No Fly zones over Libya?

[Thunder]

Or in Sudan? Look what Muslims have been doing to black Christians there. Some would call it REAL genocide. But where's Obama and NATO?

well, since you clearly hate Obama regardless of what he does or what he doesn't do..

 

[BeAChooser]

yeah, and Saddam Hussein did 9-11

Derail with redherrings and lies all you want, Thunder.

You won't change the fact that al-Qaeda was in Iraq before we invaded.

Didn't al-Zarqawi go to Iraq ... to Baghdad ...before the invasion? Yes or no?

Didn't he fund and plan terrorist attacks from Baghdad before the invasion? Yes or no?

Weren't the Northern al-Qaeda camps established before the invasion. Yes or no?

Didn't Marines entering Iraq during the invasion encounter foreign fighters? Yes or no?

 

[leftysergeant]

Or for that matter, why aren't we "protecting civilians" in the civil war in the Ivory Coast?

For one thing, we would have to put boots on the ground.

For another, if we eed to intervene for one side to prevail, then stay and help them build a stable nation, we may just be animating a zombie, in which case, we just grabbed an unpinned grenade.

 

[leftysergeant]

Derail with redherrings and lies all you want, Thunder.

You won't change the fact that al-Qaeda was in Iraq before we invaded.

Nor can we change the fact that he was there to whacked Saddam if we didin't get him first.

The rest is blather.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

For one thing, we would have to put boots on the ground.

For what end? To help "protect civilians" by disabling the government military?

I don't see why the standard of "boots on the ground" makes any moral or legal difference. It merely makes intervention more palatable for us since we have very low risk of it costing U.S. lives.

For another, if we eed to intervene for one side to prevail, then stay and help them build a stable nation, we may just be animating a zombie, in which case, we just grabbed an unpinned grenade.

Of course our intervention in Libya is for one side to prevail.

I just heard a headline that rebel forces are advancing with the help of coalition air support. Not only are we not protecting civilians from rebel forces, we're actively and overtly helping them.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Let's see. . . Obama claimed in his speech tonight that the rebels were "defenseless" to air attack.

Seems to me that I just saw contrary evidence:

http://news.yahoo.com/video/world-15749633/raw-video-plane-shot-down-by-libyan-rebels-24580442

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

one could indeed argue that assisting the rebels against Khadafee, is the same as helping civilians.

How?

Do you think there are no loyalists among Libya's civilian population?

The coalition is not making a move to protect them from rebel forces. Instead, it's intentionally creating a power vacuum for the rebels to step into, even though we still don't know who the rebels are or exactly what they want.

 

[Ambrosia]

That's not what the UN resolution says

This IS what the resolution says.

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

(highlighting mine) [ link ] [ link to resolution 1970 (pdf)]

If the coalition regards any part of Gadaffis military to be causing a threat of attack to any civilians, or civilian populated area, they have carte blanche to blow it to smithereens. The only thing they can't do is put boots on the ground.

 

[Thunder]

Derail with redherrings and lies all you want, Thunder.

You won't change the fact that al-Qaeda was in Iraq before we invaded.

Didn't al-Zarqawi go to Iraq ... to Baghdad ...before the invasion? Yes or no?

Didn't he fund and plan terrorist attacks from Baghdad before the invasion? Yes or no?

Weren't the Northern al-Qaeda camps established before the invasion. Yes or no?

Didn't Marines entering Iraq during the invasion encounter foreign fighters? Yes or no?

its cute how you jump back and forth between terrorism and Al Qaeda, as if they were one and the same.

the Al Qaeda camps in northern Iraq were not there with the welcome of Saddam. in fact, those are the Kurdish areas....and they are supposedly our allies.

how u like them apples?

 

[Thunder]

Obama said exactly what I expected him to say. We are there not simply to protect civilians, but to protect civilians from the murder tyrant Ghaddafly.

The rebels and the Arab League asked for a no-fly zone, and that's exactly what we gave them. If we waited one more day, it would have all been over.

Now, clearly those who have an obsessive hatred of Obama because he is black, Kenyan, Communist, Muslim, a Democrat, will hate this mission regardless of the facts...or the countless lives helped.

But one thing is certain: you CANNOT support the liberation of Iraq from Saddam & the liberation of Afghanistan from the Taliban, and yet oppose assisting the Libyan people get rid of Gaddaflee.

...unless of course you are a pathetic hypocrite.

 

[JihadJane]

This IS what the resolution says.



(highlighting mine) [ link ] [ link to resolution 1970 (pdf)]

If the coalition regards any part of Gadaffis military to be causing a threat of attack to any civilians, or civilian populated area, they have carte blanche to blow it to smithereens. The only thing they can't do is put boots on the ground.

Where's the bit about being the insurgents' air force?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

If the coalition regards any part of Gadaffis military to be causing a threat of attack to any civilians, or civilian populated area, they have carte blanche to blow it to smithereens. The only thing they can't do is put boots on the ground.

And doesn't this say that we ought be bombing rebel forces to protect loyalist civilians they are now threatening?

Remember, the resolution calls for an immediate cease fire, which the rebels are not and have not been complying with either.

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

Clearly there is an agenda at work here that is hiding behind the rhetoric of UN Resolution 1973.

Obama used nearly the same language Bush did in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq by pointing to this resolution and saying that our words have to mean something.

So, do they? Are we actually calling for a ceasefire and authorizing the use of any means necessary to prevent violence against civilians, or are we entering a civil war completely on one side against the other? (Something NOT authorized by this resolution, and indeed forbidden by the UN Charter.)

 

[JihadJane]

'Who are the Libyan Freedom Fighters and Their Patrons?'

Peter Dale Scott's Libyan Notebook.

 

[Ambrosia]

And doesn't this say that we ought be bombing rebel forces to protect loyalist civilians they are now threatening?

Remember, the resolution calls for an immediate cease fire, which the rebels are not and have not been complying with either.

IANAL as I read it the resolution makes it's demands of the Libyan Authorities. So no, as I understand it (and I may well be wrong) 1973 does not authorise the bombing of rebel forces, as those forces are not those of the Libyan Authorities.

or are we entering a civil war completely on one side against the other? (Something NOT authorized by this resolution, and indeed forbidden by the UN Charter.)

7. Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter Vll.

[ link ]

 

[little grey rabbit]

IANAL as I read it the resolution makes it's demands of the Libyan Authorities. So no, as I understand it (and I may well be wrong) 1973 does not authorise the bombing of rebel forces, as those forces are not those of the Libyan Authorities.



[ link ]

By that logic since France and Qatar have recognised the Transistional Council as the government of Libya, they are only allowed to bomb the insurgents and the former government forces are now civilians are have to be protected by the International Community?

Does anyone have the full text of the famous Gadaffi speech? The best I have is this:

“We will come house by house, room by room. It’s over. The issue has been decided,” he said, offering amnesty to those who laid down their arms. To those who continued to resist, he vowed: “We will find you in your closets. We will have no mercy and no pity.”

Which Obama (and the rest of the world) riffed to this

"Kadhafi declared that he would show 'no mercy' to his own people. He compared them to rats, and threatened to go door to door to inflict punishment," Obama said.

Change has certainly come to America.

It would be wrong to call this a mistranslation, it was a wilfull, hypocritical and malicious deceit.

If only the Libyan army had ignored the ceasefire calls and taken the advantage of the small window of opportunity to move into Benghazi, this bloodbath could have been avoided and coutless lives saved.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

IANAL as I read it the resolution makes it's [sic] demands of the Libyan Authorities.

Re-read the demand labelled "1." which I just quoted. [ETA: And do you really suppose they were demanding a cease fire of just one side of a civil war?]

And again, the resolution authorizes "any means necessary" to protect the lives of Libyan civilians. In his speech tonight, Obama said it was to protect "the people of Libya" which is even broader, and certain includes loyalists.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

It would be wrong to call this a mistranslation, it was a wilfull, hypocritical and malicious deceit.

Yes. Obama could have brought evidence that Gaddafi was wrong when he claimed these weren't his people but foreign Islamic terrorists (I believe he even said they were Al Qaeda), but instead, Obama merely claimed that Gaddafi said he would show no mercy to his own people.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

or are we entering a civil war completely on one side against the other? (Something NOT authorized by this resolution, and indeed forbidden by the UN Charter.)

7. Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter Vll.

Yes, it's forbidden to interfere with domestic matters unless there is a disturbance to international peace. One could easily make the case that regional stability is best served by letting Gaddafi quash the rebellion and internationally, things would go on pretty much as they have been.

As it is, we're now in for a full-blown civil war that will likely last months rather than days (to play with Obama's language) and will almost certainly end in a failed state and regime change and calls for even more drastic international involvement (of the "boots on the ground" type).

Regime change, or nation-building or whatever you wish to call this is anathema to the ideals of the U.N. Charter.

 

[BeAChooser]

If the coalition regards any part of Gadaffis military to be causing a threat of attack to any civilians, or civilian populated area, they have carte blanche to blow it to smithereens.

Actually, that language doesn't specify Ghaddafi's military. Seems to me it says that ANY military threatening to attack civilians or civilian populated areas are valid targets. Hence my question about what NATO does when the rebels attack Ghaddafi controlled cities. Hence my question about NATO itself bombing civilian populated areas in support of the rebels. Care to address that?

 

[BeAChooser]

the Al Qaeda camps in northern Iraq were not there with the welcome of Saddam. in fact, those are the Kurdish areas....and they are supposedly our allies.

Not true. They were not in Kurdish controlled areas and in fact there is evidence Saddam's military was in contact with the folks in those camps. Do I need to point out that the 9/11 Commission stated that "There are indications that [by 2001] the Iraqi regime tolerated and may even have helped Ansar al Islam against the common Kurdish enemy.”

Do I need to remind you of the secret memo written by Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas J. Feith to several senators in October of 2003 which stated, among other things, that:

According to a May 2003 debriefing of a senior Iraqi intelligence officer, Iraqi intelligence established a highly secretive relationship with Egyptian Islamic Jihad, and later with al Qaeda. The first meeting in 1992 between the Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) and al Qaeda was brokered by al-Turabi. Former IIS deputy director Faruq Hijazi and senior al Qaeda leader [Ayman al] Zawahiri were at the meeting--the first of several between 1992 and 1995 in Sudan. Additional meetings between Iraqi intelligence and al Qaeda were held in Pakistan. Members of al Qaeda would sometimes visit Baghdad where they would meet the Iraqi intelligence chief in a safe house. The report claimed that Saddam insisted the relationship with al Qaeda be kept secret. After 9-11, the source said Saddam made a personnel change in the IIS for fear the relationship would come under scrutiny from foreign probes.

Furthermore, al-Zarqawi first came to Baghdad to get medical treatment at one of Saddam's private hospitals. Explain that.

Must I point out once again that a 2002 CIA document summarized its overall view of possible Iraqi complicity regarding al-Zarqawi's presence and activities this way: "The presence of al-Qa'ida militants on Iraqi soil poses many questions. We are uncertain to what extent Baghdad is actively complicit in this use of its territory by al-Qa'ida operatives for safehaven and transit. Given the pervasive presence of Iraq's security apparatus, it would be difficult for al-Qa'ida operatives to maintain an active, long-term presence in Iraq without alerting the authorities or without at least their acquiescence."

The 2008 Senate Intelligence Committee report concluded that "statements that Iraq provided safe haven for Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and other al Qaeda-related terrorist members were substantiated by the intelligence assessments." It said "intelligence assessments noted Zarqawi's presence in Iraq and his ability to travel and operate within the country. The intelligence community generally believed that Iraqi intelligence must have known about, and therefore at least tolerated, Zarqawi's presence in the country." It states that "postwar information supports prewar assessments and statements that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was in Baghdad and that al Qaeda was present in northern Iraq."

It's a myth that Zarqawi and other al Qaeda operatives lived in Saddam's dictatorship without receiving at least the dictator's tacit support. In fact, they found documents after the invasion that show that even when Iraqi police picked up one of al-Zarqawi people and said he was guilty of crimes and should be held and tried, Saddam personally ordered his release.

"how u like them apples?", Thunder?