Political & Elections

I am fairly confident we went into this fight because some of our European "allies" wanted their oil protected. Especially France and Italy. Obama was all about fostering good will amongst our allies, right? Supporting them in their goals fosters good will (at least, theoretically).

Italian arms sales to Libya: http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20110226/bs_afp/libyapoliticsunrestitalydefencearmsindustry

If an Admiral did so, we might be livng through Dr. Strangelove, but Obama is not an admiral.  This is not a war.  Congress did not declare war.  It is a military action directed by the Commander in Chief based upon his prerogative under the Constitution as Commander in Chief.  It may be unwise, immoral, and otherwise repugnant, but it is not unconstitutional. 

The recourse is at the ballot box if Obama fails to justify it sufficiently to the public.  Why the hysteria over limited operations in Libya?  The U.S. has done far worse and in the relatively recent past.  Is it so preposterous to believe that the U.S. government might side with the peasants against a dictator, at least to the extent of air support and arms?  Would that be so outrageous a position to take?

The U.S. armed the Taliban and Al Quaeda under Reagan by giving the tribal Afganies weapons to fight the godless commies.  They turned against us.  Some of those less interested in progaganda and more interested in self-determination may be less focused on terrorizing the U.S. if they perceive us as an agent of regional self-determinatino rather than imperialist running dogs of capitalism propping up regimes for oil. 

-- Edited by Bogney on Sunday 27th of March 2011 05:51:32 PM

Perhaps before foaming at the mouth about Obama, the UN resolution should be read carefully

Security Council Approves ‘No-Fly Zone’ over Libya, Authorizing ‘All Necessary


Measures’ to Protect Civilians, by Vote of 10 in Favour with 5 Abstentions




Demanding an immediate ceasefire in Libya, including an end to the current attacks against civilians, which it said might constitute “crimes against humanity”, the Security Council this evening imposed a ban on all flights in the country’s airspace — a no-fly zone — and tightened sanctions on the Qadhafi regime and its supporters.



Adopting resolution 1973 (2011) by a vote of 10 in favour to none against, with 5 abstentions (Brazil, China, Germany, India, Russian Federation), the Council authorized Member States, acting nationally or through regional organizations or arrangements, to take all necessary measures to protect civilians under threat of attack in the country, including Benghazi, while excluding a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory — requesting them to immediately inform the Secretary-General of such measures.



Recognizing the important role of the League of Arab States in the maintenance of international peace and security in the region, and bearing in mind the United Nations Charter’s Chapter VIII, the Council asked the League’s member States to cooperate with other Member States in implementing the no-fly zone.



The Council stressed the need to intensify efforts to find a solution to the crisis that responded to the legitimate demands of the Libyan people, noting actions being taken on the diplomatic front in that regard. It further demanded that Libyan authorities comply with their obligations under international law and take all measures to protect civilians and meet their basic needs and to ensure the rapid and unimpeded passage of humanitarian assistance.



In that connection, the Council specified that the flight ban would not apply to flights that had as their sole purpose humanitarian aid, the evacuation of foreign nationals, enforcing the ban or other purposes “deemed necessary for the benefit of the Libyan people”.



It further decided that all States should deny permission to any Libyan commercial aircraft to land in or take off from their territory unless a particular flight had been approved in advance by the committee that was established to monitor sanctions imposed by resolution 1970 (2011).



In tightening the asset freeze and arms embargo established by that resolution, the Council this evening further detailed conditions for inspections of transport suspected to be violating the embargo, requesting States enforcing the embargo to coordinate closely with each other and the Secretary-General on the measures they were taking towards implementation.



It requested the Secretary-Secretary to create an eight-member panel of experts to assist the Security Council committee in monitoring the sanctions.



Introducing the resolution, the Foreign Minister of France, Alain Juppé, said “the situation on the ground is more alarming than ever, marked by the violent re-conquest of cities that have been released”. The Security Council could not stand by and “let the warmongers flout international legality”. The world was experiencing “a wave of great revolutions that would change the course of history”, but the will of the Libyan people had been “trampled under the feet of the Qadhafi regime”. Earlier Council measures had been ignored and violence against Libyan civilians had redoubled.



He said that the urgent need to protect the civilian population had led to the elaboration of the current resolution, which authorized the Arab League and those Member States wishing to do so to take all measures to protect areas that were being threatened by the Qadhafi regime. “We have very little time left — perhaps only a matter of hours,” he said, adding that each hour and day that passed “increased the weight” on the international community’s shoulders.



Speaking after the vote, representatives who had supported the text agreed that the strong action was made necessary because the Qadhafi regime had not heeded the first actions of the Council and was on the verge of even greater violence against civilians as it closed in on areas previously dominated by opposition in the east of the country. They stressed that the objective was solely to protect civilians from further harm.



Lebanon’s speaker stressed that the text would not result in the occupation of “one inch” of Libyan territory by foreign forces. The representative of the United Kingdom pledged that partners in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and the Arab League were now ready to act to support the text.



The representative of the United States said that today, the Council had responded to the Libyan peoples’ cry for help. The Council’s purpose was clear: to protect Libyan civilians. The Security Council had authorized the use of force, including enforcement of a no-fly zone, to protect civilians and civilian areas targeted by Colonel Muammar Al-Qadhafi, his allied forces and mercenaries.



The representatives of China and the Russian Federation, explaining their abstentions, prioritized peaceful means of resolving the conflict and said that many questions had not been answered in regard to provisions of the resolution, including, as the Russian representative put it, how and by whom the measures would be enforced and what the limits of the engagement would be. He said the resolution included a sorely needed ceasefire, which he had called for earlier. China had not blocked the action with a negative vote in consideration of the wishes of the Arab League and the African Union, its representative said.



The delegations of India, Germany and Brazil, having also abstained, equally stressed the need for peaceful resolution of the conflict and warned against unintended consequences of armed intervention.



Statements were also made made by the representatives of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Colombia, Portugal, Nigeria and South Africa.



The meeting was opened at 6:25 p.m. and closed at 7:20 p.m.



Action on Draft



Speaking before the vote, ALAIN JUPPÉ, Minister for Foreign Affairs of France, said the world was experiencing “a wave of great revolutions that would change the course of history”, as people throughout North Africa and the Middle East were calling for “a breath of fresh air”, for freedom of expression and democracy. Such calls for democratic transition had echoed through Tunisia, Egypt and Morocco. Everyone had witnessed the events with great hope and he believed “this new Arab springtime is good news for all”. The changes required the international community not to “give lessons”, but to help the people of those countries build a new future.



Yet, he said, while such transitions in other countries had not been met with extreme violence, the will of the Libyan people had been “trampled under the feet of the Qadhafi regime”, as Colonel Muammar Al-Qadhafi mercilessly attacked his own people. In light of those actions, the international community had responded swiftly; the General Assembly had suspended the country from the Human Rights Council, determining that the systematic and widespread attacks could constitute crimes against humanity. In addition, the Security Council’s earlier resolution had called for an immediate end to the violence and had referred the situation in Libya to the International Criminal Court.



Unfortunately, those measures had not been enough and violence against Libyan civilians had been redoubled, he said. Again, the international community had acted with unanimity, particularly through the League of Arab States’ call on the Security Council to enact a no-fly zone and the African Union’s strong call for an end to the violence. “Yet, the situation on the ground is more alarming than ever, marked by the violent re-conquest of cities that have been released,” he said, stressing that the Security Council could not stand by and “let the warmongers flout international legality”.



In light of that, France had been working assiduously with the United Kingdom, the United States and other members of the international community calling for means to protect the civilian population. Those efforts had led to the elaboration of the current resolution, which authorized the Arab League and those Member States wishing to do so to take all measures to protect areas that were being threatened by the Qadhafi regime. “We have very little time left — perhaps only a matter of hours,” he said, adding that each hour and day that passed “increased the weight” on the international community’s shoulders. The Security Council had acted to ensure that democracy prevailed.



The Council then adopted resolution 1973 (2011) by a vote of 10 in favour to none against, with 5 abstentions (Brazil, China, Germany, India, Russian Federation).



NAWAF SALAM (Lebanon) said that Libya was suffering heavily, with hundreds of victims dying and thousands displaced. Faced with those risks and the great danger of those crimes, the United Nations had acted earlier, but Colonel Qadhafi had not heeded those actions. Lebanon, agreeing with the League of Arab States, had then called on the Security Council to establish measures to protect civilians. The Libyan authorities had lost all their legitimacy and the resolution was aimed at protecting Libyan civilians.



He stressed that the resolution would not have as a consequence occupation of “even an inch” of Libyan territory. He hoped that the resolution would have a deterrent role and end the Libyan authorities’ use of force. He reaffirmed full support for the county’s sovereignty, the need for full cooperation between the United Nations and the League of Arab States, pursuant to Chapter VIII of the United Nations Charter, and the necessity of a peaceful solution to the situation. The resolution was fraught with hope for Libya and its people, he concluded.



MARK LYALL GRANT (United Kingdom), agreeing that the Libyan regime had lost legitimacy, had violated the Council’s resolutions and was on the verge of assaulting Benghazi, said he had pressed for the early adoption of the current resolution. He pledged that partners in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and the Arab League were now ready to act to support the text. The resolution put the United Nations clearly behind the highest values of the Organization.



PETER WITTIG (Germany) said the Security Council’s intention was to stop the violence in Libya and send a message to Colonel Qadhafi and his associates “that their time is over [and] they must relinquish power immediately”. While the Council acted on Libya, North Africa was undergoing major political changes, meriting the international community’s full support. The aim should be to promote political transition in Libya, stop the violence and begin a true political process. “The people of Libya who have so clearly expressed their aspirations for democracy should be supported,” he said, adding that the Interim National Council was an important interlocutor in that regard.



He said his country was particularly concerned by the plight of the Libyan people and believed it was crucial to tighten existing sanctions to “cut [the Libyan regime] off” from the funds that had propped it up for so long. Decisions regarding the use of military force were always extremely difficult to take. Indeed, in the implementation of the resolution just adopted, Germany saw great risks, and the likelihood of large-scale loss of life should not be underestimated. Those that participated in its implementation could be drawn into a protracted military conflict that could draw in the wider region. If the resolution failed, it would be wrong to assume that any military intervention would be quickly and efficiently carried out. Germany had decided not to support the resolution and would not contribute its own forces to any military effort that arose from its implementation. Germany had abstained from the vote.



SUSAN RICE (United States) said that today, the Council had responded to the Libyan peoples’ cry for help. The Council’s purpose was clear: to protect Libyan civilians. The Council had adopted an earlier resolution that had sent a strong message, but Colonel Qadhafi and those that still stood by him had continued to grossly and systematically violate the most fundamental rights of the Libyan people. The Arab League had subsequently called on the Council to take more stringent measures, and the current resolution was an answer to that call, as well as a strong response to the situation in the ground.



She said the Security Council had authorized the use of force, including enforcement of a no-fly zone, to protect civilians and civilian areas targeted by Colonel Qadhafi, his allied forces and mercenaries. The text also tightened measures already approved under resolution 1970 (2011). In addition, it established a panel of experts to monitor short- and long-term implementation of the sanctions. She stressed that the future of Libya should be decided by the Libyan people. The United States stood with the people of Libya in their struggle to exercise their fundamental rights.



MANJEEV SINGH PURI ( India), explaining his abstention, expressed great concern over the welfare of the population of Libya and supported the appointment of the Secretary-General’s Envoy. The report of that Envoy and that of others had not yet been received. As a consequence, today’s resolution was based on very little clear information, including a lack of certainty regarding who was going to enforce the measures. There must be certainty that negative outcomes were not likely before such wide-ranging measures were adopted. Political efforts must be the priority in resolving the situation.



MARIA LUIZA RIBERIO VIOTTI (Brazil) said her delegation was deeply concerned about the situation in Libya and regretted that the “strong message” sent by resolution 1970 (2011) had note yet been heeded. The Brazilian Government had earlier condemned the violence being carried out by Libyan authorities and had called on them to uphold and protect the right of free expression of the protesters and to seek a solution to the crisis through meaningful dialogue. Her delegation’s vote today should in no way be interpreted as condoning the behaviour of the Libyan authorities or as disregard for the need to protect civilians and respect for their rights.



She said that while Brazil stood in solidarity with all movements in the region expressing their legitimate demands for better governance, and had taken into account the Arab League’s call for strong measures to stop the violence through a no-fly zone, it believed that the resolution contemplated measures that went beyond that call. “We are not convinced that the use of force as provided for in operative paragraph 4 of the present resolution will lead to the realization of our common objective — the immediate end of violence and the protection of civilians,” she said, adding that Brazil was also concerned that the measures approved today might have the unintended effect of exacerbating the current tensions on the ground and “causing more harm than good to the very same civilians we are committed to protecting”. No military action alone would succeed in ending the conflict. Protecting civilians, ensuring lasting settlement and addressing the legitimate demands of Libyan citizens demanded a political process.



IVAN BARBALIĆ (Bosnia and Herzegovina) reiterated his delegation’s grave concern about the rapidly deteriorating situation in Libya. The Libyan people desperately needed humanitarian assistance, and the unimpeded access of that relief was an absolute necessity. He called on Libyan authorities to end their violence against the Libyan people and he believed the resolution was an answer to their legitimate call and to the call of regional organizations.



NÉSTOR OSORIO (Colombia) said his delegation was convinced that the purpose of the new resolution was essentially humanitarian and was conducive to bringing about conditions that would lead to the protection of civilians under attack from a regime that had lost all legitimacy. The Council had acted because the Government, through its actions, had shown that it was not up to protecting and promoting the rights of its people.



Colombia deplored the fact that the measures under resolution 1970 (2011) had not been heeded. It was also concerned that the current text had not been adopted unanimously. Colombia believed that the best way to ratchet up the pressure on the Qadhafi regime was to impose a no-fly zone, as called for by the League of Arab States. The grave situation on the ground made it clear that all conditions were present for the Council to enact further measures and tighten the sanctions approved under resolution 1970 (2011).



VITALY CHURKIN (Russian Federation) said he had abstained, although his country’s position opposing violence against civilians in Libya was clear. Work on the resolution was not in keeping with Security Council practice, with many questions having remained unanswered, including how it would be enforced and by whom, and what the limits of engagement would be. His country had not prevented the adoption of the resolution, but he was convinced that an immediate ceasefire was the best way to stop the loss of life. His country, in fact, had pressed earlier for a resolution calling for such a ceasefire, which could have saved many additional lives. Cautioning against unpredicted consequences, he stressed that there was a need to avoid further destabilization in the region.



JOSÉ FILIPE MORAES CABRAL (Portugal) said his country had voted in favour of the text because the attacks against civilians had continued after the passage of the last Council resolution, and conditions were deteriorating. He affirmed that today’s resolution addressed his country’s priorities, including protecting civilians, facilitation of unimpeded humanitarian aid, promotion of a national dialogue and guarantees for the territorial integrity and independence of Libya. He supported all diplomatic efforts to resolve the situation.



U. JOY OGWU (Nigeria) said the resolution had been necessitated by the persistently grave and dire situation in Libya. “The current State of affairs leaves an indelible imprint on the conscience and compels us to act,” she said, adding that her delegation’s persistent calls for peace were rooted in the need to ensure the protection of civilians and the delivery of humanitarian assistance to those most in need, many of whom were Nigerian nationals. The League of Arab States and the African Union had spoken with one voice in condemnation of the situation in Libya.



She said that while her delegation had supported the current text, it also believed that foreign occupation was not an option to ensure peace. Nigeria supported language in the current text that negated that possibility. Nigeria was also encouraged by the fact that the political path to a solution was endorsed in the text. “Today, we have sent an unequivocal message to the Libyan people that the dignity and safety of every man woman and child is paramount,” she said, adding that when the fate of innocent civilians was in question, the international community, undaunted, must be ready to respond.



BASO SANGQU (South Africa) said his delegation was deeply concerned by what was fast becoming a civil war in Libya. He hoped it could be resolved in a peaceful manner, according to the will of the Libyan people. Any solution must also preserve the solidarity and integrity of Libya and, as such, South Africa supported the dispatch by the African Union of a special mission to the country. He encouraged that mission to work closely with the Secretary-General’s newly appointed Special Envoy on finding a peaceful solution.



He said that South Africa regretted that the Council’s previous resolution had not been heeded and believed that by adopting the current text, the Council had acted responsibly to answer the call of Libyan people. It would also speed humanitarian assistance to those that needed it most. He hoped the letter and spirit of the present resolution would be implemented in full.



Security Council President LI BAODONG (China), speaking in his national capacity, said that the continuing deterioration of the situation in Libya was of great concern to China. However, the United Nations Charter must be respected and the current crisis must be ended through peaceful means. China was always against the use of force when those means were not exhausted. His delegation had asked specific questions that failed to be answered and, therefore, it had serious difficulty with the resolution. It had not blocked the passage of the resolution, however, because it attached great importance to the requests of the Arab League and the African Union. At the same time, he supported the efforts of the Secretary-General’s Envoy to resolve the situation by peaceful means.



Resolution



The full text of resolution 1973 (2011) reads as follows:



“The Security Council,



“Recalling its resolution 1970 (2011) of 26 February 2011,



“Deploring the failure of the Libyan authorities to comply with resolution 1970 (2011),



“Expressing grave concern at the deteriorating situation, the escalation of violence, and the heavy civilian casualties,



“Reiterating the responsibility of the Libyan authorities to protect the Libyan population and reaffirming that parties to armed conflicts bear the primary responsibility to take all feasible steps to ensure the protection of civilians,



“Condemning the gross and systematic violation of human rights, including arbitrary detentions, enforced disappearances, torture and summary executions,



“Further condemning acts of violence and intimidation committed by the Libyan authorities against journalists, media professionals and associated personnel and urging these authorities to comply with their obligations under international humanitarian law as outlined in resolution 1738 (2006),



“Considering that the widespread and systematic attacks currently taking place in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya against the civilian population may amount to crimes against humanity,



“Recalling paragraph 26 of resolution 1970 (2011) in which the Council expressed its readiness to consider taking additional appropriate measures, as necessary, to facilitate and support the return of humanitarian agencies and make available humanitarian and related assistance in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya,



“Expressing its determination to ensure the protection of civilians and civilian populated areas and the rapid and unimpeded passage of humanitarian assistance and the safety of humanitarian personnel,



“Recalling the condemnation by the League of Arab States, the African Union and the Secretary-General of the Organization of the Islamic Conference of the serious violations of human rights and international humanitarian law that have been and are being committed in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya,



“Taking note of the final communiqué of the Organization of the Islamic Conference of 8 March 2011, and the communiqué of the Peace and Security Council of the African Union of 10 March 2011 which established an ad hoc High-Level Committee on Libya,



“Taking note also of the decision of the Council of the League of Arab States of 12 March 2011 to call for the imposition of a no-fly zone on Libyan military aviation, and to establish safe areas in places exposed to shelling as a precautionary measure that allows the protection of the Libyan people and foreign nationals residing in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya,



“Taking note further of the Secretary-General’s call on 16 March 2011 for an immediate ceasefire,



“Recalling its decision to refer the situation in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya since 15 February 2011 to the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, and stressing that those responsible for or complicit in attacks targeting the civilian population, including aerial and naval attacks, must be held to account,



“Reiterating its concern at the plight of refugees and foreign workers forced to flee the violence in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, welcoming the response of neighbouring States, in particular Tunisia and Egypt, to address the needs of those refugees and foreign workers, and calling on the international community to support those efforts,



“Deploring the continuing use of mercenaries by the Libyan authorities,



“Considering that the establishment of a ban on all flights in the airspace of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya constitutes an important element for the protection of civilians as well as the safety of the delivery of humanitarian assistance and a decisive step for the cessation of hostilities in Libya,



“Expressing concern also for the safety of foreign nationals and their rights in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya,



“Welcoming the appointment by the Secretary General of his Special Envoy to Libya, Mr. Abdul Ilah Mohamed Al-Khatib and supporting his efforts to find a sustainable and peaceful solution to the crisis in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya,



“Reaffirming its strong commitment to the sovereignty, independence, territorial integrity and national unity of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya,



“Determining that the situation in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya continues to constitute a threat to international peace and security,



“Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations,



“1. Demands the immediate establishment of a ceasefire and a complete end to violence and all attacks against, and abuses of, civilians;



“2. Stresses the need to intensify efforts to find a solution to the crisis which responds to the legitimate demands of the Libyan people and notes the decisions of the Secretary-General to send his Special Envoy to Libya and of the Peace and Security Council of the African Union to send its ad hoc High-Level Committee to Libya with the aim of facilitating dialogue to lead to the political reforms necessary to find a peaceful and sustainable solution;



“3. Demands that the Libyan authorities comply with their obligations under international law, including international humanitarian law, human rights and refugee law and take all measures to protect civilians and meet their basic needs, and to ensure the rapid and unimpeded passage of humanitarian assistance;



“Protection of civilians



“4. Authorizes Member States that have notified the Secretary-General, acting nationally or through regional organizations or arrangements, and acting in cooperation 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, and requests the Member States concerned to inform the Secretary-General immediately of the measures they take pursuant to the authorization conferred by this paragraph which shall be immediately reported to the Security Council;



“5. Recognizes the important role of the League of Arab States in matters relating to the maintenance of international peace and security in the region, and bearing in mind Chapter VIII of the Charter of the United Nations, requests the Member States of the League of Arab States to cooperate with other Member States in the implementation of paragraph 4;



“No-fly zone



“6. Decides to establish a ban on all flights in the airspace of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya in order to help protect civilians;



“7. Decides further that the ban imposed by paragraph 6 shall not apply to flights whose sole purpose is humanitarian, such as delivering or facilitating the delivery of assistance, including medical supplies, food, humanitarian workers and related assistance, or evacuating foreign nationals from the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, nor shall it apply to flights authorised by paragraphs 4 or 8, nor other flights which are deemed necessary by States acting under the authorization conferred in paragraph 8 to be for the benefit of the Libyan people, and that these flights shall be coordinated with any mechanism established under paragraph 8;



“8. Authorizes Member States that have notified the Secretary-General and the Secretary-General of the League of Arab States, acting nationally or through regional organizations or arrangements, to take all necessary measures to enforce compliance with the ban on flights imposed by paragraph 6 above, as necessary, and requests the States concerned in cooperation with the League of Arab States to coordinate closely with the Secretary General on the measures they are taking to implement this ban, including by establishing an appropriate mechanism for implementing the provisions of paragraphs 6 and 7 above,



“9. Calls upon all Member States, acting nationally or through regional organizations or arrangements, to provide assistance, including any necessary overflight approvals, for the purposes of implementing paragraphs 4, 6, 7 and 8 above;



“10. Requests the Member States concerned to coordinate closely with each other and the Secretary-General on the measures they are taking to implement paragraphs 4, 6, 7 and 8 above, including practical measures for the monitoring and approval of authorised humanitarian or evacuation flights;



“11. Decides that the Member States concerned shall inform the Secretary-General and the Secretary-General of the League of Arab States immediately of measures taken in exercise of the authority conferred by paragraph 8 above, including to supply a concept of operations;



“12. Requests the Secretary-General to inform the Council immediately of any actions taken by the Member States concerned in exercise of the authority conferred by paragraph 8 above and to report to the Council within 7 days and every month thereafter on the implementation of this resolution, including information on any violations of the flight ban imposed by paragraph 6 above;



“Enforcement of the arms embargo



“13. Decides that paragraph 11 of resolution 1970 (2011) shall be replaced by the following paragraph : “Calls upon all Member States, in particular States of the region, acting nationally or through regional organisations or arrangements, in order to ensure strict implementation of the arms embargo established by paragraphs 9 and 10 of resolution 1970 (2011), to inspect in their territory, including seaports and airports, and on the high seas, vessels and aircraft bound to or from the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, if the State concerned has information that provides reasonable grounds to believe that the cargo contains items the supply, sale, transfer or export of which is prohibited by paragraphs 9 or 10 of resolution 1970 (2011) as modified by this resolution, including the provision of armed mercenary personnel, calls upon all flag States of such vessels and aircraft to cooperate with such inspections and authorises Member States to use all measures commensurate to the specific circumstances to carry out such inspections”;



“14. Requests Member States which are taking action under paragraph 13 above on the high seas to coordinate closely with each other and the Secretary-General and further requests the States concerned to inform the Secretary-General and the Committee established pursuant to paragraph 24 of resolution 1970 (2011) (“the Committee”) immediately of measures taken in the exercise of the authority conferred by paragraph 13 above;



“15. Requires any Member State whether acting nationally or through regional organisations or arrangements, when it undertakes an inspection pursuant to paragraph 13 above, to submit promptly an initial written report to the Committee containing, in particular, explanation of the grounds for the inspection, the results of such inspection, and whether or not cooperation was provided, and, if prohibited items for transfer are found, further requires such Member States to submit to the Committee, at a later stage, a subsequent written report containing relevant details on the inspection, seizure, and disposal, and relevant details of the transfer, including a description of the items, their origin and intended destination, if this information is not in the initial report;



“16. Deplores the continuing flows of mercenaries into the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya and calls upon all Member States to comply strictly with their obligations under paragraph 9 of resolution 1970 (2011) to prevent the provision of armed mercenary personnel to the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya;



“Ban on flights



“17. Decides that all States shall deny permission to any aircraft registered in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya or owned or operated by Libyan nationals or companies to take off from, land in or overfly their territory unless the particular flight has been approved in advance by the Committee, or in the case of an emergency landing;



“18. Decides that all States shall deny permission to any aircraft to take off from, land in or overfly their territory, if they have information that provides reasonable grounds to believe that the aircraft contains items the supply, sale, transfer, or export of which is prohibited by paragraphs 9 and 10 of resolution 1970 (2011) as modified by this resolution, including the provision of armed mercenary personnel, except in the case of an emergency landing;



“Asset freeze



“19. Decides that the asset freeze imposed by paragraph 17, 19, 20 and 21 of resolution 1970 (2011) shall apply to all funds, other financial assets and economic resources which are on their territories, which are owned or controlled, directly or indirectly, by the Libyan authorities, as designated by the Committee, or by individuals or entities acting on their behalf or at their direction, or by entities owned or controlled by them, as designated by the Committee, and decides further that all States shall ensure that any funds, financial assets or economic resources are prevented from being made available by their nationals or by any individuals or entities within their territories, to or for the benefit of the Libyan authorities, as designated by the Committee, or individuals or entities acting on their behalf or at their direction, or entities owned or controlled by them, as designated by the Committee, and directs the Committee to designate such Libyan authorities, individuals or entities within 30 days of the date of the adoption of this resolution and as appropriate thereafter;



“20. Affirms its determination to ensure that assets frozen pursuant to paragraph 17 of resolution 1970 (2011) shall, at a later stage, as soon as possible be made available to and for the benefit of the people of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya;



“21. Decides that all States shall require their nationals, persons subject to their jurisdiction and firms incorporated in their territory or subject to their jurisdiction to exercise vigilance when doing business with entities incorporated in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya or subject to its jurisdiction, and any individuals or entities acting on their behalf or at their direction, and entities owned or controlled by them, if the States have information that provides reasonable grounds to believe that such business could contribute to violence and use of force against civilians;



“Designations



“22. Decides that the individuals listed in Annex I shall be subject to the travel restrictions imposed in paragraphs 15 and 16 of resolution 1970 (2011), and decides further that the individuals and entities listed in Annex II shall be subject to the asset freeze imposed in paragraphs 17, 19, 20 and 21 of resolution 1970 (2011);



“23. Decides that the measures specified in paragraphs 15, 16, 17, 19, 20 and 21 of resolution 1970 (2011) shall apply also to individuals and entities determined by the Council or the Committee to have violated the provisions of resolution 1970 (2011), particularly paragraphs 9 and 10 thereof, or to have assisted others in doing so;



“Panel of Experts



“24. Requests the Secretary-General to create for an initial period of one year, in consultation with the Committee, a group of up to eight experts (“Panel of Experts”), under the direction of the Committee to carry out the following tasks:



(a) Assist the Committee in carrying out its mandate as specified in paragraph 24 of resolution 1970 (2011) and this resolution;



(b) Gather, examine and analyse information from States, relevant United Nations bodies, regional organisations and other interested parties regarding the implementation of the measures decided in resolution 1970 (2011) and this resolution, in particular incidents of non-compliance;



(c) Make recommendations on actions the Council, or the Committee or State, may consider to improve implementation of the relevant measures;



(d) Provide to the Council an interim report on its work no later than 90 days after the Panel’s appointment, and a final report to the Council no later than 30 days prior to the termination of its mandate with its findings and recommendations;



“25. Urges all States, relevant United Nations bodies and other interested parties, to cooperate fully with the Committee and the Panel of Experts, in particular by supplying any information at their disposal on the implementation of the measures decided in resolution 1970 (2011) and this resolution, in particular incidents of non-compliance;



“26. Decides that the mandate of the Committee as set out in paragraph 24 of resolution 1970 (2011) shall also apply to the measures decided in this resolution;



“27. Decides that all States, including the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, shall take the necessary measures to ensure that no claim shall lie at the instance of the Libyan authorities, or of any person or body in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, or of any person claiming through or for the benefit of any such person or body, in connection with any contract or other transaction where its performance was affected by reason of the measures taken by the Security Council in resolution 1970 (2011), this resolution and related resolutions;



“28. Reaffirms its intention to keep the actions of the Libyan authorities under continuous review and underlines its readiness to review at any time the measures imposed by this resolution and resolution 1970 (2011), including by strengthening, suspending or lifting those measures, as appropriate, based on compliance by the Libyan authorities with this resolution and resolution 1970 (2011);



“29. Decides to remain actively seized of the matter.”

The no-fly zone was requested by the Arab League and the UN.

Whacking tanks was President O's unilateral initiative.

That is the legal and moral distinction between no-fly and destroying tanks.

There was no imminent threat to the US that would justify unilateral action by the President in the absense of Congressional approval.

There is no reference to the UN  in the Constitution as an authotity that is empowered to utilize US military assets.

What if President O. decided carpet bombing of Tripoli was necessary to defeat Gaddafi and "save his face"?

Have you drunk that much koolaid yet?

This just in:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/03/27/501364/main20047662.shtml

Bombardment of Tripoli to protect civilians?

Bull****!

Pandering to the ego of Mama Obama's favorite son is more like it.

He really is just as bad as W.

P.S. The money to depose Gaddaf is borrowed not collected in taxes from President O's GE buddies.

 http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-libya-rebels-advance-20110328,0,94277.story?track=rss

Lines back to where they were "before the war began".

Just sorta sneaked that one in there.

How it escalates!

By the 2012 election we should have another full scale Vietnam. Of course we can't change leadership in the middle of a war, so there may be no 2012 elections.

 

 

 

 

-- Edited by BigG on Sunday 27th of March 2011 01:00:17 PM

-- Edited by BigG on Sunday 27th of March 2011 01:01:16 PM

-- Edited by BigG on Sunday 27th of March 2011 01:33:35 PM

-- Edited by BigG on Sunday 27th of March 2011 01:34:35 PM

-- Edited by BigG on Sunday 27th of March 2011 01:35:01 PM

-- Edited by BigG on Sunday 27th of March 2011 01:52:20 PM

there was an article on the Drudge Report indicating that Al Qaeda has joined the rebels. It looks like Al Qaeda and President Obama are of one mind.

Okay, to be rational, will somebody who knows more than I do about this, because maybe I am woefully uneducated on this, please explain to me how going in to Lybia is somehow THE most important action to be taken in that seething cauldron.  I mean, what about Yemen?  Bahrain?  The rest of them?

Honestly, WHY LYBIA.....?  Really.  I can't see how this particular place at this particular point in time is so important that our over-extended military needs to be there and not in a dozen other hot spots on the planet.

So, if somebody, maybe John Doe, who is in support of this action, could explain it to me, I'd appreciate it.  Thank you.

Notice how we have transistioned from stopping aerial bombardment of civilians, the no-fly concept,  to supporting rebel military actions by killing tanks belonging to the official and legal army of the country?

Do tanks fly? No they do not. What does destroying them have to do with no-fly?

Somewhere between preventing aerial bombardment of non-government forces and actually helping them to capture territory, I lost my support for the action.

Given American air support, what force could not advance and capture territory? It has nothing to do with whether the Libyan people want and/or need regime change. It has nothing to do with whether the rebels have the support of the Libyan people. It is about POWER raw and unbridaled.

I guess President O. just doesn't like tanks.

He, President O., has actually become evil and should be impeached.

 

It is good to see al-Queda enjoying the same enemy to ally transformation that benefitted Germany, Japan, and Italy after WWII.

Does this mean the War on Terror is over?

Soon to come, the economic transformation of the Middle East?

 

Is anyone else troubled by the participation of al-Queda?

Since they are helping with the fighting and dying, might they not reasonably expect "safe haven" for terrorism in the new Libya?

"This just in:"http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/al-qaeda-snatched-missiles-in-libya/story-e6frfku0-1226028543204#ixzz1Hffm5oRa

 

 

-- Edited by BigG on Saturday 26th of March 2011 09:34:27 AM

-- Edited by BigG on Saturday 26th of March 2011 11:23:05 AM

Allies split over final goals: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/25/world/africa/25policy.html?_r=1

Trying to figure out who the Libyan rebels actually are: http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_theenvoy/20110322/ts_yblog_theenvoy/who-are-the-libyan-rebels-u-s-tries-to-figure-out

US involvement in this entire theater is preposterous.  It kills our moral credibility rather than enhancing it.  Did the US get involved when troops started shooting in Myanmar or Guinea or Darfur?  Would the US have gotten involved if Sarkozy didn't want to go in guns blazing? 

This is an internal civil war within Libya.  If you want to get involved, tell Benghazi to secede, recognize their government, and then it becomes a true multilateral conflict like Bosnia/Croatia post-Yugoslavia.

Meanwhile, back at the OP:

Did we pick a good battle?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/many-libyans-appear-to-back-gaddafi/2011/03/24/ABHShlRB_story.html

BigG wrote:

---

The greens always think if they stop a particular technology, nothing as bad or worse will fill its market niche.

Oil drilling has its own environmental problems. See Macondo oil well.

Do you even want to pretend the government is uninvolved in the oil business now? I am talking about a shift in prioritization, not putting the government somewhere it is not.

The US government could halt the necessity for imported oil within 5 years. That is a technological fact.

 

 

---

 It couldn't do it without wrecking the US economy. That is an economic fact.

 

Oil exporters hate that kind of thing, BigG. The breakeven price and investment means the goverment getting involved and guaranteeing the return. For some serious coal mining, no less.

Cue the screams from the greens, and they squeal even louder than jilted exporters.

And the effect of oil on the economy...

Interesting view from a liberal:

Hugs From Libyans
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
Published: March 23, 2011

This may be a first for the Arab world: An American airman who bailed out over Libya was rescued from his hiding place in a sheep pen by villagers who hugged him, served him juice and thanked him effusively for bombing their country.

Even though some villagers were hit by American shrapnel, one gamely told an Associated Press reporter that he bore no grudges. Then, on Wednesday in Benghazi, the major city in eastern Libya whose streets would almost certainly be running with blood now if it weren’t for the American-led military intervention, residents held a “thank you rally.” They wanted to express gratitude to coalition forces for helping save their lives.

Doubts are reverberating across America about the military intervention in Libya. Those questions are legitimate, and the uncertainties are huge. But let’s not forget that a humanitarian catastrophe has been averted for now and that this intervention looks much less like the 2003 invasion of Iraq than the successful 1991 gulf war to rescue Kuwait from Iraqi military occupation.

This is also one of the few times in history when outside forces have intervened militarily to save the lives of citizens from their government. More commonly, we wring our hands for years as victims are massacred, and then, when it is too late, earnestly declare: “Never again.”

In 2005, the United Nations approved a new doctrine called the “responsibility to protect,” nicknamed R2P, declaring that world powers have the right and obligation to intervene when a dictator devours his people. The Libyan intervention is putting teeth into that fledgling concept, and here’s one definition of progress: The world took three-and-a-half years to respond forcefully to the slaughter in Bosnia, and about three-and-a-half weeks to respond in Libya.

Granted, intervention will be inconsistent. We’re more likely to intervene where there are also oil or security interests at stake. But just as it’s worthwhile to feed some starving children even if we can’t reach them all, it’s worth preventing some massacres or genocides even if we can’t intervene every time.

I opposed the 2003 Iraq invasion because my reporting convinced me that most Iraqis hated Saddam Hussein but didn’t want American forces intruding on their soil. This time my reporting persuades me that most Libyans welcome outside intervention.

“Opinion was unanimous,” Michel Gabaudan, the president of Refugees International, told me on Wednesday after a visit to Libya. Mr. Gabaudan said that every Libyan he spoke to agreed that the military strikes had averted “a major humanitarian disaster.”

“Men, women and children, they are ecstatic about the role of the coalition but worried that it may not continue,” he said.

Some Congressional critics complain that President Obama should have consulted Congress more thoroughly. Fair enough. But remember that the intervention was almost too late because forces loyal to Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi were already in Benghazi. Indeed, there was a firefight on Sunday right outside the hotel in Benghazi where foreign journalists are staying. A couple of days of dutiful consultation would have resulted in a bloodbath and, perhaps, the collapse of the rebel government.

Just before the airstrikes, Libyans were crossing the border into Egypt at seven times the normal rate. Once the strikes began, the exodus ended and the flow reversed. For all the concern about civilian casualties, Libyans are voting with their feet — going toward the airstrikes because they feel safer thanks to them.

Critics of the intervention make valid arguments. It’s true that there are enormous uncertainties: Can the rebels now topple Colonel Qaddafi? What’s the exit strategy? How much will this cost?

But weighed against those uncertainties are a few certainties: If not for this intervention, Libyan civilians would be dying on a huge scale; Colonel Qaddafi’s family would be locked in place for years; and the message would have gone out to all dictators that ruthlessness works.

The momentum has reversed. More airstrikes on Colonel Qaddafi’s artillery and armor will help. So would jamming his radio and television broadcasts. Arab countries are already delivering weapons and ammunition to the rebels, boosting their capabilities and morale. In short, there are risks ahead but also opportunities.

A senior White House official says that the humanitarian argument was decisive for President Obama: “The president was chilled by what would happen to the people of Benghazi and Tobruk. There were critical national security and national interest reasons to do this, but what compelled the president to act so quickly was the immediate prospect of mass atrocities against the people of Benghazi and the east. He was well aware of the risks of military action, but he also feared the costs of inaction.”

I’ve seen war up close, and I detest it. But there are things I’ve seen that are even worse — such as the systematic slaughter of civilians as the world turns a blind eye. Thank God that isn’t happening this time. 

"War! huh, what is good for? Absolutely nothing! Say it again, yeah. War! huh, Good god y'all, what is good for?  . . . ."  Great song.  People should listen and take it to heart.

But then, we did not start this war.  Are wars started by the people against dictators always to be avoided?  Is destabilization of the middle east threatened by the civil war in Libya?  Is it in our long term interests to back these particular insurgents while we have ignored many others in favor of dictators in the middle east, Africa, and South America?

How do we measure whether this is a just military intervention, or just a military intervention.  Can we even measure the difference between just and practical wars any more, and do we even care to try?

War warps so many of the participants in so many ways.  The trophy photos of dead civilians taken by American soldiers are evidence of war insanity.  Not everybody goes crazy, but in every war it is inevitable that some soldiers will.  Fragging superior officers was reportedly quite prevalent in Vietnam presumably because young men coerced into fighting a war that had no direct relation to the security of their country against an enemy that was often indistinguishable from the general population breeds outright rebellion. 

My default position is against war, but that position can be overcome by a good cause.  I was against Iraq, but bought into Afganistan on the notion that we were going after Al Quaeda.  However, that has gone on for far to long without any real hope of any sort of decisive victory.  How do you defeat a terrorist organization on a battlefield, when they won't meet you on a battlefield? 

So, is it bad policy to prevent a strong man from crushing his own people who are revolting against him in a an unstable region that we depend upon for energy when we really have no idea what the outcome might be if the people win?  I suspect that no one really knows.  America supporting the people rather than the dictators might garner some popular support abroad.  

Wars won't stop until people start thinking globally rather than nationally, until all people are recognized as brothers and sisters and we start caring about the well being of the least among us, and until we realize that thinking about acquiring all that we can now may bring about the end of all us sooner rather than later.  We need a global secular Jesus for this millennium.  Instead of being nailed to a cross, however, he would be made a global icon and his message massaged electronically by those in power to sell product rather than to enlighten, and he would be heard by all while truly reaching none, and fail richly.

On the other hand, maybe we can continue to just hurl insults back and forth between political parties interested in the good of those who think more or less like their members.  I am sure things will fix themselves eventually.  I think I'll have another glass of wine to mellow me into a blind trust that American exceptionalism will ultimately save the day.

 

 

 

-- Edited by Bogney on Wednesday 23rd of March 2011 08:15:34 PM

-- Edited by Bogney on Wednesday 23rd of March 2011 08:31:30 PM

Haven't been following this for a while

My current comment: Didn't and don't we believe in GWB's Democracy Doctrine. Keystone for his Wars and US Policy in all future involvements.

Second Comment: It's about oil, isn't it. May be not directly for US but for Europe. Indirectly to US by virtue of the derivative.

CelticClan, every time you post, you have me laughing at your sarcastic wit. Now I'm going to have to check out those newsworthy orange shoes!

Creaturely- Doesn't it tell you something when one has to dig, really dig to find the responses from some of our infamous anti-military protesters? I'm sure you remember ABC, NBC, CBS, NYTimes, WaPo, etc, etc......covering the protests ad nauseum during the Bush years? Oh yeah, that's because they all had something in common......they despised GWB. PBO? Well, he's an entirely different story. Bush war bad. Obama stepping into Libya's civil war, not so bad. I must have checked in at DU at a different time that you did. saw a plethora defending the action. Just now peeked at DU to see if I saw what you're reading, they're gushing over Sasha's orange shoes! How cuuuuute!!!! Non-thinkers, Obama kool-aid drinkers favorite hang out. P.S. 3rd link does not work

CelticClan07 wrote:

---

Where is MoveOn?  Cindy Sheehan?  Code Pink?  Dirty hippies in Berkeley with No Blood for Oil signs, burning effigys?

Cindy Sheehan is right here: http://www.unitedprogressives.org/pages/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1110:cindy-sheehan-and-peace-of-the-action-strongly-condemn-the-us-un-resolution-for-air-strikes-in-libya&catid=330:cindy-sheehan&Itemid=160

Code Pink is right here: http://www.codepink4peace.org/article.php?id=5755

Here are your dirty Berkeley Hippies: http://www.revolutionbooks.org/2011/03/emergency-action-to-protest-us.html

I'm a little surprised there's nothing from Moveon, but I also don't know which way it will go.  Opinion at Kos, MyDD, DU is mixed, but weighted heavily against intervention.  Digby, Greenwald-- loudly anti-intervention. 

The New York Times taking a pro-War position?  Shocked, shocked. 

• Tensions with Britain as Gates rebukes UK government over suggestion Gaddafi could be assassinated
• French propose a new political 'committee' to oversee operations
  
• Germany pulls equipment out of NATO coalition over disagreement over campaign's direction
  
• Italians accuse French of backing NATO in exchange for oil contracts
  
• No-fly zone called into question after first wave of strikes 'neutralises' Libyan military machine
• U.K. ministers say war could last '30 years'
  
• Italy to 'take back control' of bases used by allies unless NATO leadership put in charge of the mission
  
• Russians tell U.S. to stop bombing in order to protect civilians - calls bombing a 'crusade'

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1368693/Libya-war-Germans-pull-forces-NATO-Libyan-coalition-falls-apart.html#ixzz1HQr2qyV3

(Its the DailyMail, so maybe the link isn't worth clicking on. Or, maybe it is - there's a lovely shot of the first couple drinking wine last night in Santiago.)

I am of the opinion that France and Britain proposed the No Fly Zone because they fear a victory for the government forces would create a flood of Muslim refugees for the EU. Anybody with me here?

Thanks, SLS.

Unfortunately, I misspelled Haliburton.

Ah, but a lot of the usual complainers are conflicted, and I include our president in this.

See, they know its all about oil, just as it always has been. The difference this time is that with one of there own, they tend to stress the humanitarian aspect of their efforts, totally skip the usual bull**** about "Cheney's Haliburtion oil buddies", and pray that gasoline doesn't go to $5/gallon just about election time.

Hey, its a delicate act, making the world safe for foreign oil companies to keep the price low enough to avoid regime change, all while trying to run them up enough to make the GreenJobDream halfway believable. Outsourcing our oil production is one of the more inspired ideas they've come up with, one that couldn't have happened without the Macondo spill.


-- Edited by catahoula on Tuesday 22nd of March 2011 06:48:14 PM