Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
West Pounds Libya, Kadhafi Vows 'Long War'
TRIPOLI – US, British and French forces have hammered Libya from the air and sea, prompting leader Moamer Kadhafi to warn on Sunday of a long war in the Mediterranean "battlefield".
A Libyan man carries a blanket to cover the body of a loyalist soldier killed in a French air strike on the outskirts of Benghazi. Photograph: Finbarr O'Reilly/Reuters The US military said the first stage of coalition raids under a UN Security Council remit to enforce a no-fly zone over Libya had been "successful" and Kadhafi's offensive on the rebel stronghold of Benghazi stopped in its tracks.
In Benghazi itself, medics and AFP correspondents said at least 94 people had died in an assault launched on Friday on the Mediterranean city by forces loyal to Kadhafi before the coalition onslaught.
In the West's biggest intervention in the Arab world since the 2003 US-led invasion of Iraq, mounted exactly eight years earlier, US warships and a British submarine fired more than 120 Tomahawk cruise missiles into Libya on Saturday, the US military said.
Top US military commander Michael Mullen said the initial part of the coalition's campaign "has been successful," and that Kadhafi's forces "are no longer marching on Benghazi."
And Admiral William Gortney told reporters at the Pentagon that the cruise missiles "struck more than 20 integrated air defence systems and other air defence facilities ashore."
Nineteen US planes, including three B2 stealth bombers, took part in early morning raids Sunday, the Germany-based US Africa Command said.
Command spokesman Kenneth Fidler said F15 and F16 fighters were used in the raids on Libyan "integrated air defence systems," and he put the number of Tomahawk missiles fired by the United States and Britain on Saturday at 124.
In dawn raids, B-2 stealth bombers dropped 40 bombs on a major Libyan airfield in an attempt to destroy much of the Libyan Air Force, other US military officials said.
On the ground, AFP correspondents and rebels said dozens of Libyan government military vehicles, including tanks, were destroyed on Sunday morning in air strikes west of Benghazi.
The bodies of African fighters in khaki-coloured uniforms could be seen amid a pile of smashed up tanks and burned artillery cannons at a site 35 kilometres (20 miles) from Benghazi, the sources said.
According to the rebels, French warplanes led coalition air strikes on the site for two hours from 0330 GMT on Sunday.
A furious Kadhafi, whose country insists the attacks came despite its announced ceasefire, said on Sunday that all Libyans were armed and ready to fight until victory against what Tripoli has branded a "barbaric aggression."
"We promise you a long, drawn-out war with no limits," said the Libyan leader, who was speaking on state television for a second straight day without appearing in front of camera.
The leaders of Britain, France and the United States will "fall like Hitler... Mussolini," warned the strongman of oil-rich Libya who has ruled for four decades but been confronted with an armed uprising since mid-February.
"America, France, or Britain, the Christians that are in a pact against us today, they will not enjoy our oil," he said. "We do not have to retreat from the battlefield because we are defending our land and our dignity."
US President Barack Obama said the "Odyssey Dawn" operation launched under a UN Security Council resolution was a "limited military action," unlike the regime change aims of the war against Iraqi president Saddam Hussein.
He pledged no US troops would be deployed on the ground.
With the resolution backed by the Arab League, Qatari Prime Minister Sheikh Hamad bin Jassem al-Thani defended Doha's declared participation in the strikes on a fellow Arab state, saying the sole aim was to "stop the bloodbath."
AFP journalists reported a lull in the air strikes on Tripoli and that residents who had fled Benghazi were seen returning to the rebels' capital in eastern Libya.
But as Libya reported at least 48 dead in the West's air strikes, medics in Benghazi said 85 civilians and rebels were killed in fighting with Kadhafi's forces on Friday and Saturday.
Separately, AFP correspondents counted nine bodies of Kadhafi loyalists in a Benghazi hospital and more dead were expected to be brought in.
Britain said it was taking "every precaution" to avoid civilian casualties. "We should treat with some caution some of the things we see on Libyan state television," Finance Minister George Osborne told BBC television.
UN chief Ban Ki-moon said Kadhafi was now feeling the "unified will" of the international community through the military campaign.
"He has been killing his own people. He declared that he will search house to house and kill all the people. That is unacceptable," the UN secretary general told AFP in Paris.
The barrage came after the Security Council passed Resolution 1973 on Thursday authorising military action to prevent Kadhafi's forces from attacking civilians.
An AFP correspondent said bombs were dropped early Sunday in the greater Tripoli area, prompting barrages of anti-aircraft fire from Libyan forces in Bab al-Aziziyah, Kadhafi's headquarters in the capital.
State television showed footage of hundreds of Kadhafi supporters who it said had gathered earlier to serve as human shields at Bab al-Aziziyah and at the capital's international airport.
A Libyan official said at least 48 people were killed and 150 injured -- mainly women and children -- in the assaults, which began with a strike at 1645 GMT on Saturday by a French warplane.
State media said Western warplanes had on Saturday night bombed civilian targets in Tripoli, while an army spokesman said strikes also hit fuel tanks feeding the rebel-held city of Misrata, east of Tripoli.
Kadhafi, in a brief audio message on Saturday night also broadcast on state television, fiercely denounced the attacks as a "barbaric, unjustified Crusaders' aggression."
He vowed retaliatory strikes on military and civilian targets in the Mediterranean, which he said had been turned into a "real battlefield."
Libya's foreign ministry said that following the attacks, it regarded as invalid the UN resolution ordering a ceasefire by its forces and demanded an urgent meeting of the Security Council.
Resolution 1973 authorised the use of "all necessary means" to protect civilians and enforce a ceasefire and no-fly zone against Kadhafi's forces.
On Friday, Libya declared a ceasefire in its battle to crush the armed revolt against Kadhafi's regime which began on February 15 and said it had grounded its warplanes.
But the rebels said government troops had continued to bombard cities, violating its ceasefire.
Russia expressed regret over the attacks and said Resolution 1973 was "adopted in haste," while the African Union, which has opposed military action, on Sunday called for an "immediate stop" to all attacks.
China also voiced regret over the air strikes, saying it opposed the use of force in international relations.
But British Prime Minister David Cameron said he held Kadhafi was to blame for the escalation.
"We have all seen the appalling brutality that Colonel Kadhafi has meted out against his own people and far from introducing the ceasefire he spoke about he has actually stepped up the attacks and the brutality," said Cameron.
Elsewhere in the unrest-wracked Middle East, tens of thousands of people gathered in Sanaa on Sunday for the funerals of some of the 52 people killed in a bloody crackdown on protesters by loyalists of President Ali Abdullah Saleh.
58 Comments so far
Show AllWhat if the Egyptian Mubarak had the military with him and began slaughtering the protesters?
Does the world stand back, as Ron Paul would like, and permit Kadhafi to murder his opposition?
Yes, apparently it does: Yemen, Bahrain . . .
Do those places exist?
Are things happening there?
Are those things similar to what Khadaffi is/was doing in Libya?
Are "we" doing similar things in those places "to stop" those things that whoever the Kaddafi-characters are doing that are similar to Gadafi (from Libya)?
How can I know?
The Magic Picture Box doesn't show me THOSE things, only Qaddafi!
Silly!
Libya is a conundrum, as to whether to attack.
We had 250,000 civilians die in Algeria with no intervention and Sub Saharan Africa is generally ignored by USA.
And we had Gates visit Bahrain and 1,000 Saudi Troops invade the next day, with sniper slaughter of peaceful protesters the next day.
Unless your extremely naive . We see in Bahrain a USA orchestrated and backed slaughter of peaceful Democracy advocates.
.....War in Iraq, War in Afghanistan, War in Libya, WAR WAR WAR!!!!
Dear Congressman/woman ____________________,
8 years since Bush illegally invaded Iraq and the US is still there. In addition we are invading and occupying other countries in the middle east.
I urge you to join with Dennis Kucinich to bring debate to the floor on what I and many others consider a declaration of war in Libya. http://kucinich.house.gov/UploadedFiles/Kucinich_Letter_to_Speaker_Boehner_031811.pdf
Do Not Abdicate your responsibility to maintain the power of Congress to declare wars. Regain your obligation to your constituents to represent us at the national level.
Please stop this madness, it is insane!
Truly, your constituent,
_____________________
This article should have stopped blabing and started thinking when it said this: "The West's biggest intervention in the Arab world since the 2003 US-led invasion of Iraq, mounted exactly eight years earlier".
Why? To what end? Based on what pre-planning? Was it "the West", or the 'global Empire'?
Such questions and analysis would have been better than a weapons inventory of the Empire as other CDers have noted.
It is hard to believe that neither the supposedly well read Obama, the purported 'talking-head pundits', nor the NYT's experienced war cheerleaders are saying anything about the clear analogy between the 1990's PNAC plans that led to the 2003 Iraq war of aggression, and Thomas Barnett's 2004 book and plans for "The Pentagon's New Map" which is the similarly clear precursor to this expanded "GAP" war now starting in Libya.
This whole plan is based on Tom Barnett's 2004 explosive and heavily studied by CIA/MIC 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" rather than 'Empire') 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 2012
It should be noted that David DeGraw is exploring similar territory:
http://ampedstatus.com/the-road-to-world-war-iii-the-global-banking-cartel-has-one-card-left-to-play/
I will check out TPNM.
I just looked at a short review of Barnett's book. Whereas he seems to think the US elites have a benign goal, DeGraw is totally critical of the development of a global new world order led by US military power.
Headline sez: "Kahdafi vows 'long war'"
***
The MICC certainly hopes so.
Leave it to AFP to wait until the very last paragraph to mention the 52 people slaughtered by our man in Yemen. No "humanitarian intervention" for those poor saps, or, while we're at it, for the 1300 Gaza victims of Jewish terrorists or the nine aid workers executed by the Jew-stapo.
Amazing. In one fell swoop, the "West" deflects attention from the Iraq War anniversary and Japan, thus buying the nuclear industry time to get its story straight.
They don't want you to remember places like Indonesia and the Philippines, where tyranny was thrown off without any foreign "help".
Notice the "Japanese Milk and Food Irridated" article, full of renewable energy posters and not one nuke sociopath has been buried by CD?
Please avoid referring to Israeli terrorists as "Jewish terrorists" and "Jew-stapo." They do not act in the name of Judaism, but in that of the Israeli government.
Take out the war criminal / dictator!
Leave everybody else alone!
Oh! I see. We protect the criminals.
To "Posted by cruxpuppy Mar 20 2011 - 10:39am" all i can say is,
A sucker is born every minute- PT Barnum.
With pretended mindsets(one cannot be half rational and that optuse) like yours the coloniialist have had perpetual play at home and abroad. Has it yet occured to some dim wits that the UN and all these "international "bodies are the playthings of colonialist" . Trojean Horses.
In case you are confused, you can start with palestine, congo, northern uganda...So much icoherence
African Union and Arab League have denounced attack on Libya and renounced support.
US fascist command will ignore such inconveniences.
China and Russia could have blocked this resolution on their own. They chose to abstain.
I have little use for their diplomats now saying the West goes to far or these measures were not required. This akin to Pontius Pilate washing his hands in the bowl to show he was not guilty for shedding an innocent mans blood.
This is very much like how the Democrats operate inside the USA. They bitch and moan about tax cuts for the wealthy and austerity on the backs of the poor and then when they time comes up to cast a vote the somehow abstain or say they have to back their leader.
The Security council is useless.
Yes, Moscow and Peking should have vetoed this resolution, but Bill Fulbright voted for the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution in 1964. Later he said he regretted it and was wrong to do so. We all make mistakes. We have to understand the US and other Western power elties are putting up big time propaganda to steamroller this throught the UN Security Council. I'd surely have preferred that Moscow and Peking had voted against this. Even Eugene McCarthy didnt vote agaisnt the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution in 1964. Only Wayne Morse and Earnst Gruening in the senate did.
We have to go from here all of us to do the best we can to stop this "madness" as Martin Luther King Jr rightly called it. Each of us must protest in our own way.
"The Security council is useless."
Until the Permanent Seats (now sitting China, U.S.A, Russia, France and Great Britain in population order) are removed and all Council Seats are rotational and carry equal powers, than, yes, the Security Council. is a joke.
But not just them. The whole UN and UN concept is undermined by the Permanent Seats.
Time for them to go. But who but the current Five Permanent Members has the power to get rid of the Permanent Seats?
-matti.
@ gwnorth Mar 20 2011 - 12:15pm
Re: "China and Russia could have blocked this resolution on their own. They chose to abstain."
I agree with everything being said about the security council in general, but I can't help but wonder if this wasn't a highly calculated move -- especially on the part of the Chinese. By abstaining they cleared the way for the US and her allies to step in the proverbial shit, whle they remain uninvolved in any hostilities themselves. What do you think will be remembered in MENA (MidEast-NorthAfrica) long after Qaddafi is gone? Answer. The US military intervention in yet another Muslim country. Meanwhile China continues building extremely important relationships throughout Africa in a peaceful manner. Not a bad strategy.
More war? Excellent!! More profits!!!!
The decisive factor that come into play in the coming days is motivation. Will Kadhafi's forces stay in the field now that their opponents appear to be a tougher nut to crack? Will the anti-Kadhafi amateurs learn from their errors and engage their opponents in a manner that plays to their strengths (hint, Asymetrical warfare is the way to go for the folks from Bengazi)? How long will the West be willing to invest themselves in this civil war?
On Meet the Press Sunday morning, Senator John Kerry said that our attacks on Libya were not an act of war, but rather a humanitarian effort.
I seem to remember something: If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...
All those dead bodies are not just charred corpses of human being laying on the ground, but rather free Lybians enjoying the benefits of western humanitarian intervention.
Why is it necessary to "attempt to destroy much of the Libyan Air Force" after
degrading the Libyan "integrated air defence systems," in order to enforce the UN authorized no fly zone? As long as the Libyan planes stay on the ground, observing the no fly zone, what in the UN resolution authorizes the US attack on them?
Furthermore, what in the UN resolution authorizes the destruction of Libyan government military vehicles, including tanks, in air strikes west of Benghazi?
The "coalition" forces seem to be acting well beyond any UN authorization (which is not to admit the validity of the UN authorization).
The mandate authorizes any attack except ground occupation.
The narrative is that US no-fly zones (NFZ) are imposed for "humanitarian" reasons.
The no-fly zone in Iraq (1991-2003) never really harmed Saddam's forces or his arsenal. But we know that the no-fly zone and the concomitant sanctions created hell for the civilian population and caused at least 500,000 increased deaths of children to say nothing of stopping Saddam's repression.
In Serbia, the Srebrenica Massacre, killing 8,000 (July 1995) occurred AFTER the no-fly zone was imposed. So the NFZ wasn't much humanitarian help there either. But "we" have Camp Bondsteel in Kosovo: if not the largest, then, one of the largest US military bases in the world. Serbia has been occupied by the US military every since.
The US doesn't do humanitarian missions; that's just liberal propaganda. What no-fly zones really do is to lay the groundwork for occupation.
"sell them more planes and tanks in the future"
got it in one!
"Furthermore, what in the UN resolution authorizes the destruction of Libyan government military vehicles, including tanks, in air strikes west of Benghazi?"
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.N. Resolution 1973 is NOT simply an authorization for a "no-fly-zone":
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Authorises member states that have notified the secretary-general, acting nationally or through regional organizations or arrangements, and acting in co-operation with the secretary-general, to take all necessary measures, notwithstanding paragraph 9 of resolution 1970 (2011), to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, including Benghazi, while excluding a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note the key phrase: "to take all necessary measures...to protect civilians.... including Benghazi."
That obviously necessitated attacking pro-Gaddafi tanks, artillery and troops that had been on the verge of overrunning the rebel stronghold of Benghazi and massacring the civilian population there.
Thank you (for both posts). The scales have fallen from my eyes.
Does anyone know if this is true? I ran across this little piece by Andrew Sullivan: "The Obama administration was handed a gift by the Arab League, which in its more than six-decade history has garnered a well-earned reputation as a feckless talking shop, but unusually took a stand one week ago by endorsing a no-fly zone over Libya. That endorsement put the Arab League way out in front of the Obama administration, which was then dithering about whether to do anything of substance to help the rebels fighting Gadhafi.
The unexpected action by the Arab League gave the administration the impetus and diplomatic cover to then go to the United Nations Security Council to secure a broad resolution endorsing not only a no-fly zone, but also allowing member states to "take all necessary measures" to protect civilians in Libya.
And it took the Arab League less than 24 hours to abandon the operation. And so almost instantly, a central plank of this war's legitimacy has been revealed as a delusion.regarding the Arab League support."
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2011/03/our-allies-the-arab-league.html
And on the Imperial President:
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2011/03/the-imperial-president.html
it is rather baffling....................
There is something tragi-comical about the whole thing. we may yet end up with the eccentric crazy despot as the hero and centre of anti western sentiment.
this was so predictable, but such is the built in racism in the west that muslims, arabs, and africans don't even rate any analytical considerations. they can just be bombed under the flimsiest of excuses. so who needs to waste time on this vision and planning thing when we can just bomb, and have the whole jingoistic media roar its approval.
The problem is that the west can't afford another long drawn out war, so if he's not gone by day 3 they're screwed. with a long drawn out war gaddhafi has the potential to inflict serious damage to the already fragile western economies and recoveries. and the longer he holds out the more hero status he will acquire.
as for the protestors they are now among the victims of western bombing as well as bombings from his forces.
is the west that mediocre?...
"We have all seen the appalling brutality that Colonel Kadhafi has meted out against his own people and far from introducing the ceasefire he spoke about he has actually stepped up the attacks and the brutality," said Cameron.
Yeah, Gaddafi should follow the fine peaceful example of Britian's treatment of their own previous rebellion in Northern Ireland.
Wasn't Japan in the news for soemthing last week? I can't really remember that far back in time, but I know it seemed important at the time?
Damn this fog of war!!
You know, After being lied into Iraq, (for Israel/Wall Street/T. Jew banksters), Pakistan, trying to topple yet ANOTHER leader suported by his people, (Chavez), a reasonable person might realize that they're being played for suckers. The Nuclear-Rogue illegal nation of Israel has been murdering your troops and citizens, (not only immunity but YOUR OWN politicians run interference for them), since BEFORE they were given permission to slaughter and steal fro mthe Palestinians, they've set the stage for the renfield Class in D.C. to hustle you into yet MORE invasions in the M.E. where the CIA has done nothing but murder and topple governments for no other reason that they won't "play ball" with the U.S. of Israel and Israel proper. Does the term "NONE OF YOUR GODDAMN BUSINESS!" still mean nothing to you? Even with your massive unemployment, crumbling infrastructure, 50k fellows a year dying from lack of medical treatment......wow, talk about TERMINAL stupidity!
You expose your prejudice when you say : "Jew banksters." Has it ever occurred to you that Jews contribute greatly to our political, economic, social, and cultural well being.
They contribute to our way of life in so many ways. But, you say Jew banksters? You should check your head and think again, buddy.
If any group goes after any one ethnic group in our society like Hitler did, you are my mortal enemy.
I will hunt you down and kill you.
Some people need killing, buddy.
And Jew haters are those people. Prejudice feeds hatred and hatred feeds genocide.
If someone killed the NAZI before they got started, Hitler and the Holocaust would not have happened.
You have a weird view of history. Antisemitism flourished not merely in Germany but in France (Dreyfus!), England and the US. yet no killing program was ever contemplated in these countries. If you start the killing you will trigger a civil war of retribution. On Sicily that is known as Omerta.
"Jew banksters" is highly offensive. I thought such terminology had gone out with "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion."
The government of Israel represents only itself, not Judaism. Please avoid such thoughtless references to Jews in the future.
The House Negro got us into an another international war, now.
I don't know any Libyans. I don't care what they do to each other. I don't care if they kill each other. It is not my problem.
But the idiot shill in the White House got us targeted by another group of weirdos.
To paraphrase George W. Bush (our former idiot and chief)
"Great job, Barracky."
US military action against Libya serves USan elites' fundamental objective to keep themselves at the top of the headlines as the world's pre-eminent "movers/shakers", or in other words, to stop public initiatives/rebellions from claiming that prize.
Nothing is more important to the elite thugs occupying Washing-town than maintaining a leading role in the ongoing theater production of "Current Events" on the World Stage.
Lybia is a strange situation in that the west is so complicit in this mess. Yet our actions will have one clear implication - disturbance of nature that will show up in more severe weather in the US and potentially earthquakes.
"The earth is moving, the energy released by the bombs and explosions of the fighting in the Middle East is now finding its way through Nature. This is the boomerang effect — whoever is responsible for releasing the violent energy will find it rebounding on them."
- World Teacher Maitreya through an associate as reported by Share International
The U.S. insured Kaddafi could not quit by charging him formally with crimes against humanity, guaranteeing he would be hung if he surrendered and thus insuring this new war. Kaddafi killed fewer Libyans than the U.S. has already killed. Odd, isn't it, that the best two nations in the Middle East are being destroyed by the U.S.? Libya had the highest individual income in the area, the most freedom and overall the best nation in Northern Africa. It was the same in Iraq, the best in the Middle East. It's a way for the West to keep the people of the 3rd World down. When they start gaining ground, kill them and destroy their economy. If anyone needed tried for crimes, it is Mubbarak of Egypt and he's off with no problems.
"Libya had the highest individual income in the area, the most freedom and overall the best nation in Northern Africa. It was the same in Iraq, the best in the Middle East. It's a way for the West to keep the people of the 3rd World down."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And yet, things are not so simple: the defeat of Gaddafi is crucial for the continuation of the great pan-Arab revolt. As Immanual Wallerstein, the eminent leftist World Systems anyalyst, argues:
"Let us keep our eye on the ball. The key struggle worldwide right now is the second Arab revolt. It will be hard enough to obtain a truly radical outcome in this struggle. Qaddafi is a major obstacle for the Arab, and indeed the world, left". :
I quote: "Qaddafi is a major obstacle for the Arab, and indeed the world..."
You ask me to keep my eye on the ball. Well, my eye wanders to Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, et al. Are they minor obstacles? In my book they are far greater obstacles than Gadaffi. And what obstacle to the world is Gadaffi? The world? Come on, get real and leave your fantasy land.
We can't afford to finance work programs for the unemployed but we can spend billions on killing Libyans in a civil war. Are we killing civilians in order to "protect"
civilians? Do Libyan oil fields play a role? Which bad dictators do we hate and which ones do we love?
What a mess Obama's gotten us into. Justin Raimondo has a very good column today at antiwar.com. He begins by writing that Obama reportedly bowed to pressure from a "triumvirate of women in his administration:" Hillary Clinton, Samantha Power, and Susan Rice. He goes on to write:
"The “humanitarian” wing of the War Party is in the saddle, and they are just as ideological, just as bellicose, and just as self-deluded as their neoconservative counterparts on the right."
http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2011/03/20/libyas-slippery-slope/
I appreciate the column of Raimondo but I still have to see convincing evidence that Obama "bowed to pressure from a triumvirate of women". The triumvirate made public statements well before the UN passed its notorious resolution. If Obama disagreed with the aggressive tone of these statements he should have taken the gals to the proverbial woodshed for a good spanking the first time they spouted war, war, war. He apparently did not do that. Hence he is either an extremely weak, nay tottering President or he agreed with the aggressive tone. I believe the last to be true. Go back to the statements candidate Obama made to the Chicago Tribune and AIPAC in 2008 and you will find a dyed-in-the-wool imperialist who distinguished between good and bad wars. Apparently his intervention in Libya is in the category of "good". I hold that Obama was biding his time to get a UN resolution because he did not want to ask Congress to discuss the matter. I am sure he knew that there would be more vocal opposition to intervention in Libya than against Bush in the case of Iraq. Nevertheless, judging from statements made by members of Congress to the MIC on Sunday it has once again become clear that the surest way to get bipartisan support is to start a war against a tyrant.
The MCA aka Public Law 111-84
http://www.defense.gov/news/commissionsacts.html
and the Patriot Act aka PUBLIC LAW 107–56
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=107_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ056.107.pdf
Was the death kneel of our civil liberties as free men and women.
BTW, I have a little news for anyone who may think differently; woman can be mean as cat piss.
Happy reading. Keep the barf bag ready.
@ gwnorth Mar 20 2011 - 12:15pm
Re: "China and Russia could have blocked this resolution on their own. They chose to abstain."
I agree with everything being said about the security council in general, but I can't help but wonder if this wasn't a highly calculated move -- especially on the part of the Chinese. By abstaining they cleared the way for the US and her allies to step in the proverbial shit, whle they remain uninvolved in any hostilities themselves. What do you think will be remembered in MENA (MidEast-NorthAfrica) long after Qaddafi is gone? Answer. The US military intervention in yet another Muslim country. Meanwhile China continues building extremely important relationships throughout Africa in a peaceful manner. Not a bad strategy.