UN authorises No-Fly Zone over Libya

[saxitoxin]

But yeah, it sure sounds great on the accordion (or "Acadian" as we call them around here. Squeeze 'em for all they're worth, right. lol).

I know what you mean. I once made love to an Acadian in the middle of January on a navigation buoy in the Restigouche River after our paddle-boat capsized.

[Timminz]

But yeah, it sure sounds great on the accordion (or "Acadian" as we call them around here. Squeeze 'em for all they're worth, right. lol).

I know what you mean. I once made love to an Acadian in the middle of January on a navigation buoy in the Restigouche River after our paddle-boat capsized.

Her name wasn't Marie-Claire, by any chance? Around 1980?

[jefjef]

CAIRO—Egypt's military has begun shipping arms over the border to Libyan rebels with Washington's knowledge, U.S. and Libyan rebel officials said.

The shipments—mostly small arms such as assault rifles and ammunition—appear to be the first confirmed case of an outside government arming the rebel fighters. Those fighters have been losing ground for days in the face of a steady westward advance by forces loyal to Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi.

The Egyptian shipments are the strongest indication to date that some Arab countries are heeding Western calls to take a lead in efforts to intervene on behalf of pro-democracy rebels in their fight against Mr. Gadhafi in Libya. Washington and other Western countries have long voiced frustration with Arab states' unwillingness to help resolve crises in their own region, even as they criticized Western powers for attempting to do so.

The shipments also follow an unusually robust diplomatic response from Arab states. There have been rare public calls for foreign military intervention in an Arab country, including a vote by the 23-member Arab League last week urging the U.N. to impose a no-fly zone over Libya.

It's no small surprise that the Russians, Chinese, and other big players abstain or voted the "no-fly zone plus bomb them" resolution. They want to curtail US-European dominance in this region.

If the 5 "big players" were against the resolution would have voted NO instead of abstaining and Russia or China, who has veto powers, would have not abstained but would have exercised their veto.

They didn't openly support the resolution. Their votes were not needed to pass it. They didn't block the resolution because they are playing neutral politics. If something goes "bad" then they can claim that it wasn't their fault.

Way to take a stand Russia, China, Germany, India.... Leave it up to everyone else.

[BigBallinStalin]

more and more news i read,i see that history repeating again. Yugoslavia war again, same scenario, same story- Same Attackers (nato). And casualty will be same (civilian). Its look that war in afghanistan become to much boring for Coalition forces, and they want to try to change battle area. And then everybody in US are not understand why Large population of Earth,dont have sumpaty for US? How many country left,who dont have conflict with US?
Protecting civilians, what a joke.

Look dude, a lot of us don't want to be involved in this shit either. I'd say more than 50% of US citizens don't want to be in Iraq right now, well over 50% don't want to be in Libya, and we probably didn't want to go to Yugoslavia either. We're not asking for anyone's sympathy, we're asking people to stop asking us to do stuff. When the UN passes a resolution it doesn't mean the UN goes and fights. It means all the member countries kick in a few million dollars, a little bit of equipment, some minor amounts of soldiers and then the US kicks in billions of dollars, more than half the military hardware, and a shitload of troops.

I, for one, don't want to do it anymore. So, in sum, most of us here in the US don't want to get involved anymore.

@no on in particular


RE underlined: That wasn't the case for the Persian Gulf War.

The US's bill was mostly paid for by the Saudis, while many other Middle Eastern nations fronted the bill. Why is the US so stupid in this Libyan involvement scheme? Couldn't they just demand that they won't move unless the European countries in favor of the war pay for it?

There are US interests in the form of various corporations in there, but how does 100% ensuring their protection through such measures really benefit the US? It doesn't. It benefits very few, which leads me to conclude that only a few people are really in charge of the US.

If that's the case, then why does the world not sympathize with most of the US citizens? Why even hold them accountable? They'll say that AMericans shouldn't vote for either Democrats or Republicans. But there's a problem in that assertion. People vote for them because to do otherwise would be throwing your vote away, which is due to the fact that hardly anyone else votes for the 3rd party. (It's the same reason why people continue to use a fiat currency like the USD even though the USD itself has no intrinsic value).

[Baron Von PWN]

more and more news i read,i see that history repeating again. Yugoslavia war again, same scenario, same story- Same Attackers (nato). And casualty will be same (civilian). Its look that war in afghanistan become to much boring for Coalition forces, and they want to try to change battle area. And then everybody in US are not understand why Large population of Earth,dont have sumpaty for US? How many country left,who dont have conflict with US?
Protecting civilians, what a joke.

Look dude, a lot of us don't want to be involved in this shit either. I'd say more than 50% of US citizens don't want to be in Iraq right now, well over 50% don't want to be in Libya, and we probably didn't want to go to Yugoslavia either. We're not asking for anyone's sympathy, we're asking people to stop asking us to do stuff. When the UN passes a resolution it doesn't mean the UN goes and fights. It means all the member countries kick in a few million dollars, a little bit of equipment, some minor amounts of soldiers and then the US kicks in billions of dollars, more than half the military hardware, and a shitload of troops.

I, for one, don't want to do it anymore. So, in sum, most of us here in the US don't want to get involved anymore.

@no on in particular


RE underlined: That wasn't the case for the Persian Gulf War.

The US's bill was mostly paid for by the Saudis, while many other Middle Eastern nations fronted the bill. Why is the US so stupid in this Libyan involvement scheme? Couldn't they just demand that they won't move unless the European countries in favor of the war pay for it?

There are US interests in the form of various corporations in there, but how does 100% ensuring their protection through such measures really benefit the US? It doesn't. It benefits very few, which leads me to conclude that only a few people are really in charge of the US.

If that's the case, then why does the world not sympathize with most of the US citizens? Why even hold them accountable? They'll say that AMericans shouldn't vote for either Democrats or Republicans. But there's a problem in that assertion. People vote for them because to do otherwise would be throwing your vote away, which is due to the fact that hardly anyone else votes for the 3rd party. (It's the same reason why people continue to use a fiat currency like the USD even though the USD itself has no intrinsic value).

The news I've read has suggested France would be taking the lead on this one. As well as the UK and a number of arab league states. From what I've read the US isn't taking the lead here, nor does it want to.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12795971

[BigBallinStalin]

I wonder how many American resources (like aircraft carriers, air reconnaisance and other intelligence, etc.) they're using, and I wonder if they'll be billed later for it...

[BigBallinStalin]

It's no small surprise that the Russians, Chinese, and other big players abstain or voted the "no-fly zone plus bomb them" resolution. They want to curtail US-European dominance in this region.

If the 5 "big players" were against the resolution would have voted NO instead of abstaining and Russia or China, who has veto powers, would have not abstained but would have exercised their veto.

They didn't openly support the resolution. Their votes were not needed to pass it. They didn't block the resolution because they are playing neutral politics. If something goes "bad" then they can claim that it wasn't their fault.

Way to take a stand Russia, China, Germany, India.... Leave it up to everyone else.

You make a good point, but what are the consequences of a major UNSC member voting "NO"?

I'd venture to guess that it would degrade into a diplomatic conflict between those who voted NO and those who voted YES. So, the countries who are against such policies choose to abstain in order to avoid complications that simply aren't worth it (or voting NO really doesn't mean anything because those voting YES will just ignore it). If one of them vetos, then it would result in a bigger conflict, and the US would still get its way.

If China was as economically and as militarily strong as the US, it could vote NO and have the capability to back up its vote. Therefore, it's not so much that those countries are unwilling to, it's more so that they're incapable of going against US wishes.

[Qwert]

The French president said that "as of now" his country's air force is ready to attack the tanks and planes loyal to Gaddafi to defend the people of Benghazi.


"Our airforce will oppose any aggression by Colonel Gaddafi against the population of Benghazi.

"As of now, our aircraft are preventing planes from attacking the town. As of now, other French aircraft are ready to intervene against tanks, armoured vehicles threatening unarmed civilians."

Unfortunatly sarkozy try to be new Napoleon, but its look that he dont know that tanks can not fly, and can not brake no-fly zone over libya.

You make a good point, but what are the consequences of a major UNSC member voting "NO"?

Its only sharade,because they dont need UN resolution, its only to get time to prepare jets and troops on total attack on libya- Nato Attack Yugoslavia withouth any UN resolution, so why you think that will be any consequeces if China or Russia vote "NO". Its will be same.

The NATO bombing marked the second major combat operation in its history, following the September 1995 Operation Deliberate Force in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The bombing of Yugoslavia had proceeded without the approval in the United Nations assembly.

The bombings led to the withdrawal of Yugoslav forces from Kosovo, establishment of UNMIK, a UN mission in Kosovo and put an end to the Yugoslav Wars of the 1990s. The bombing campaign was also widely criticized, especially for the large number of civilian casualties that resulted from the bombing.

If you belive that civilian will be now protected,when NAto forces start bombarding target in libya,then you are very very wrong. But you are not been in these position to feel, how NATO protect civilian.

[jefjef]

It's no small surprise that the Russians, Chinese, and other big players abstain or voted the "no-fly zone plus bomb them" resolution. They want to curtail US-European dominance in this region.

If the 5 "big players" were against the resolution would have voted NO instead of abstaining and Russia or China, who has veto powers, would have not abstained but would have exercised their veto.

You make a good point, but what are the consequences of a major UNSC member voting "NO"?

I'd venture to guess that it would degrade into a diplomatic conflict between those who voted NO and those who voted YES. So, the countries who are against such policies choose to abstain in order to avoid complications that simply aren't worth it (or voting NO really doesn't mean anything because those voting YES will just ignore it). If one of them vetos, then it would result in a bigger conflict, and the US would still get its way.

If China was as economically and as militarily strong as the US, it could vote NO and have the capability to back up its vote. Therefore, it's not so much that those countries are unwilling to, it's more so that they're incapable of going against US wishes.

Their abstention kept them out of participation. If Germany had voted yes they would probably have had to contribute a few planes. Luxembourg was utilized in their place. But don't go around saying it's only the US wishes. This resolution is specifically in the direct interests of the Arab league and EU. They're who are specifically enforcing it. The US is most likely providing AWAC and satellite intelligence.

If Russia and China were really against it they would have openly voiced it. They have a long history of not being shy when it comes to condemning the US.

[Qwert]

NATO strategy and claimsFrom the very beginning of Operation Allied Force, minimizing civilian casualties was a major declared NATO concern. According to NATO, consideration of civilian casualties was fully incorporated into the planning and targeting process. All targets were "looked at in terms of their military significance in relation to the collateral damage or the unintended consequence that might be there," General Shelton said on April 14: "Then every precaution is made...so that collateral damage is avoided." According to Lt. Gen. Michael Short, "collateral damage drove us to an extraordinary degree. General Clark committed hours of his day dealing with the allies on issues of collateral damage." [10]

Then-NATO spokesman Jamie Shea said "There is always a cost to defeat an evil," he said. "It never comes free, unfortunately. But the cost of failure to defeat a great evil is far higher." He insisted NATO planes had bombed only "legitimate designated military targets" and if more civilians had died it was because NATO had been forced into military action.[7]

You have smart bombs, satelite who can see golf ball on grass, but still they kill civilians.
In one incident,then belive that colons of tanks going in road, but this whas tractors, and they bombard ,and kill 100 civilians. I dont need these protection, and i hope that you will not bee in these position to demand that NATO protect you.

[BigBallinStalin]

You make a good point, but what are the consequences of a major UNSC member voting "NO"?

Its only sharade,because they dont need UN resolution, its only to get time to prepare jets and troops on total attack on libya- Nato Attack Yugoslavia withouth any UN resolution, so why you think that will be any consequeces if China or Russia vote "NO". Its will be same.

Agreed. That's what I was stating after my rhetorical question.

The NATO bombing marked the second major combat operation in its history, following the September 1995 Operation Deliberate Force in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The bombing of Yugoslavia had proceeded without the approval in the United Nations assembly.

The bombings led to the withdrawal of Yugoslav forces from Kosovo, establishment of UNMIK, a UN mission in Kosovo and put an end to the Yugoslav Wars of the 1990s. The bombing campaign was also widely criticized, especially for the large number of civilian casualties that resulted from the bombing.

If you belive that civilian will be now protected,when NAto forces start bombarding target in libya,then you are very very wrong. But you are not been in these position to feel, how NATO protect civilian.

That couldn't be stressed enough.

[saxitoxin]

The news I've read has suggested France would be taking the lead on this one. As well as the UK and a number of arab league states. From what I've read the US isn't taking the lead here, nor does it want to.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12795971

I'm not saying this as hyperbole, but fact: France is only able of sustaining operations in Libya under no-combat conditions. If Libya were ever to fight back it would be a real mess. Knowing that the US club is in the closet requires Libya make the strategic decision not to fight France. So, yes, even in the absence of a single American aircraft it's America's fault. Four Danish fighters here and 6 Canadian fighters there and a couple Dutch AWACS are all just dressing on this salad. Essentially useless. Cardboard cutouts. Decoration so the voters back home can feel proud and put a flag out on their doorstep.

If France suffers a Suez moment you'll see the Yankees falling on Libya like a vampire on a virgin. They'll be bombed into the stone-age by the Yankees as France sits quietly in the corner having her bloody nose mended by the UK before they curl up on the sofa together and have a good cry.

Its only sharade,because they dont need UN resolution, its only to get time to prepare jets and troops on total attack on libya- Nato Attack Yugoslavia withouth any UN resolution, so why you think that will be any consequeces if China or Russia vote "NO". Its will be same.

True.

They only get UN resolutions if it's convenient. No one seems to recall that the French aircraft carrier de Gaulle broke down a few months ago and had to be toed into port and is still being repaired. It takes time to reposition ground-based aircraft, to negotiate basing rights, etc. The UN is a stationary bike. The UN is NATO's secretary.

If you belive that civilian will be now protected,when NAto forces start bombarding target in libya,then you are very very wrong. But you are not been in these position to feel, how NATO protect civilian.

The west sees Arabs, Slavs, etc. as "not quite human." When you're not dealing with humans you don't have to be quite as careful. You can use dehumanizing language like "collateral damage" instead of "people killed." You can believe that they are helpless children that need you to swoop in and take care of them by loving them ... loving them to death.

This is just another oil war. If it weren't France would be bombing Darfur, Le Cote d'Ivoire, Burma ...

[saxitoxin]

So, the timeline ...

- Libya has a rebellion that goes on 3 weeks; rebels beaten-back by Libyan Army using French weapons and French aircraft

- Col. Qadaffi announces he will provide documents showing Libya secretly financed Nick Sarkozy's presidential campaign

- 3 days later French aircraft are over Libya threatening to kill anything that moves

IIRC the Czechs had some experience with a bigger country sending troops into their country to protect a "threatened minority." At the time that was also an action supported by the international community. The citizens of NATO countries cheering right now at this "No Fly Zone" are no different than a gaggle of tracht-wearing women waving flags on a street corner of Munich in '38 as the Wehrmacht rolls south to "protect" the Sudetans under an international mandate. Fools. Rubes.

"I disagree with our hiding behind any mandate, including the Security Council's. The no-fly zone means a regular war."
- Vaclav Klaus
President of Cesko

[BigBallinStalin]

The news I've read has suggested France would be taking the lead on this one. As well as the UK and a number of arab league states. From what I've read the US isn't taking the lead here, nor does it want to.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12795971

I'm not saying this as hyperbole, but fact: France is only able of sustaining operations in Libya under no-combat conditions. If Libya were ever to fight back it would be a real mess. Knowing that the US club is in the closet requires Libya make the strategic decision not to fight France. So, yes, even in the absence of a single American aircraft it's America's fault. Four Danish fighters here and 6 Canadian fighters there and a couple Dutch AWACS are all just dressing on this salad. Essentially useless. Cardboard cutouts. Decoration so the voters back home can feel proud and put a flag out on their doorstep.

To further support this, suppose Libya decided to retaliate against France by sending its navy over to France to shell its cities or disrupt its trade. Does anyone here honestly think that the US 6th Fleet will patiently standby? I'll assume, no.

It doesn't matter which country really takes the "lead" in this matter. As a NATO member, the US would be inclined to protect France; therefore, the US indirectly encourages France's military operations without any significant repercussions (or costs); therefore, the US is still primarily responsible for the actions of its NATO members.

Besides, the US doesn't even have to lead this endeavor because the other nations' war against Qaddafi's Wehrmacht are still relevant to the interests of the US.

[Qwert]

well 4 goverment tanks are violating no -fly zone,and france planes destroy hem( these is what they say)

[Baron Von PWN]

well 4 goverment tanks are violating no -fly zone,and france planes destroy hem( these is what they say)

The Un resolution also had a section which allowed participating nations to (i'm paraphrasing) "whatever is necessary to protect Libyan civilians ". Basically the No-fly zone enforces can bomb any Libyan forces they feel are a threat to the Libyan population.

[saxitoxin]

1938

The Wilhelmstrasse* had thoughtfully provided him with the text, in Slovakian, of an appeal to Hitler to act as protector of Slovakia. It declared the sovereign Slovak people had freed themselves from the intolerable Czech yoke …

* Davidson, Eugene. The Unmaking of Adolf Hitler. University of Missouri, 2004.

2011

A communiqué issued after the Paris talks described the actions of the Libyan regime as “intolerable.” It said that the Libyan people had been peacefully expressing their rejection of their leaders and their aspirations for change.

* “Libya: Allied Fighters Hit Gaddafi’s Forces as West Intervenes in Conflict.” The Guardian. 19 Mar. 2011.

* street in Berlin where the Reich Foreign Office was located ... a la "Foggy Bottom" as synonym for US state department

[Baron Von PWN]

1938

The Wilhelmstrasse* had thoughtfully provided him with the text, in Slovakian, of an appeal to Hitler to act as protector of Slovakia. It declared the sovereign Slovak people had freed themselves from the intolerable Czech yoke …

* Davidson, Eugene. The Unmaking of Adolf Hitler. University of Missouri, 2004.

2011

A communiqué issued after the Paris talks described the actions of the Libyan regime as “intolerable.” It said that the Libyan people had been peacefully expressing their rejection of their leaders and their aspirations for change.

* “Libya: Allied Fighters Hit Gaddafi’s Forces as West Intervenes in Conflict.” The Guardian. 19 Mar. 2011.

* street in Berlin where the Reich Foreign Office was located ... a la "Foggy Bottom" as synonym for US state department

hmm yes I do remember reading in the history books about Czeck air attacks on sudaten Germans.

[saxitoxin]

well 4 goverment tanks are violating no -fly zone,and france planes destroy hem( these is what they say)

So, assuming they were fully crewed, that's sixteen 18, 19 and 20 year-olds who were burned to death this afternoon.

Thankfully for NATO they only have to deal with fabric getting immolated.

[targetman377]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110319/ap_ ... a_military

USA has entered another war!

[Pirlo]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110319/ap_on_re_us/us_us_libya_military

USA has entered another war!

no surprise my friend... the greedy guy should hurry to take his share of the oil cake when the party is over

- AC

[saxitoxin]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110319/ap_on_re_us/us_us_libya_military

USA has entered another war!

More than 110 Tomahawk missiles fired from American and British ships and submarines hit Libyan air and missile defense targets in western portions of the country ...
http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/africa/03 ... 1&iref=BN1

Figure, conservatively, 5 dead per Yankee missile, the Obama body count is up to more than 500 in less than 3 hours. Plus countless more with horrific burns and missing limbs. No terrorist group in history could ever hope to match NATO for carnage.

The Libyans didn't fire a single shot at any NATO aircraft. The 18 and 19 year old Libyan conscripts were all pre-emptively killed, sitting there effectively weaponless. This is butchery.

In the CNN article they also confirm all the NATO mercenaries are under control of a Yankee commander. So much for the political stage-play of the French taking the lead. How utterly laughable. Instead it's the same story as always ... the compliant NATO client-state armies - UK, Canada, France, Denmark - dutifully lining up to do the bidding of Big Daddy.

[jefjef]

Socialist blah blah blah. How can you defend Godaffy? Even the Arab League requested UN intervention.

Fearing a Western onslaught, Khadafy on Friday declared a cease-fire against the rebels - but it was a predictable farce. He then declares there will be "no mercy".

Early Saturday, his forces shelled and stormed the rebel stronghold of Benghazi. As bodies piled up in the blood-spattered hospitals, opposition leaders and civilians begged for backup from the international coalition.

In the western city of Misrata, residents said they were also were shelled again. Zintan in western Libya was being bombarded and bracing for worse.

"There are tanks heading towards the southern entrance of Zintan, around 20 to 30 tanks, which are hitting the city and residential areas in the south," a witness told Al Arabiya.

The blitz played out while 22 world leaders, including Arab League Secretary-General Amr Moussa and U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon, plotted how and when to move against Khadafy.

[BigBallinStalin]

In announcing the mission during a visit to Brazil, President Barack Obama said he was reluctant to resort to force but was convinced it was necessary to save the lives of civilians. He reiterated that he would not send American ground troops to Libya.

"We cannot stand idly by when a tyrant tells his people there will be no mercy," he said in Brasilia.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110319/ap_on_re_us/us_us_libya_military

He sounds more of a mouthpiece than anything. I don't think he's really in control as much as others think the US President really is. Sure, he could decree as Commander-in-Chief to not do this, or to vote NO in the UN resolution, but it seems like there's much more for others with high investments in the US federal government to lose (if he were to choose NO).

...

Could any recommend a good book on how these types of politics and decision-making processes play out? I'm not talking about some vanilla US Government book, but something more complex that focuses not just on the US Government but also on related matters like certain big business interests, the Pentagon, NATO, the State Department, and intelligence agencies.

[saxitoxin]

Peace Movement and International Community Mobilizing to Protest America's War of Aggression!

!!!! The African Union has demanded an "immediate halt" to American attacks against Libya. http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/ar ... 493fb9a.d1

!!!! Russian Federation calls for end to military action against Libya by NATO mercenaries. http://rt.com/news/libya-intervention-russian-reaction/

!!!! Protesters descend on Obama's heavily fortified presidential palace to show solidarity with Libyan people. US Secret Police reportedly harassing peaceful protesters.

!!!! Bolivia, Nicaragua, Cuba and Venezuela jointly denounce Obama's aggression a crude play for oil. http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/wo ... 6024861708



Pro-Peace, Anti-War Links to Forward -

Germany's Second-Largest Opposition Party - The Left - Demands End to American Warmongering Against Libya (in German)
http://die-linke.de/nc/presse/presseerk ... en-nieder/

Socialist Workers Party Decries US Aggression against Peaceful Libyan People
http://socialistworker.org/2011/03/19/a ... -and-power

Anti-Libya Oil War Commentary from Canada:
http://gregoryhartnell.wordpress.com/

The People United Shall Never Be Defeated! (Anthem of Latin-American Anti-US Activism)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PhpSwSBbdxM&t=1m25s