UN Security Council approves No Fly Zone in Libya Vol: Declaration of War

[rashi]

Good 'ol Pro-Gold, Anti-War, Anti-Fed Brother Farrakhan. 

I love this vid.

Theregime has admitted - by way of a table released by theColonel's son, Seif Al-Islam - 300 dead (242 civilians, of whomover a hundred in Benghazi, and 58 soldiers). Blind, no-holds-barred repression was confirmed in themuch-awaited speech by Libyan leader, who spoke to the nation ina lengthy, agitated speech steeped in revolutionary rhetoric.

Huh SunDOOBIE?!?!?! You like that, huh?

242 Civilians compared to 58 soldiers?!?!?

 

[carlos tevez]

Please wake me up when the Western coalition (the great humanitarians that they are) intervene in the ongoing crisises in the Ivory Coast, Yemen, Bahrain, etc.

Also...LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL @ "No ground troops". Please tell me how they plan on removing Gaddafi without committing troops to the ground. Magic?

 

[roc4life24]

Originally Posted by Carlos Tevez

Please wake me up when the Western coalition (the great humanitarians that they are) intervene in the ongoing crisises in the Ivory Coast, Yemen, Bahrain, etc.

Also...LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL @ "No ground troops". Please tell me how they plan on removing Gaddafi without committing troops to the ground. Magic?

people fronting like the navy seals and all those super troops we see on history/military channel aint doing work as we speak

after we wipe the country we'll have a base there of some sort...

 

[callhimar]

Originally Posted by rashi

Good 'ol Pro-Gold, Anti-War, Anti-Fed Brother Farrakhan. 

I love this vid.

Theregime has admitted - by way of a table released by theColonel's son, Seif Al-Islam - 300 dead (242 civilians, of whomover a hundred in Benghazi, and 58 soldiers). Blind, no-holds-barred repression was confirmed in themuch-awaited speech by Libyan leader, who spoke to the nation ina lengthy, agitated speech steeped in revolutionary rhetoric.

Huh SunDOOBIE?!?!?! You like that, huh?

242 Civilians compared to 58 soldiers?!?!?


I swear, PLEASE apply for a job at Fox News IMMEDIATELY. The way you quote random articles, don't provide a source, and shape it to fit your argument is both disgusting and impressive.
[h2]

[h2]LIBYA: BLOODSHED CONTINUES, GADDAFI HOLDS ON AND THREATENS[/h2]
23 FEBRUARY , 10:31




The bloodshed underway in Libya is taking on frightening proportions, with reports of as many as a thousand dead in the fury that the regime has unleashed against the revolt in Tripoli. However, in the eighth day of protests Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi appeared on TV threatening to crack down even harder. A massacre is also occurring in the eastern part of the country, where the protests against the regime under Colonel Gaddafi began and where entire zones are reported to have been taken over by those involved in the revolt. However, even here - according to those on location - number into the hundreds: over 400 in a single Benghazi hospital which is working around the clock and with only the bare minimum due to a lack of medicine and personnel to treat the injured who arrive by the dozens. The regime has admitted - by way of a table released by the Colonel's son, Seif Al-Islam - 300 dead (242 civilians, of whom over a hundred in Benghazi, and 58 soldiers). Blind, no-holds-barred repression was confirmed in the much-awaited speech by Libyan leader, who spoke to the nation in a lengthy, agitated speech steeped in revolutionary rhetoric.


''I am not a president, I am a leader, a revolutionary who will hold on so long as I am alive. I will die as a martyr,'' he said, in the challenge that he launched for an hour and a half yesterday evening in vowing a relentless fight. ''We have not yet made use of force but will do so.'' Orders for acts of war and devastating ecological destruction have already been circulated, according to reports. Al Jazeera sources say that the Gaddafi has given orders to shell Benghazi from two ships - which, however, have deserted the country and taken refuge in Malta. The US magazine Time has learnt of Gaddafi's intentions to sabotage oil wells and oil pipelines headed toward the Mediterranean as a message to those in revolt that it is a choice between ''me or chaos''. Eyewitnesses have reported to the BBC of shootouts in the capital's streets, with shots heard in a number of parts of the city even during Gaddafi's speech, after which no reactions in the street were reported. However, the opposition is said to be preparing another demonstration for this evening, and protestors are said to be headed towards Tripoli from other cities in the country. Meanwhile the thousands of foreigners living and working in the country are going home. About 400 Italians have already come back to Italy out of the 1,500 living in the country. In the evening the president of the Libyan parliament said that calm had been ''restored in most of the larger cities'', but during the day soldiers who joined the ranks of those in revolt had reported that Gaddafi had lost control of all of eastern Libya after the revolt which broke out in the capital of the Cyrenaica region, Benghazi, and which then spread to the rest of the country. Residents in Tobruk - the city farthest east and the last before the border with Egypt - have also reported that the city has been under the control of the population for the past three days. The smoke hovering over the houses, they added, is from the weapons depot bombed by troops answering to the Libyan leader. ''All of the eastern zones are out of Gaddafi's control...the population and the army are standing side by side here,'' said the former army major Hani Saad Marjaa to Reuters. The bloodbath, however, did not stop at Benghazi, from where Al Jazeera has shown images of carbonized corpses and the remains of human bodies that the pan-Arab TV channel said were images taken by cell phones. From New York the UN Security Council has unanimously approved a declaration in which the last few days' ''acts of violence in Libya are condemned'' and the ''repression'' of Gaddafi's government is ''regretted''. More defections have been seen after a number of diplomats left the ranks of the Libyan leader: the ambassador to Washington has announced his resignation, saying he did not want to serve ''a dictatorial regime'' and that Gaddafi ''must leave''. (ANSAmed).

[/h2]


Source.

A lot of you still don't seem to get it. The plan is to aid the revolution that is ALREADY IN PROGRESS. Yes, they have been beaten back, but with superior air power the rebels on the ground may have enough to rid the country of Gaddafi. When you are in a constant state of bombardment with a significant number of people revolting in your country, it's only a matter of time before you break. 

 

[abovelegit1]

Good to see all the open-minded and worldly-aware people on NT.

 

[roc4life24]

Originally Posted by True Blues

The ignorance in this thread is astounding.

1. There's a difference between security, and military support. Libya falls in the latter.

2. This is a multilateral effort. The United States, Canada, France, Denmark, Italy, and Great Britain have all contributed resources to this UNSC and AU approved mission.

3. Gadhafi has committed, and continues to commit, human rights violations-- chiefly, genocide-- on a massive scale. Military intervention is necessary in such situations.

people have been saying this like it means something. one country or 50 it doesnt excuse bombings for oil. and we all know america is leading this.

 

[rolaholic]

CallHimAR has been one of the few dudes with common sense in this thread

 

[carlos tevez]

Originally Posted by TeamJordan79

Originally Posted by Gameover2

Originally Posted by Rolaholic

Dont listen to this dude.  keep posting. If i wanted to hear prosaic mainstream thinking, I would turn the news on. 

Bottom line for me: If Libya had a legitimate revolution, it is now greatly undermined by outside intervention. 

QFT.

 

[rashi]

I swear, PLEASE apply for a job at Fox News IMMEDIATELY. The way you quote random articles, don't provide a source, and shape it to fit your argument is both disgusting and impressive.

Come on, guy. 120 missiles fired into a country and no civilian casualties?

Could "official" government reports be true? Maybe or maybe not, we don't know. It sounds a lot more like reality than saying "we are unaware of casualties" like U.S. officials are saying.


[h1][/h1]

[h1]Libyans offer new graves as proof of civilian dead[/h1]

Sun Mar 20, 2011 11:26pm GMT

* Reporters shown freshly-dug graves

* Libya says 64 civilians killed

* Coalition says unaware of casualties

By Michael Georgy

TRIPOLI, March 20 (Reuters) - At a clifftop cemeteryoverlooking the Mediteranean Sea, Libyans buried their dead,killed, government officials said, by Western bombs.

At an event for escorted foreign reporters, pro-governmentLibyans raged against western warplanes and missiles they saidhad spewed death over the Libyan capital at the weekend.

The mourners themselves spoke in quieter tones and theconflicting accounts they gave for the circumstances surroundingthe deaths of their loved ones made it difficult to assess theveracity of the official version.

As a cleric fired up people who said they were mourners atthe cemetery and plainclothes security men defiantly firedassault rifles into the air, the uncle of a three-month-old girlstood over her freshly dug grave, covered with a few roses.

The uncle, Muhammad Salim, who seemed calm, said theairstrike that hit the girl's house also wounded her mother. Herfather offered a different account, saying no one was injured.

"Is this what they call democracy? This is nothing but thekilling of innocent people. Babies," yelled one teenager asother tempers began to flare and calls for jihad erupted.

A Libyan government health official said 64 people had beenkilled in the bombardment overnight in the biggest interventionagainst an Arab country since the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

The U.S. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral MikeMullen, said he had seen no reports of civilian casualties fromthe Western strikes. But Russia said there had been suchcasualties and called on Britain, France and the United Statesto halt the "non-selective use of force".

Government minders who closely oversee journalist movementin the capital declined to take reporters in Tripoli to thesites of the bombings or hospitals treating alleged victims ofairstrikes Gaddafi has equated with terrorism.

One of the victims was Ramadan al Zirgany but relatives gavereporters conflicting stories about his job, how he died and hisage. Some said he was a taxi driver, others said he wasunemployed.

Accounts of his death ranged from a wall collapsing on himafter a bomb struck near Gaddafi's Tripoli headquarters to acruise missile hitting his car.

http://uk.reuters.com/art...ls-idUKSGE72J01020110320

 

[callhimar]

Also, this is not comparable to Afghanistan and Iraq for a number of reasons. They are three completely separate situations. 
In Iraq, we saw a country that had a ruthless dictator. The people were thoroughly suppressed due to what they had seen happen to those before them who tried to rise up. As I said in an earlier post, when Saddam massacred the Kurds and Shi'a groups who tried to rise against him in the early 90s and jailed/killed/tortured dissidents with reckless abandon, it sent a resounding message to the Iraqi people. As did the international communities inaction. 




NO ONE IS GOING TO SAVE YOU.

From then on, they were at his mercy. This is the only way that Iraq is comparable to Libya. The situation in Libya is one of revolution, right now, much like it was in Iraq in '91. The international community has learned from its mistakes and is not going to hesitate to lend aid to rebels to remove a psychopath like Gaddafi. Since, you know, not doing anything worked out really well for us with Iraq, right?

In Afghanistan, at the time of invasion, the Taliban had just gained the strongest hold on the country that any one had had in a decade. We entered at the tail end of a brutal civil war in a country that was sick of the fighting. That was the only reason some people welcomed the Taliban. Not their beliefs, but because they brought stability and an end to the violence that plagued that country for so long. This is why at the beginning of the invasion we heard to much about the Northern Alliance. They were the main opposition to the Taliban, but at that point they were simply no match and we were forced to put boots on the ground. 

What we have in Libya is revolution. The people still have the fire in them to fight Gaddafi and his hired thugs. With support from the international community in the air, and possibly in the form of funds and weapons, we could very well see this revolution succeed and Gaddafi removed from power. 

However our support is not all kittens and butterflies. We need to understand who we are helping. There are elements within Libyan society that are radical in nature, and we should not be so eager to jump at the chance to arm them. This also has historical precedent, with Afghanistan in the war with the Soviet Union. But for now, it seems like the international community is going to play "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" once again to get rid of Gaddafi, and I can't say I'm against that.

TL;DR - Most of NT has no idea what they're talking about outside of Hazel, Carlos Tevez and a select few others. The rest of you, please, just stop.

Come on, guy. 120 missiles fired into a country and no civilian casualties? 

Could "official" government reports be true? Maybe or maybe not, we don't know. It sounds a lot more like reality than saying "we are unaware of casualties" like U.S. officials are saying.

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]I didn't sa[/font]y that at all. What I said was that you quoted an article from February 23rd, long before the No Fly Zone was put in place, with the intent to make it look like that many civilians had already been killed, legitimizing your point with false statistics.

That, to put it simply, is misleading and shows that you have no basis for these claims. And it needed to be called out. 

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/font]

Bottom line for me: If Libya had a legitimate revolution, it is now greatly undermined by outside intervention. 

THIS however, is a very good point. But seeing that the Arab League asked for intervention and the people in Benghazi were cheering when the No Fly Zone was announced, it may be seen as illegitimate in the Arab world, but it will be just as legitimate when Gaddafi is gone. What happens after remains to be seen.

 

[rolaholic]

Originally Posted by CallHimAR

Also, this is not comparable to Afghanistan and Iraq for a number of reasons. They are three completely separate situations. 
In Iraq, we saw a country that had a ruthless dictator. The people were thoroughly suppressed due to what they had seen happen to those before them who tried to rise up. As I said in an earlier post, when Saddam massacred the Kurds and Shi'a groups who tried to rise against him in the early 90s and jailed/killed/tortured dissidents with reckless abandon, it sent a resounding message to the Iraqi people. As did the international communities inaction. 




NO ONE IS GOING TO SAVE YOU.

From then on, they were at his mercy. This is the only way that Iraq is comparable to Libya. The situation in Libya is one of revolution, right now, much like it was in Iraq in '91. The international community has learned from its mistakes and is not going to hesitate to lend aid to rebels to remove a psychopath like Gaddafi. Since, you know, not doing anything worked out really well for us with Iraq, right?

In Afghanistan, at the time of invasion, the Taliban had just gained the strongest hold on the country that any one had had in a decade. We entered at the tail end of a brutal civil war in a country that was sick of the fighting. That was the only reason some people welcomed the Taliban. Not their beliefs, but because they brought stability and an end to the violence that plagued that country for so long. This is why at the beginning of the invasion we heard to much about the Northern Alliance. They were the main opposition to the Taliban, but at that point they were simply no match and we were forced to put boots on the ground. 

What we have in Libya is revolution. The people still have the fire in them to fight Gaddafi and his hired thugs. With support from the international community in the air, and possibly in the form of funds and weapons, we could very well see this revolution succeed and Gaddafi removed from power. 

However our support is not all kittens and butterflies. We need to understand who we are helping. There are elements within Libyan society that are radical in nature, and we should not be so eager to jump at the chance to arm them. This also has historical precedent, with Afghanistan in the war with the Soviet Union. But for now, it seems like the international community is going to play "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" once again to get rid of Gaddafi, and I can't say I'm against that.

TL;DR - Most of NT has no idea what they're talking about outside of Hazel, Carlos Tevez and a select few others. The rest of you, please, just stop.

Finally someone spitting the truth

.

Most of this thread has been absolute nonsense

 

[whiterails]

Originally Posted by rashi

Good 'ol Pro-Gold, Anti-War, Anti-Fed Brother Farrakhan. 

I love this vid.

Theregime has admitted - by way of a table released by theColonel's son, Seif Al-Islam - 300 dead (242 civilians, of whomover a hundred in Benghazi, and 58 soldiers). Blind, no-holds-barred repression was confirmed in themuch-awaited speech by Libyan leader, who spoke to the nation ina lengthy, agitated speech steeped in revolutionary rhetoric.

Huh SunDOOBIE?!?!?! You like that, huh?

242 Civilians compared to 58 soldiers?!?!?


Wow... Did you actually just try to pass off a quote from a month ago as relevant to the NFZ?  From Ghaddafi's son no less?  As a credibile source?

Just stop... Your credibility is completely shot.

Props to CallHimAR 

..

Clowns like this need to be exposed.

 

[carlos tevez]

Originally Posted by CallHimAR

Also, this is not comparable to Afghanistan and Iraq for a number of reasons. They are three completely separate situations. 
In Iraq, we saw a country that had a ruthless dictator. The people were thoroughly suppressed due to what they had seen happen to those before them who tried to rise up. As I said in an earlier post, when Saddam massacred the Kurds and Shi'a groups who tried to rise against him in the early 90s and jailed/killed/tortured dissidents with reckless abandon, it sent a resounding message to the Iraqi people. As did the international communities inaction. 




NO ONE IS GOING TO SAVE YOU.

From then on, they were at his mercy. This is the only way that Iraq is comparable to Libya. The situation in Libya is one of revolution, right now, much like it was in Iraq in '91. The international community has learned from its mistakes and is not going to hesitate to lend aid to rebels to remove a psychopath like Gaddafi. Since, you know, not doing anything worked out really well for us with Iraq, right?

In Afghanistan, at the time of invasion, the Taliban had just gained the strongest hold on the country that any one had had in a decade. We entered at the tail end of a brutal civil war in a country that was sick of the fighting. That was the only reason some people welcomed the Taliban. Not their beliefs, but because they brought stability and an end to the violence that plagued that country for so long. This is why at the beginning of the invasion we heard to much about the Northern Alliance. They were the main opposition to the Taliban, but at that point they were simply no match and we were forced to put boots on the ground. 

What we have in Libya is revolution. The people still have the fire in them to fight Gaddafi and his hired thugs. With support from the international community in the air, and possibly in the form of funds and weapons, we could very well see this revolution succeed and Gaddafi removed from power. 

However our support is not all kittens and butterflies. We need to understand who we are helping. There are elements within Libyan society that are radical in nature, and we should not be so eager to jump at the chance to arm them. This also has historical precedent, with Afghanistan in the war with the Soviet Union. But for now, it seems like the international community is going to play "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" once again to get rid of Gaddafi, and I can't say I'm against that.

TL;DR - Most of NT has no idea what they're talking about outside of Hazel, Carlos Tevez and a select few others. The rest of you, please, just stop.

Come on, guy. 120 missiles fired into a country and no civilian casualties? 

Could "official" government reports be true? Maybe or maybe not, we don't know. It sounds a lot more like reality than saying "we are unaware of casualties" like U.S. officials are saying.

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]I didn't sa[/font]y that at all. What I said was that you quoted an article from February 23rd, long before the No Fly Zone was put in place, with the intent to make it look like that many civilians had already been killed, legitimizing your point with false statistics.

That, to put it simply, is misleading and shows that you have no basis for these claims. And it needed to be called out. 

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/font]

Bottom line for me: If Libya had a legitimate revolution, it is now greatly undermined by outside intervention. 

THIS however, is a very good point. But seeing that the Arab League asked for intervention and the people in Benghazi were cheering when the No Fly Zone was announced, it may be seen as illegitimate in the Arab world, but it will be just as legitimate when Gaddafi is gone. What happens after remains to be seen.

Listen, I agree that Gaddafi is an animal and I for one will not shed a tear when he is eventually forcefully removed from power. That being said, I am extremely disappointed in the way all of this has transpired and the implications of the foreign intervention into Libya. If you take this at face value (which unfortunately many people are doing), then you realize that Gaddafi is killing his own civilians, he has lost the legitimacy to rule Libya in the process, and that international intervention based on humanitarian grounds is absolutely justifiable.

However, as you point out, there is much more to this intervention than just humanitarian grounds. With regards to the legitimacy of these operations, they have already lost legitimacy IMO because the operations have gone beyond the mandate set out by the Arab League and the UN. We can sit here and laugh at the futility of the AL and UN but the fact of the matter is the U.S., France and Britain have used the AL and UN to legitimize these attacks. If we look at the strict mandate called by the AL and the UN we will see that they called for a no-fly zone, period. The NFZ was called for and accepted by the international community because it was seen as an effective way of preventing this tyrant from killing his own people. I personally would not have had any issues if the Western coalition obeyed the AL and UN's mandate of enforcing  the NFZ and even helping the rebels on the ground try and defeat the Gaddafi loyalists.

The problem is that already on the first day of operations the Western coalition have acted above and beyond the mandate set out by the AL and the UN. Once again, we know that the AL is quite a joke of an organization but the cause for concern articulated by that organization today has some merit to it. The AL and UN called for a NFZ to protect the Libyan people. The Western coalition have not only enforced the NFZ but they've also heavily bombed Libyan territory and these actions are clearly illegal. To add insult to injury, the Western coalition have announced that they intend on removing Gaddafi from power. When did the AL and UN vote on whether on not Gaddafi should continue to rule Libya? So as we can all see, the Western coalition have taken advantage of calls on a NFZ to intervene in this conflict and not only try to enforce the NFZ but also try to unseat a leader that is unfavorable to Western interests. I'll even go as far as saying this intervention is a violation of Libyan sovereignty because it's likely the West will inevitably install a government favorable to its interests and this takes us back to the days of colonization and imperialism when the likes of Britain and France would not hesitate to overthrow Arab and Muslim leaders that were not pro-Western.

Have we not learn anything from the Palestine/Israel conflict? Or from the U.S. presence in the Arab Gulf? Or from the USSR invasion of Afghanistan? Or from the 2003 invasion of Iraq? There are so many examples out there that tell us Arabs/Muslims do not want foreign occupation of their land, regardless of circumstances. There are definitely some occasions when Arab/Muslim countries called for foreign help to settle some situations but after that we've had Arab/Muslims tell foreigners to get out of their land and often times these foreigners have refused. This has often caused major strains between the West and the Middle East and its one of the major reasons why Islamic fundamentalism remains a significant problem in the world today. Islamic fundamentalists see Western intervention as modern day imperialism and in all likelihood they will see this intervention onto Libyan territory as no different which may lead to increased international instability.

What happened to sitting down and negotiating with leaders? How about placing crippling sanctions onto Gaddafi? Why are we always so quick to rush into war for the sake of "peace"?

 

[streetpharmacist]

Originally Posted by Animal Thug1539


So we don't go through congress? We just act like the Mafia, and bomb who ever the !*+% we want?

What a joke this country has become.

 

[True Blues]

Despite my position on the matter, I thought this was relevant to the "discussion":

[table][tr][td]The drawbacks of intervention in Libya [/td] [/tr][tr][td]
[/td] [/tr][tr][td]
Concerns over oil markets, geopolitics and refugees might be behind no-fly zone decision, scholars argue.

Asli U. Bâli and Ziad Abu-Rish Last Modified: 20 Mar 2011 16:34
[/td][/tr][/table]

The Libyan uprising is entering its fourth week. The courage and persistence of the Libyan people's efforts to overthrow Gaddafi have been met with ongoing regime brutality ranging from shoot-to-kill policies to the indiscriminate use of artillery against unarmed civilians.

In addition to the current no-fly zone, the UN Security Council unanimously issued a resolution imposing tough measures against the Libyan regime including an arms embargo, asset freeze, travel ban and a referral of the situation in Libya to the International Criminal Court for investigation.

The desire to act in solidarity with the Libyan people demands that we assess the available options against the core principle of legitimacy that any intervention must satisfy: Do no harm (that is, do not do more harm on balance by intervening).

The likelihood that coercive intervention would satisfy this principle is severely constrained when evaluated against the historical record, logistical realities, and the incentives and interests of the states in a position to serve as the would-be external interveners.

Put simply, coercive external intervention to alter the balance of power on the ground in Libya in favor of the anti-Gaddafi revolt is likely to backfire badly.

The attendant costs would, of course, be borne not by those who call for intervention from outside of Libya but by the Libyan people with whom we hope to show solidarity. In what follows we argue that embracing the call for solidarity requires a much more careful appraisal of the interventionist option, precisely because the potential risks will be borne by Libyan civilians.

Mixed motivations

Of the arguments against intervention, the most straightforward draws on an assessment of the long history of external intervention in the Middle East and North Africa.

There is no need to rehearse that history here since the failure of such past interventions to advance the humanitarian welfare or political aspirations of local populations is well-established. But because the possibility of intervention is debated in some circles as if the starting point is a clean slate, it is important to begin by recalling this dismal history. For instance, the imposition of a no-fly-zone on Iraq did little in and of itself to shift the balance of power against the Saddam Hussein regime, but it did result in the deaths of hundreds of civilians.

Further, the no-fly zone served as a predicate for the subsequent invasion and occupation of Iraq insofar as the ongoing use of this coercive measure against the regime from 1991 until 2003 was cited in support of the argument that there was "implied authorisation" to forcibly topple the regime.

While humanitarian considerations are often invoked in defense of intervention, humanitarianism is far from the only issue on the table. Other reasons that have been adduced in favor of intervention in Libya include vindicating international norms, re-establishing the leadership of the US in the region, preventing spill-over of the refugee crisis into Europe, and the stabilisation of world oil markets. The Libyan people are struggling to change their regime on their own terms and there is no reason to presume an overlap between these various logics of intervention and their interests.

The historical record clearly establishes that an external regime change intervention based on mixed motives - even when accompanied with claims of humanitarianism - usually privileges the strategic and economic interests of interveners and results in disastrous consequences for the people on the ground. Indeed, the discord currently evidenced among Western powers concerning intervention in Libya is precisely based in their doubts as to whether their strategic interests are adequately served by such a course.

The incongruence between the interests of external interveners and those on the ground in Libya is already apparent. Beyond their eleventh hour timing, serious mobilisations for intervention on the part of Western powers were issued only after most Western nationals had been safely evacuated from Libya.

The fact that outside powers were unwilling to act while their nationals were on Libyan soil demonstrates their understanding that treating the regime with coercion may lead to civilian deaths either directly as a result of an intervention or indirectly through reprisals against civilians identified as opponents.

Furthermore, the evacuation channels made available to Western nationals – airlifts across the Mediterranean – were not and are not being offered to Libyan civilians nor African migrant workers trapped in Libya. If the humanitarian welfare of civilians in Libya were paramount, they, too, would have been offered this secure escape route. Instead, once Western nationals were safely out of harm’s way, coercive measures were adopted without any effort to protect or evacuate the civilians that were left behind in Tripoli and beyond.

No-fly zone, local calls, and solidarity

To be clear, we are not categorically rejecting any and all forms of intervention irrespective of the context. Instead, we reject forms of intervention that, on balance, are likely to produce more harm than benefit. This is a context-specific determination that requires an assessment of the forseeable consequences of particular proposed interventions. With respect to the context in Libya today we are critical of current proposals for intervention in light of the identities and interests of would-be interveners and the limited understanding of intra-Libyan political dynamics on which they rely. There are circumstances under which a no-fly zone might conceivably serve a humanitarian purpose.

In particular, if air strikes were the principal means by which the regime was inflicting civilian casualties, there would be a much stronger case for a no-fly zone. Though the military situation within Libya remains unclear, the empirical evidence that is available suggests that Gaddafi’s artillery poses a more serious threat to both civilians and rebels than air strikes.

In addition, the regime's aerial assaults have primarily employed helicopter gunships, which would be difficult to counter through a no-fly zone because they fly lower and are harder to target than warplanes.

Further, the no-fly zone imposed through the UN Security Council involves attacks on Libyan runways, radars, and anti-aircraft artillery installations with the potential for significant "collateral damage" against civilians and civilian infrastructure. A no-fly zone that risks killing Libyans would also run the risk of strengthening the regime's hand by enabling Gaddafi to style himself as an anti-imperialist defender of Libyan sovereignty.

Rather than persuading elements of the military and air force to defect, such a move might produce a counter-productive rally-round-the-flag effect in parts of Libya still under the control of the regime.

The fact that for logistical and political reasons a no-fly zone poses a serious risk of backfiring is an important consideration. But it is not the only reason to question whether heeding local calls for a no-fly zone necessarily represent an act of solidarity.

Fragmentation risk

Furthermore, a response to calls emanating from one region may risk fragmenting the country. The fact that we know so little about the domestic context among non-regime actors in Libya is precisely the reason that the types of external intervention currently taking place are likely to backfire.

The desire to act in solidarity with local Libyans struggling for their liberation is important. But without a clear sense of the consequences of a particular intervention – or the interests and diverse actors likely to be impacted – there is no way to satisfy the do-no-harm principle. Notwithstanding the provenance of the no-fly zone – whether within Libya or the Arab League – and their attendant "authenticity" or legitimacy, we cannot justify intervention unless we can appraise its likely consequences for the civilian population with whom we are allegedly acting in solidarity.

This difficulty is further compounded by the fact that neither the Western nor Arab powers currently calling for intervention have a record of privileging particular domestic partners based on the interests or aspirations of local populations. There is little reason to expect that Libya will be exceptional in this regard, particularly in light of the mixed motives of any potential intervener.

We do not argue that the international community has no obligation to support Libyan civilians. To the contrary, we strongly believe there is such an obligation, but that current coercive options pose serious risks to the Libyan population with little concomitant benefit in terms of humanitarian protections.

The interests of potential external interveners are not well aligned with those of Libyans on the ground beyond that of regime change.

Further, the identities of involved in the process of intervention reinforce concerns about such proposals. Many members of the Arab League are currently undertaking repression of democratic uprisings against their rule. The legitimacy and representativeness of any call they issue should be called into question by their own internal anti-democratic practices.

As Saudi troops operate in Bahrain to shore up the defenses of an authoritarian ruling family against its own people, the bankruptcy of calls for intervention in Libya by members of the GCC and the Arab League is evident.

Members of the Group of 8 are also compromised by their ambivalence towards democratic demands met with repression by their regional allies and their own long history of brutal interventions and direct support of authoritarian regimes.

ICC referral 'counter-productive'

Libyans have already made great inroads on the ground and without external support towards a goal of regime change in which they will determine the day-after scenarios for their country.

To date, measures adopted by the international community have done little to aid, and may have undermined, Libyan efforts at liberation. For instance, the call for an ICC referral in the measures adopted by the UN Security Council was most likely counter-productive. The first priority should have been a negotiated exit strategy for Gaddafi and his family, not unlike the path already paved for the other recently deposed Arab despots, Ben Ali and Mubarak.

Instead, by immediately referring the regime for investigation by the ICC the international community has signaled to Gaddafi that neither he nor his children will be allowed to go quietly, potentially redoubling his resolve to fight to the last.

Allowing a negotiated exit to exile in an African or South American country would not have precluded a subsequent ICC referral, but might have facilitated an early end to the violence currently ravaging Libya. Further, the same resolution that referred Libyan authorities to the ICC contained a specific exemption from ICC jurisdiction for foreign interveners not party to the Rome Statute, anticipating and providing impunity in some cases for civilian deaths that result from possible UN Security Council-authorised operations in Libya down the line.

The ICC referral has been described as an attempt to incentivise those around Gaddafi to defect. Rather than vindicating international accountability, this logic of incentives suggests impunity for last-minute defectors notwithstanding decades of crimes against the Libyan population.

At its most basic, the ICC referral represents the triumph of a set of international goals (vindicating a constrained conception of international accountability through the Libyan regime) over the immediate interest in an early resolution of the Libyan crisis through the provision of a regime exit strategy. This privileging of international over local interests is typical of external intervention and would only be exacerbated by options involving the use of force.

Useful assistance

We argue for forms of international assistance that reverse this privileging and begin from the known interests of Libyan civilians. At a minimum, resources must be mobilised to offer relief supplies to the Libyan population that is currently outside of the control of the regime (bearing in mind some of the problematic dynamics also associated with such forms of "aid").

Urgent priority should be given to addressing shortages of medical supplies and provision of essential foods and clean water. Beyond these basics, an evacuation corridor for civilians – including non-Libyan African workers trapped in the territory – should be secured and responsibility for shouldering the burden of refugee flows should not be restricted to Tunisia and Egypt.

To the contrary, rather than imposing these costs on Libya's poorest neighbors – in the early stages of transitions of their own – Libya’s relatively wealthy northern neighbors in Europe should be absorbing a much larger share of the costs, human and material, of offering refuge to fleeing civilians.

The fact that the airlifting of Libyan and other African civilians to safety out of Tripoli is an option that is not currently on the table speaks eloquently to the misalignment of priorities. Dropping the xenophobic European rhetoric on the "dangers" of African immigration would also have the benefit of removing one of the Libyan regime's major levers with the EU.

As Gaddafi threatens to terminate the agreements by which he has been warehousing African migrants at Europe's behest, he lays bare the cruel logic of tacit alliances (based on immigration, energy, and security interests) that has long lent support to his rule.

A Europe willing to take concrete steps to facilitate the evacuation to its own shores of civilians who wish to leave Libyan territory regardless of nationality would at least have broken with its record of shameful complicity in regime brutality.

Acting in solidarity with the Libyan people within a do-no-harm principle presents many constraints and frustratingly few options. This is not because of an absence of concern for the interests of the Libyan population but because there are few good options beyond the provision of relief supplies and evacuation channels.

Support Libyan rebels?

There may be other alternatives short of external coercive intervention that might be considered – such as sharing tactical intelligence with Libyan rebels or jamming regime communications – though such options would have to be carefully evaluated in light of potential risks.

By contrast, overt and covert coercive options ranging from no-fly zones to arming Libyan rebels or using regional commandos to train them all implicate external actors in altering the balance on the ground in unpredictable ways.

To engage in such coercive strategies without being able to evaluate the full range of consequences amounts to subordinating the interests of the Libyan people to our own sense of purpose and justice.

We strongly advocate creative strategies of solidarity with the Libyan people while underscoring that calls for coercive external intervention do not qualify. Indeed, it is possible that demands for Western support to the rebels may already have done more harm than good.

In the end, we argue for humility in imagining the role we might play in the course of Libyans' struggle. The international community is neither entitled to take the reins today nor dictate the post-regime scenario tomorrow. Further, those of us who wish to stand in solidarity with Libyans from outside of their country must recognise that we may not be best placed to identify which local actors enjoy broad-based support.

Solidarity cannot be reduced to the diplomatic politics of recognition nor to arguments for external intervention.

In the end, we counsel acting from the outside only when our actions are clearly aligned with the interests of Libyan civilians. Imaginative strategies to offer much-needed relief and refuge to Libya’s vulnerable population represent a challenge the international community has yet to meet. That is a good starting point for transnational solidarity.

Asli Ü. Bâli is a professor of law at the UCLA School of Law. Her research interests also include comparative law of the Middle East.
Ziad Abu-Rish is a doctoral candidate in UCLA's Department of History. He is the co-editor of Jadaliyya Ezine.

 

[callhimar]

Listen, I agree that Gaddafi is an animal and I for one will not shed a tear when he is eventually forcefully removed from power. That being said, I am extremely disappointed in the way all of this has transpired and the implications of the foreign intervention into Libya. If you take this at face value (which unfortunately many people are doing), then you realize that Gaddafi is killing his own civilians, he has lost the legitimacy to rule Libya in the process, and that international intervention based on humanitarian grounds is absolutely justifiable.

However, as you point out, there is much more to this intervention than just humanitarian grounds. With regards to the legitimacy of these operations, they have already lost legitimacy IMO because the operations have gone beyond the mandate set out by the Arab League and the UN. We can sit here and laugh at the futility of the AL and UN but the fact of the matter is the U.S., France and Britain have used the AL and UN to legitimize these attacks. If we look at the strict mandate called by the AL and the UN we will see that they called for a no-fly zone, period. The NFZ was called for and accepted by the international community because it was seen as an effective way of preventing this tyrant from killing his own people. I personally would not have had any issues if the Western coalition obeyed the AL and UN's mandate of enforcing  the NFZ and even helping the rebels on the ground try and defeat the Gaddafi loyalists.

The problem is that already on the first day of operations the Western coalition have acted above and beyond the mandate set out by the AL and the UN. Once again, we know that the AL is quite a joke of an organization but the cause for concern articulated by that organization today has some merit to it. The AL and UN called for a NFZ to protect the Libyan people. The Western coalition have not only enforced the NFZ but they've also heavily bombed Libyan territory and these actions are clearly illegal. To add insult to injury, the Western coalition have announced that they intend on removing Gaddafi from power. When did the AL and UN vote on whether on not Gaddafi should continue to rule Libya? So as we can all see, the Western coalition have taken advantage of calls on a NFZ to intervene in this conflict and not only try to enforce the NFZ but also try to unseat a leader that is unfavorable to Western interests. I'll even go as far as saying this intervention is a violation of Libyan sovereignty because it's likely the West will inevitably install a government favorable to its interests and this takes us back to the days of colonization and imperialism when the likes of Britain and France would not hesitate to overthrow Arab and Muslim leaders that were not pro-Western.

Have we not learn anything from the Palestine/Israel conflict? Or from the U.S. presence in the Arab Gulf? Or from the USSR invasion of Afghanistan? Or from the 2003 invasion of Iraq? There are so many examples out there that tell us Arabs/Muslims do not want foreign occupation of their land, regardless of circumstances. There are definitely some occasions when Arab/Muslim countries called for foreign help to settle some situations but after that we've had Arab/Muslims tell foreigners to get out of their land and often times these foreigners have refused. This has often caused major strains between the West and the Middle East and its one of the major reasons why Islamic fundamentalism remains a significant problem in the world today. Islamic fundamentalists see Western intervention as modern day imperialism and in all likelihood they will see this intervention onto Libyan territory as no different which may lead to increased international instability.

What happened to sitting down and negotiating with leaders? How about placing crippling sanctions onto Gaddafi? Why are we always so quick to rush into war for the sake of "peace"?



See this is where we split. From my understanding of the NFZ that was put in place from the very beginning, yes there was obviously going to be nothing flying in the airspace over Libya, however there was also going to be the possibility for air strikes and missile strikes by the U.N. coalition. This was clearly stated a number of times, and it may not have been exactly what the Arab League called for but it is definitely what the U.N. had been saying all along. The only reason the air strikes and missile strikes happened was because Gaddafi refused to back down. Early on the first day it appeared as if they were going to call an immediate cease fire and all was going to be well, however this ended up being false and Gadaffis troops moved into Benghazi with the intent to violently suppress the revolutionaries as Gadaffi said they would prior to the NFZ being put in place. 
In fact, here is an article directly from the U.N. that clearly states:

 The Security Council today effectivelyauthorized the use of force in Libya to protect civilians from attack, specifically in the eastern city of Benghazi, which Colonel Muammar Al-Qadhafi has reportedly said he will storm tonight to end a revolt against his regime.
Acting under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, which provides for the use of force if needed, the Council adopted a resolution by 10 votes to zero, with five abstentions, authorizing Member States “to take all necessary measures… to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack in the Libyan Arab Jamhariya, including Benghazi, while excluding an occupation force.

 

[carlos tevez]

The reason I ignored the point that unseating Gaddafi would be favorable to the Libyan people is because Western actors have often ignored the best interests of citizens of authoritarian states. If the West truly cared about helping people living under brutal dictators than they'd intervene every single time a dictator killed his own citizens. Ofcourse we all know that the West intervening every single time isnt feasible. However, we also know that the West has been supporting dictators for many decades now at the expense of citizens of those countries. Keep in mind that the West is legitimizing this intervention based on humanitarian grounds while serious humanitarian crises are ongoing in countries such as the Ivory Coast, Yemen, Bahrain, etc. The reason I am arguing that the West has acted relatively swiftly in intervening in this conflict is because although it is not much different than the conflicts in the aforementioned countries, Gaddafi is a leader that has been problematic to the West in the past and removing him and turning Libya into a pro-Western nation would greatly benefit the West. If the West genuinely cared about humanitarian problems in the region then guys like Ben Ali, Gaddafi, Mubarak, etc etc would not have survived as long as they have.

So they did in fact take other actions to try to stop the violence, in addition to the NFZ. But again, sanctions alone are not going to remove anyone from power. We've seen this prove in Iraq in the past, and Iran in the present.

Why is removing him from power so imperative though? Keep in mind though the main goal here is to protect the Libyan people and to stop Gaddafi from killing his own people. The Western coalition have made it their personal goal to remove Gaddafi from power as well even though the AL and UN did not state this as own of the goals. I am not saying sanctions are perfect but perhaps they could've been utilized more effectively to stop the bloodshed (i.e. ban the importation of ALL Libyan oil until Gaddafi stops the violence).

BTW, I think it'll be much more interesting to come back to this discussion in a few weeks/months time when most of the dust will likely be settled. It appears that right now members here are divided between those who take this intervention at face value (i.e. removal of this tyrant by any means is necessary based on humanitarian grounds) vs. those who feel there is more beneath the surface (Western coalition are removing tyrant in order install puppet government). The one main thing I will agree with you guys is that Gaddafi has to go and I will be here celebrating with you when he's eventually removed from power.

 

[callhimar]

Originally Posted by Carlos Tevez

The reason I ignored the point that unseating Gaddafi would be favorable to the Libyan people is because Western actors have often ignored the best interests of citizens of authoritarian states. If the West truly cared about helping people living under brutal dictators than they'd intervene every single time a dictator killed his own citizens. Ofcourse we all know that the West intervening every single time isnt feasible. However, we also know that the West has been supporting dictators for many decades now at the expense of citizens of those countries. Keep in mind that the West is legitimizing this intervention based on humanitarian grounds while serious humanitarian crises are ongoing in countries such as the Ivory Coast, Yemen, Bahrain, etc. The reason I am arguing that the West has acted relatively swiftly in intervening in this conflict is because although it is not much different than the conflicts in the aforementioned countries, Gaddafi is a leader that has been problematic to the West in the past and removing him and turning Libya into a pro-Western nation would greatly benefit the West. If the West genuinely cared about humanitarian problems in the region then guys like Ben Ali, Gaddafi, Mubarak, etc etc would not have survived as long as they have.

So they did in fact take other actions to try to stop the violence, in addition to the NFZ. But again, sanctions alone are not going to remove anyone from power. We've seen this prove in Iraq in the past, and Iran in the present.

Why is removing him from power so imperative though? Keep in mind though the main goal here is to protect the Libyan people and to stop Gaddafi from killing his own people. The Western coalition have made it their personal goal to remove Gaddafi from power as well even though the AL and UN did not state this as own of the goals. I am not saying sanctions are perfect but perhaps they could've been utilized more effectively to stop the bloodshed (i.e. ban the importation of ALL Libyan oil until Gaddafi stops the violence).

BTW, I think it'll be much more interesting to come back to this discussion in a few weeks/months time when most of the dust will likely be settled. It appears that right now members here are divided between those who take this intervention at face value (i.e. removal of this tyrant by any means is necessary based on humanitarian grounds) vs. those who feel there is more beneath the surface (Western coalition are removing tyrant in order install puppet government). The one main thing I will agree with you guys is that Gaddafi has to go and I will be here celebrating with you when he's eventually removed from power.


You're right in your first point. But if the international community is going to help the Libyan people and it is going to benefit both parties, I cannot be against that. There are a large number of other conflicts taking place in the world, however the incentive to get involved simply isn't there because in international politics humanitarian intervention isn't very high on the list of reasons to intervene. I hate that this is true, but honestly, it is. 
Also, if you have a favorable dictator who will act in your interests (Mubarak) you're not going to try to get rid of him. I've said for a long time that the last thing the West wants is a truly democratic Middle East. The policies of these countries would directly conflict with ours and due to our need for their resources it would be very messy for the West. 

Removing him from power was necessary because if he stays in power the people who started this revolution, as well as thousands of others will pay for it. This isn't a maybe, this is a definite. The people of Benghazi were about to feel it much worse than they are right now. Gaddafi was going to have no problem massacring them, and it would have continued until the dissent was silenced. If he isn't removed from power, it might not happen now but a few months from now it certainly will. 

Trust me, I'm not taking this at face value, I'm just hoping that we're past the age of replacing one tyrant with another. Wishful thinking, I know, but if it saves a good number of Libyan rebels from being massacred in the street than I am all for it. Only time will tell how democratic these revolutions that have occurred over the past few months will end up being. 

 

[wr]

After Ghadafi's 2009 90 minute outburst at the U.N. I'm not surprised they all closed in on him. 
part:1

 

[teamjordan79]

"This action justifies Russia's aims of building up national defenses"�

Russia was one of the countries that opted out of supporting the NFZ along with Germany (no surprise there

), India, China and a few others.�

Oh i'll just leave this right here also:

BP set to begin oil drilling off Libya


BBC

Oil giant BP has confirmed it will begin drilling off the Libyan coast in the next few weeks.

The deepwater drilling will take place in the Gulf of Sirte following a deal signed in 2007 with Libya on oil and gas development.

The news comes amid major concerns over BP's environmental and safety record following the Gulf of Mexico spill.

It also follows claims, denied by BP, that it lobbied for Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi's release.

Source

 

[sundoobie]

Originally Posted by rashi

Good 'ol Pro-Gold, Anti-War, Anti-Fed Brother Farrakhan. 

I love this vid.

Theregime has admitted - by way of a table released by theColonel's son, Seif Al-Islam - 300 dead (242 civilians, of whomover a hundred in Benghazi, and 58 soldiers). Blind, no-holds-barred repression was confirmed in themuch-awaited speech by Libyan leader, who spoke to the nation ina lengthy, agitated speech steeped in revolutionary rhetoric.

Huh SunDOOBIE?!?!?! You like that, huh?

242 Civilians compared to 58 soldiers?!?!?

OK and? You're posting STATS from the Libyan Govt? I am surprise they didn't say 1,000,000 innocent civilians died.
Plus are you saying that innocent civilians actually die in wars? Really? I thought everyone just gets spanked and a time out.

And yeah...

at the pics below!

 

[sundoobie]

Originally Posted by TeamJordan79


Oh i'll just leave this right here also:

BP set to begin oil drilling off Libya


BBC

Oil giant BP has confirmed it will begin drilling off the Libyan coast in the next few weeks.

The deepwater drilling will take place in the Gulf of Sirte following a deal signed in 2007 with Libya on oil and gas development.

The news comes amid major concerns over BP's environmental and safety record following the Gulf of Mexico spill.

It also follows claims, denied by BP, that it lobbied for Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi's release.

Source

And your point?  You don't use Gas?  You don't use public transportation?  Are you one of those folks that CONDEMN the West taking over Middle East oil YET you're not doing anything to lessen your use of gasoline here so what does that make you?  

 

[juggy4805]

Originally Posted by TeamJordan79




Oh i'll just leave this right here also:

BP set to begin oil drilling off Libya


BBC

Oil giant BP has confirmed it will begin drilling off the Libyan coast in the next few weeks.

The deepwater drilling will take place in the Gulf of Sirte following a deal signed in 2007 with Libya on oil and gas development.

The news comes amid major concerns over BP's environmental and safety record following the Gulf of Mexico spill.

It also follows claims, denied by BP, that it lobbied for Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi's release.

Source
BP was set to begin drilling July of last year. Why would you quote an article that's 8 months old.

 

[whiterails]

Originally Posted by juggy4805

Originally Posted by TeamJordan79




Oh i'll just leave this right here also:

BP set to begin oil drilling off Libya


BBC

Oil giant BP has confirmed it will begin drilling off the Libyan coast in the next few weeks.

The deepwater drilling will take place in the Gulf of Sirte following a deal signed in 2007 with Libya on oil and gas development.

The news comes amid major concerns over BP's environmental and safety record following the Gulf of Mexico spill.

It also follows claims, denied by BP, that it lobbied for Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi's release.

Source

BP was set to begin drilling July of last year. Why would you quote an article that's 8 months old.


What is it with this thread and complete BS references/sources?

 

[rolaholic]

@ using stats from the Libyan Government. You really believe in Qaddafis propaganda