, representing little more than concentrated power/control over petro-resources. Notice how the western media attempts to manipulate the reader with suggestions that western imperialism may somehow gain Arab support. If you really want to know if there is popular support in the Middle East for western intervention in Lybia, then ask the people. THE PEOPLE.
Good grief! I just don't understand most of the posted comnments any more than the idiocy of the leaders of britain, France and the U.S. - - especially the U.S.; we're already in two non-sensical wars where our "friends" the British and French have already left us to be on our own, and now our leaders want to embroil us in another endless war? Run the uber-rich corporatists and war-mongers out of the seats of power, both Democrats and Republicans!
By the dawn's early light we should be at war in Africa too.
We had better get on with it. Gaddafi is at the gates of Benghazi. Italy has just agreed to let France and Britain use her bases, which is enormously helpful.
Gaddafi is and always has been a brute and his people want rid of him. He has imported mercenaries to slaughter the Libyan people and the Arab League has sanctioned military action to stop him. Now let's get on with it, quickly. I was against Iraq, I am against Afghanistan, but this one is a just fight and should end with a better government in Libya, or at least the part that Gaddafi will not control. Unfortunately there will be many scores to settle in Libya, by both sides, and it will be nasty whatever the outcome.
However, the world is becoming increasingly unstable and whatever we do will not rebalance it. But again, here for once we are finally doing the decent thing.
Yes, they are doing the right thing here because you forget one thing while spewing more phony leftism... the Libyan people actually want this! Has anyone here mentioned that small fact? This is the only chance the rebels have to have any improvement in their conditions. And you privileged, "first world" liberals sit here and compare it to Iraq? It is nothing like Iraq. Nothing.
It's no naive and stupid! Of course the US and Europe are oil-hungry. But at least give the Libyans a chance to decide what they are going to do with their oil, at least let them decide their futures. You're being ideological at best, aesthetically and pathetically "moral" at worst.
"[T]he Libyan people actually want this!"
Which part of the Libyan people is that, prey? And how big is that part? And when was that survey done? And what alternatives where they presented with? And how well were the anticipated damage from NATO intervention explained, if a survey was done?
Get real. This is to unleash the Dogs of War yet again, to create more havoc, for corporations to fish for profits in.
It's very sad for people - those who don't have corporate "personhood".
I "dare" come on here because I am free to, that's why. It is called freedom of expression, which is what many Libyans would like, and I will not be intimidated.
They are not just 'gooks' either, they are in some cases actual friends of mine.
The US is an incredibly bizarre conflation of the introverted 'avoid the world at all costs' mentality juxtaposed with 'go in there and sort it out whatever the cost' interventionism. In this case Obama was totally undecided and I imagine American motives are, as always, a combination of factors, one of which will doubtless be to save the oilfields and another of which will be to stop a madman running amok and encouraging other Arab hardliners to stop reforms going ahead, which reactionary behavior would, and may, lead to even greater political crises in the Middle East. This is a complicated business.
Every political situation is different, and Gaddafi was selling oil perfectly happily to the west just a couple of weeks ago. The situation that has arisen is home grown and a result of social and political tensions that are too complicated to examine here. However, I reiterate, in this case western intervention has a moral basis and for once oil is not necessarily the primary factor in the world's response.
The Libyans deserve better than Gaddafi and Europe does not want to stand by and watch another series of massacres just a few miles across the Mediterranean..
The Libyans may deserve better than Ghaddafi. But this intervention is unlikely to achieve that.
"I "dare" come on here because I am free to, that's why"
Waving the US flag and spouting propaganda words wont get you far in every arena. Lots of us here dont think USA'n are free at all.
"However, I reiterate, in this case western intervention has a moral basis and for once oil is not necessarily the primary factor in the world's response"
So why did the USA not intervene in operation cast lead, or the invasion of Lebanon. The main difference here is OIL which the Libyans, and not US oil corporations are benefiting from.
Ulpian,
I agree!
My understanding of the Libyan situation is that it is essentially a tribal civil war.
It is not angels of democracy versus demons of autocracy.
To demonize one side while cannonizing the other is just so much war mongering propaganda and will convince few people on this site.
Do you have any friends?
Don't go ad hominem-attacking, 'richsmith2'. Stick to the topic - in this case a coming NATO-attack on Libya. - Will such an attack create less or more suffering for the Libyan people in toto? - That's the issue. My clear guess is "more".
The UK, France, and the US have an unquenchable thirst for oil. Anyone who compromises the supply has to go.
As long as it was an internal squabble, the US and UN were content to let the slaughter continue.
But now that expensive oil refineries and access to millions of barrels of oil production is at risk, the Oil Corporations are getting their Governmental puppets to slam yet another 'shitty little country up against the wall'.
THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH DEMOCRACY OR HUMAN RIGHTS!
It has everything to do with Corporate profits and Western oil addiction.
Any action the US and it's Western allies take will be seen as just more Imperial/Colonial interference by the inhabitants of the region. After all, Saudi Arabia would not have moved troops to assist in the occupation of Bahrain without the implicit permission of the US, it's single biggest oil client and arms merchant.
This can only backfire.
To establish a no-fly zone, the U.N-approved nations will have to destroy Libyan air defenses, which is an act of war against an nation which does not threaten any of the other U.N. nations.
Gaddafi, like Saddam Hussein, is a brutal dictator who would do anything to his own people to stay in power. That is horrific, but does not give these other nations the right to bomb Libya, just as they had no right to bomb Iraq. Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Iran, Syria, and other nations also have brutal dictators in power who are murdering and torturing their own people and crushing any movements toward democracy. Should the U.N. authorize no-fly zones over all of them, as well? When the corporatist-militarists finally succeed in devolving the U.S. into a complete fascist state, should we welcome U.N. forces bombing us to set up a no-fly zone here?
I am not aware of any strategic interest that should involve the United States in this. Secretary Gates is not aware of any either. Let the Europeans have at it, as long as we stay out...
Although I have no sympathy at all for Gaddafi's ways and his decades long tyranny over the Libyan people and hope that the rebels topple the tyrant, I am opposed to Western intervention in the affairs of Libya and consider the imposition of a no-fly zone to be as unacceptable an intervention as an invasion by ground troops.
I hope that Russia and China will veto the resolution.
.
This is another Viet Nam.,,,,,,,,How many war-fronts can the United States of America handle, at the same time ???????????????????
The International Munitions Manufacturers and and weapons Brokers are raking up the BIG BUCKS.
//
Yes, they are doing the right thing here because you forget one thing while spewing more phony leftism... the Libyan people actually want this! Has anyone here mentioned that small fact? This is the only chance the rebels have to have any improvement in their conditions. And you privileged, "first world" liberals sit here and compare it to Iraq? It is nothing like Iraq. Nothing.
It's no naive and stupid! Of course the US and Europe are oil-hungry. But at least give the Libyans a chance to decide what they are going to do with their oil, at least let them decide their futures. You're being ideological at best, aesthetically and pathetically "moral" at worst.
Seems like Obama is damned if he chooses to do nothing on behalf of the Libyan people who are attempting an uprising against Gadhafi, and damned if he does. So it goes.
I do note, though, that Hugo Chavez seems to have gotten a free ride throughout this ordeal -- in spite of being such a good buddy of Gadhafi, and in spite of having the balls to argue that Gadhafi has "not attacked any Libyan civilians". Sheesh. Talk about an asshole.
It is totally appropriate to be suspicious of western motives in this whole fiasco. But it is also appropriate to have some sympathy for the rank-and-file of Libya, who are being treated like pawns in this ridiculous global political game.
Something tells me the revolutionaries in that country just might just LIKE to have a no-fly zone over their country right now, as they watch Gadhafi's army slaughter their compatriots. Maybe we should ask them, rather than jump to our own conclusions.
But we've already made up our minds. USA, bad. Venezuela, good. Slaughtered revolutionaries, unfortunate. It's getting harder and harder to keep all of this straight.
Most nations of the world, at least those who are woefully dependent on oil and don't have much of their own, were so called "good buddies" of Gaddafi before this crap and the auto-genocide started. You must remember that Gaddafi and Chavez have one very strong sentiment in common - their visceral hatred for the US. Remember also the old proverb "the enemy of my enemy is my friend".
Do you have some reason for dragging Chavez into the mix?
"the Libyan people actually want this!"
You are either being dishonest, or you are swallowing western propaganda whole. You call it a "small fact", when it should have been called a "big western media fabrication". Even the rebels have repeatedly said that they do not want western intervention. How clear can you get. No means NO!
I want to go on the record, right here, right now, that this is a bad idea.
To the posters who say that they are against the war in Iraq, and against the war in Afghanistan, but THIS one.... THIS one is a just war- well, I'd refer you to the infamous quote by GW: "Fool me once, shame on me. Fool me twice....uh.... can't be fooled again."
Did you notice that nearly a month ago, before even the supposed "policy makers" in Washington were on-board with a no-fly zone, when the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs was telling us what a BAD idea it was-- the media (yes the media owned by huge multinational corporations) were beating the war drum on this thing? The "commentators" and "analysts" have been pushing this thing like crack. And now, ta-da! here it is? So who is pulling the strings here? Think about it.
One of my favorite statements was from Wolfy over at CNN back IN FEBRUARY!!!. When asked whether the US could impose a no-fly zone without UN Security Council approval, he said that "the US is the sole superpower, it can do whatever it wants." Nice. And this isn't even the "right wing" news source.
The last two wars were served to us all wrapped up in a pretty package as well. Don't forget. Don't get fooled again. Its just another con. Hit the streets, No war in Libya.
This has security council approval. What is your point? This is not about US sole superpower action. Iraq was.
My point is that TWICE in the past decade, in the heat of the moment, many good-intentioned people on the left were sold a heartwarming story of the heroic West intervening to save an oppressed people who would welcome us as liberators. These were tales woven by a media completely under the control of the corporate elites who had everything to gain by these military interventions. And innumerable numbers on the left bought it.
My example of the CNN commentator's statements about the "irrelevancy" of UNSC approval was merely to illustrate that the corporate war machine was already prepared in the event this approval was not granted. Weeks before a resolution was even presented to the Council, they were selling the story that UN approval doesn't even matter- it was just icing on the cake.
I know it sounds like a good story. So did the other two wars we got into. But after we've been lied to twice, why should we believe anything that we have been told about what is happening here? Shouldn't we be at least a little suspicious of another war being sold to us 24/7 on cable news?
The Security Council will endorse anything the US, France and Britian want. The history of these three countries in the Middle East and North Africa has always been to grab resources, squelch enlightened independence movements, assassinate popular leaders, divide the populations and back all this up with bombing and paid thugs.
That's incorrect. Do you forget that China and Russia also play a role? I don't know what the vote was, but had either of those two powers opposed this action as both did at the start of the Libyan uprising, it wouldn't have been taken.
I am not speaking about abstractions, but what seems to happen in reality. Theoretically, between the permanent members and the temporary members, they could outvote US, UK and France.
The Brutal dictators are allowed as long as they do what the US says, so doesn't that make the US leaders dictators as well??--Bush started out right away in repeating exactly what the leader in Germany did 1933, and Obama follows. Gates was with the CIA, --in the Contra Affair mess with Bush Sr. -the wars with Bush Jr. and now Obama. He loves bloody wars, and has no problem seeing people die, even children. If sanctions are to be over Libya why not the US simese twin ISRAEL??? --All the Atrocities over 68 years, especially GAZA?
Oh, goody. More war. Can't get enough war. Send other peoples' kids, though. War, baby. WAR!!!! HELL YEAH!!!!
Arlo: "I wanna see blood 'n gore 'n guts 'n veins in muh teeth..."
I have a feeling that this move by the US and its NATO allies is something like what Stalin did to the Polish resistance during WW2. Stalin wanted to rout the Nazis and could have done so, but he also feared joining the cause of the Polish resistance, who he didn't want to have any influence in post-war Poland. What he wanted was a destruction of both the Nazis and Polish resistance , so it would be a country that would fall under the yoke of Soviet influence. He merely waited it out until the Nazis and Polish resistance had battered each other, and came in and cakewalked over the Nazis there.
All of the delaying tactics by the US and NATO allies seems to be a calculated strategy to let Qaddafi wipe out the rebels and then come in like heroes later and wipe out Qaddafi and put some pro-western puppet government in power that perhaps plays a good shell game like Obama in seeming progressive and responsive to popular demands when really serving up the country to corporate interests on a silver platter. That way the West will seem like the good guys and they can secure supplies of Libyan oil. I'm actually surprised that South Africa, one of the non-permanent security council members and generally a supporter of non-intervention voted for this garbage.
Whoever the dictator, whatever the cause, intervention by Western powers never can be good. There's no world policeman, fireman, etc. Only national self-interest in sheep's clothing.