Libya IX

Quote:

Reason Number One: Regime change.

Is this surprising? I don't mean that in the cynical sense. I mean, assuming anyone is going to intervene in Libya, wouldn't this be the obvious reason? To replace a four decade-old dictatorship?

I'm not onside with Canada's participation in this, but to the degree that countries and the UN are going to involve themselves, why else?? To help secure a laughable compromise such as Gadaffi's old buddy Mugabe scored for himself, where he retains absolute control over the military, the judiciary and the legislature, while his new "partners" control mail delivery, street cleaning and the licencing of pets?

Of course it's about a regime change. Without it, what other change could possibly happen in Libya?

NDPP wrote:

'Libya Intervention New Bay of Pigs'  - by Webster G Tarpley

This Dr. Tarpley character maintains that the Libyan rebels are actually a covert CIA operation. He completely ignores the context of the "Arab Spring" movements rising up throughout the mideast. In making this blunder he promotes the myth that Obomba's aim is to get rid of Qadaffi in order to allow the rebels to take over. Obomba's real aim is to impose a western-friendly government  that will keep the rebels in check and help stall the movement for democratic-nationalist revolutions in the Arab world.   

His message cuts against any idea that progressives should support the Libyan rebellion, and thus he gives aid and comfort to imperialism.

Spector, you've critiqued the Medvedev (or Putin if you want to call it that) government in Russia for going along with (i.e., abstaining with the BRIC countries and Germany) the SC resolution but, in point of fact, if you go by Russia English language media then it's clear that they very much agree with your analysis. Edited to add: Russia is just another capitalist country ... so why have any more expectations from them than that?

The close relationship of Gadaffi to the rich Western countries prior to recent events I think is some of the best proof that the "rebels" are not simply a creation of those attacking countries.

Frmrsldr wrote:

The U.S.A. nor any other state has the pre-existing right to militarily interfere in Libya.

The Libyan Libertarias can be aided by other means.

The way I have pointed out is by local arms dealers selling arms to the Libertarias and People from other countries assisting the People of Libya by joining International Brigades (like in the days of the Spanish Civil War.)

With relatively inexpensive, easy to use shoulder-launched anti-air and anti-armor weapons that can destroy the most expensive and technologically advanced aircraft, helicopters and tanks, the battlefield is levelled this way in favor of Libertaria soldiers.

The fact that the U.S. government's budget has an over $1 trillion deficit and the government is over $14 trillion in debt is the result of these wars and its military budget that is ballooning out of control.

On the notion of rights your ghost dancing again frmr, the march of civilization up untill this point has not been defined by right to this and right to that, its final days will also not conform to your petty moralism

The alternative aiding mechanism is something I would love to see as it would express a more grounded up libertarian ways of doing things, however unfortunately that's not happening and quite frankly according the immediacy of the rebellions goals, does it really matter how the help manufactures itself, whatever help comes is welcomed as far as they are concerned they can't concern themselves with what capitalistic venture might come about afterwords,in terms of the US stretching itself thin, its doing what all other dominent civilized forces do before it collapses, you have results like iraq that are tragic but you also have something like this which is actually a preferable outcome if gadhafi does ultimately fall, you can talk about more capitalism all you want but people have preferences for how they want to live which should not be ignored.

Now finally on war and izoughts, I personally look a war as a means when comparing various scales, I think its good to differentiate between war and strife the latter being the uncontrollability and inevitablity of some form of violence or another, what I don't see within the habitual and novel movements of the world and perhaps the universe is peace, this is as I said a christian messianic providencialist morality concept that has no basis in reality, mussolini's view represented a particular strain of thought that came out of european romanticism to which he channelled in a collectivist manner, renzo novatore one of my favorite anarchists also had a prowar mentality but he concieved of it in a very personal individualistic manner-the opposite of mussolini-which is more up my ally even though personally i'm fairly non violent in disposition, as for is ought here's a good video summing up my view

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pmGL8NQ519Q&feature=channel_video_title

Other than the six people injured during the rescue of one of the downed U.S. pilots, are there any credible reports of civilian casualties yet?

Naturally some have been reported by state-run media, but I understand foreign journalists (when they're not being outright arrested and detained) are restricted to their hotel in Tripoli and unable to observe the damage (which makes the claims suspect - usually governments are eager to show off collateral damage) - but have any reports nonetheless gotten out?

M. Spector wrote:

This Dr. Tarpley character maintains that the Libyan rebels are actually a covert CIA operation. He completely ignores the context of the "Arab Spring" movements rising up throughout the mideast. In making this blunder he promotes the myth that Obomba's aim is to get rid of Qadaffi in order to allow the rebels to take over. Obomba's real aim is to impose a western-friendly government  that will keep the rebels in check and help stall the movement for democratic-nationalist revolutions in the Arab world.   

His message cuts against any idea that progressives should support the Libyan rebellion, and thus he gives aid and comfort to imperialism.

I agree.

Just because the U.S., U.K., France, Canada and other governments are militarily interfering in Libya ostensibly to overthrow the Gadhafi government and support the Libertarias,

it doesn't mean, of necessity, that the Libertarias (or those forces the Western forces are supporting, whatever the case may be) are therefore tainted, something's wrong with them or they are "evil" or suspect.

Again, let me point out that I am opposed to military interference in Libya by foreign states.

What goes on in Libya is nobody's business but the Libyans themselves.

Quote:

Other than the six people injured during the rescue of one of the downed U.S. pilots, are there any credible reports of civilian casualties yet?

Our bombs target only bad guys. Our bombs are righteous and good. Since there are no reports of casualties of the 110+ cruise missiles and the Euro air strikes, we can conclude that our superior western morality prevents innocents from getting killed. And, should the unlikely happen and our Bombs of Freedom injure some bystander, then they can die with joy knowing that we, the civilized world, are doing this to save them from tyranny. 

Or whatever.

M. Spector wrote:

I guess that's where we part company. If Cuba, for example, wanted to supply the Libyan rebels with arms, I would support that.

That's because I also disagree with the second sentence above: democratic and national liberation struggles in other countries are very much the business of everyone who dreams of a better world. Otherwise, the concept of international solidarity among oppressed people would be meaningless.

Actually our views are closer than you think.

One can argue that foreign states can militarily interfere in Peoples' revolutions, if their (state's) intentions are good.

I make the universal claim that if it is wrong for ONE foreign state to militarily interfere in a People's Revolution (internal affairs), then it is wrong for ALL foreign states to militarily interfere in a People's Revolution (internal affairs.)

Wars of Aggression are illegal. It doesn't matter who does it or the reasons why it's done.

If one country does it, then another country will point the finger and say "They did it. Why can't I?"

If Cuba does it, the U.S.A. could rightly ask, "Why can't I?"

No country sees itself as evil. No country sees what it does as evil.

Everytime countries engage in illegal wars of aggression, they always see themselves as the "good side" and their cause as "just."

We can't allow the laws against Wars of Aggression to be broken or else we will end up in a lawless "Might makes Right" world. The kind that Mike Stirner advocates.

Far better for Peoples (Libertarias) of the world to support the Libertarian Revolution in Libya.

You can never be as certain of the motivations and future actions of states.

Jingles wrote:

Quote:

Other than the six people injured during the rescue of one of the downed U.S. pilots, are there any credible reports of civilian casualties yet?

Our bombs target only bad guys. Our bombs are righteous and good. Since there are no reports of casualties of the 110+ cruise missiles and the Euro air strikes, we can conclude that our superior western morality prevents innocents from getting killed. And, should the unlikely happen and our Bombs of Freedom injure some bystander, then they can die with joy knowing that we, the civilized world, are doing this to save them from tyranny. 

Or whatever.

In the face of a simple question you can do nothing more than throw up the usual rhetoric?  I don't know, lets just make up some number, something really terrible, would that make you happy?

I'm not going to jump onto the civilian casualties go round you guys got going here; it's in the interest of both side of this conflict to exaggerate or minimize those claims; that includes the civilians killed by Gadaffi's bombardment of towns and cities or coalition airstrikes. It all depends on who you want to believe. As usual, here on babble, the sides divide on as to who you support in this conflict and it just turns into a "you care about this but you don't care about that" fest. I'd just like to point out I find the usual graphic coverage the Arab media usually give civilian casualties in conflicts (you all know what I'm talking about); especially ones the West or the USA are involved in strangely lacking in this conflict. I wonder why that is...

(Am I the only one here wondering about this?)

Northern Shoveler wrote:

No it was the same way with the number of people actually murdered by Gaddafi in the streets.  Very hard to tell what the numbers of civilian deaths have been no matter which side caused by them when both sides are engaged in war including a propaganda war.

US media coverage right now is very much like the coverage during the beginning of the invasion and bombing of Iraq. The civilian casualties - or the "likely civilian casuaties" by the Gadaffi regime - are treated as so obvious that no evidence is required.

That is, no evidence is required by US media to substantiate a bombing campaign against another country. Instead, the discussion revolves around how the Republicans are so anti Obama that they won't support the current campaign and have developed some concerns about Congress not being in on the decision to go to war.

Trivializing war by treating the claims used to justify it as unimportant and not worth mentioning (or failing to provide unshakeable evidence for) is even worse than the Gong Show involving the then US Sec of State Colin Powell and his Yanqui lies to the UN about Iraq. This is a kind of continuation of the pre-emptive war doctrine of Bush.

Going by such a doctrine, the entire US government should be arrested and put on trial.

[url=http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=23928]One Day Before Benghazi Rebellion. IMF Commends Qadhafi Government.[/url]

Quote:

Background

Nonhydrocarbon growth has been solid, against the backdrop of high domestic demand. It grew by an estimated 6 percent in 2009, mainly driven by investments in construction and in services. Meanwhile, hydrocarbon output declined significantly due to compliance with the OPEC quota, resulting in a contraction of overall real Gross Domestic Product (GDP) by an estimated 1.6 percent. Overall growth increased markedly by an estimated 10 percent in 2010 reflecting a sharp increase in oil production. Nonhydrocarbon growth also strengthened (to about 7 percent) as a result of large public expenditures. However, unemployment has remained high, particularly among the youth. Inflation is estimated to have picked up to about 4.5 percent in 2010 as higher oil revenue increased domestic liquidity and international commodity prices increased.

 Yep, Libya sounds like your typical third world capitalist hell hole with green economic expansion and healthy levels of inflation indicating more growth there than in our economically mediocre Northern Puerto Rico.

NDPP wrote:

... it didn't take very long for Iraqis to pine for the time of Saddam back as compared to the kind of 'freedom and democracy' their 'liberation' brought them. I hope I'm wrong but things are looking pretty crooked already.

After ten years of war and occupation, many Afghans feel that life under the Taliban was better than the 'freedom and democracy' their 'liberation' has brought them.

The Afghan people did not ask for intervention from the U.S. and allies.

The Iraqi people did not ask for intervention from the U.S. and allies.

The Libyan People were fighting for their Rights, Liberty, Equality and Justice for themselves.

They did not ask for intervention from the U.S. and allies.

This was a story, or if you like, 'manufactured consent' by Western governments and the Fawning Corporate Media.

NDPP wrote:

Libyan Rebels: Gaddafi Could Be Right About Al-Qaeda  - by Alexander Cockburn

http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/76789,news-comment,news-politics,alexander...

"...So much for the circumstances in which intervention was conceived. It has nothing to do with oil; everything to do with ego and political self protection. But to whom exactly are the interveners lending succour? There's been great vagueness here, beyond enthusiastic references to the romantic revolutionaries of Benghazi, and much ridicule for Gaddafi's identification of his opponents in eastern Libya as al-Qaeda.

In fact, two documents strongly back Gaddafi on this issue...As I wrote here a few weeks ago, 'It sure looks like Osama bin Laden is winning the Great War on Terror.' But I did not dream then that he would have a coalition of the US, Great Britain and France bleeding themselves dry to assist him in this enterprise.."

another future front in the GWOT? If so, this could easily become another 'quagmire' for the empire to die in...

Definitely this is another war the American Empire can't afford. Another quagmire the American Empire and its satraps are getting sucked into. Another nail in the coffin of the American Empire.

I don't buy Gadhafi's Bin Laden angle, however.

And I don't buy the claim it's not about oil.

Remember, he also referred to the Libertarias as "greasy rats", said they were "high on psychadellic drugs" and claimed the U.S.A. and European colonialists as well as Bin Laden were behind them.

We have to keep in mind that often Gadhafi says things for their rhetorical and political effect and do not reflect objective reality.

NDPP wrote:

But as I said upthread, clearly we've long left behind Gene Sharp and Ghandi tactics a la Tahrir Square..

That ended when Gadhafi started the war against the Libyan People.

If we want to support the Libyan People then We the People must go there, take up arms and join the (Libyan) Libertarian Revolution.

Frmrsldr wrote:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness." - excerpt from the U.S. Declaration of Independence.

As I said Frmr keep on ghost dancing, all those legalistic frameworks have no emergent basis in reality, and all law might I remind you presupposes some kind of monopolized force which is to say MIGHT MAKING RIGHTR! The difference between my anarchistic setting and the legalistic morality setting that you cling to is that I want violence if it is to exist to be as egalitarian contextual and intimate as possible without the aiding of centralized reified institutions

Quote:

You're all over the page with this contradictory nonsense.

So civilization is marked by progress toward its demise, its "final days."

Civilization is the acceptance of the rule of law,

not acting according the "Law of the Jungle" or the "Might makes Right" principle that you advocate.

 

Just as there is no separation between nature and culture there is no separation between the so called law of the jungle and the laws that we have today, the jungle seems a hell of a lot more just and internally consistent compared to what the civilized ones have given us and might making right is just as grounded now as it ever was minus the more preferable decentralized emergence that used to characterize the human species.

Quote:

You mention Iraq. Libya is exactly like Iraq. In order for the U.S.A. to be the biggest bully on the block, Uncle Sam needs the biggest military. Today's military runs on oil. Hence the wars in Afghanistan (ever heard of TAP(I)?), Iraq and now Libya. "It's all about the crude (oil) dude."

If they get help from the U.S. and Western governments, that "help" comes with strings attached. The Libertarias will be very concerned when the U.S. and other governments start pulling the strings and making their demands on whatever Libyan government is put into power and propped up by them.

It is far better for the Libertarias (People) of Libya to be supported by the People of the world. For what the Libyan People and the People of the world want is a Libertarian revolution where Liberty, Rights, Equality, Peace and Justice are attained by all. THAT is what the Libyan Libertarias want. NOT Uncle Sam or anyone else sticking their dirty fingers in Libya's affairs.

 

Yes its all about oil and your point is? I don't care about how the life blood of modernity is squabled for, when I say iraq I'm talking about misery inflicted by western powers, this is clearly not the case thus far, not even the shiites were asking to be bombed. As for help and strings attached that's a bridge you cross when you get there as it stands the revolutionaries don't have an inherently pro or anti american or capitalist bias so I don't see this as being an issue, ultimately the people on the ground will decide if they let their representatives be swayed by US demands(worse case scenerio of government friendly to the US is still preferable to gadhafi at this point) I would remind you of the mudjahadeen and the fact that the US ultimately could not control them after they won. Look I wish it was a liberarian revolution, there are some quasi signs in Benghazi of this happening but for the most part non of this will be possible with daffy still in charge.

Quote:

War as a means to what?

Peace, human rights, liberty, equality, security of person and justice are ends or goods in themselves.

War is controllable?

Hitler sure didn't do a very good job of concluding WW2. The U.S.A. sure didn't do a very good job of controlling the Korea and Vietnam Wars. Britain, France, Holland, Belgium, Portugal and Spain, etc., didn't do a very good job of controlling the wars of independence in their former colonies. The U.S.A./NATO/ISAF aren't doing a very good job controlling the Afghan war. The U.S.A. and the "Coalition of the Willing" aren't doing a very good job of controlling the Iraq war.

The U.S.A. isn't doing a very good job of controlling the (undeclared illegal covert) Pakistan, Somali and Yemen wars.

Are they?

We've been here before.

Libya is the same thing.

Notice the only thing that's happening in Libya is Western powers are firing a lot of missiles and dropping a lot of bombs at will over the country, and that's it.

As of yet there is no defined end or exit strategy for this war.

No one wants to take ownership of this war. The Libyan war is being treated like a "hot potato." No one - not the U.S., not the U.E., not NATO, not the Arab League wants to take leadership for this war.

No one wants to take the moral, legal and political responsibility for this immoral, unjust and illegal war.

No one wants to "wear" the moral, legal and political fallout of this war.

You're missing my point on war frmr, if you've followed my posts here up to this point you should no that I don't like states, thus you don't have to remind me of the damage they inflict, what I'm telling you is that going after human conflct per se is a non sequiter to solving problems, immoral unjust and illegal are abstractions that do not reflect human interactions, you have to be more concrete when talking about these things.

Libyan airspace 'under control,' with new strikes

Quote:

France declared Libya's airspace "under control" on Friday, after NATO agreed to take control of the no-fly zone in a compromise that appeared to set up dual command centers. Moammar Gadhafi drew a rare rebuke from the African Union, which called for a transitional government and elections.

Coalition warplanes struck Gadhafi's forces outside the strategic city of Ajdabiya, the gateway to the rebel-held east, hitting an artillery battery and armored vehicles.

The strikes were intended to give a measure of relief to the city, whose residents have fled or cowered under more than a week of shelling and fighting between rebels and government troops. Explosions also sounded in Tripoli, the Libyan capital, before daybreak Friday, apparently from airstrikes.

 African Union seeks political solution to conflict...

Quote:

Representatives for the Gadhafi regime met with the African Union on Friday, in Ethiopia, in what the U.N. described as a part of an effort to reach a cease-fire and political solution. Although the U.N. secretary-general said an opposition representative would attend, Mustafa Gheriani, an opposition spokesman, said Friday he knew nothing about it.

"The position of the national council has been clear from the beginning - no negotiations," Gheriani said. "All he has to do is stop bombing and leave the country."

African Union commission chairman Jean Ping said the AU favors an inclusive transitional period that would lead to democratic elections. Ping stressed the inevitability of political reforms in Libya and called the aspirations of the Libyan people "legitimate."

Also on the ground from the front near Ajdabiya...

Libya: rebels push on to the disputed town of Ajdabiya, again.

Rebels citizen army advances again... in their usual chaotic style. 

Quote:

The rebels raced each other along the Tripoli road making pell-mell for the disputed town of Ajdabiya. They charged ahead, convinced war planes were in the air again.

Quote:

Salah Abdelkarim Abar, a 25-year-old law student until the popular uprising had taken him from his studies, said the rebels would regroup and head back down the road again before the day was out.

"All we want to do is go there to get the civilians and get them out," he said. "We have to wait for things to calm down and we will go back."

Quote:

Faraj Younis al-Fadeeli, a honey farmer by trade, summed up the problem: "We have got to have a leader. There's no one at the moment.

... There's no objective. Instead we all do our own thing." Just as he spoke another fighter climbed on to the back of a pickup to address the hundred or so men.

"I know you are civilians but we have to be brave," he said in Arabic through a megaphone. "We need to reorganise in two groups and attack from the left and from the right, not just down the middle. If there is anyone here who doesn't want to fight then let him give his gun to someone who will." A battered Toyota pickup bore the scars of the failed assault. Its windscreen was shattered. Shrapnel had shredded one wing. Four people had been killed, said the rebels.

Quote:

However, they have been ordered to rein in the excitable rabble of volunteer fighters to free up French and British ground attack planes to target Gaddafi's forces.

Abdul Hafiz Ghoga, a member of the rebel's national council, said that the rebels' chief of staff, General General Abdel Fattah Yunis, was liaising with coalition nations to coordinate attacks and keep opposition forces from getting caught in strikes.

"This was requested by the military council and this request was passed on to the forces on the ground to stay back and facilitate the attacks by the coalition," he said, in the city of Benghazi.

Combat footage...    Shows what the fighting is like while some of you cat fight over the legitimacy of their cause. 

 And finally...

NDPP wrote:

the thing doesn't smell right. I'm coming to think, in the end we'll see there was no authentic, widespread national popular uprising and ...

Well, given the web sites you mostly post from I don't blame you for feeling that way... just saying.

Here you go Bec, nice bit of mudstream just for you..Caw.

Canadian General To Take Command Of NATO Misson In Libya

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/canadian-general-to-take-co...

"A Canadian General will take command of the NATO mission in Libya, according to a White House official. Lieutenant-General Charles Bouchard has been designated by NATO as head of the alliance's military campaign in Libya. He will work with 'his naval and air component commands' to enforce the no-fly zone and the so-called civilian protection mission in Libya.

He is currently listed as the deputy commander of the Allied Joint Force Commander in Naples, Italiy, where he has been involved in Iraq. His previous jobs included a position as Deputy Commander of NORAD, where he reported to an American general.

Among his postings, Lt-Gen Bouchard served with the US Army at Fort Hood Texas..."

He sounds perfectly qualified.  And well used to taking orders from Americans too...

NDPP wrote:

the thing doesn't smell right. I'm coming to think, in the end we'll see there was no authentic, widespread national popular uprising and certainly no mandate for the imperial powers to depose the government or assassinate the 'evil' 'insane' Libyan dicator or transfer national authority to the Benghazi rebel opposition 'government'. That they've managed to manufacture some consent for this inside and/or outside, doesn't mean it still isn't simply a pretext to set up a puppet proxy to then broker a sellout of the Libyan people's oil, sovereignty and strategic regional position.

The following article examines some of the players behind the rebel opposition. I stumbled on it while looking to see if the National Endowment of Democracy or Soro's Open Society Initiative had any part in this. Remember the Iraqi-American Council that did their part in preparing the US public for the invasion of Iraq, the American Libyan Freedom Alliance seems to be a similar group (NED funded in 2005).

[url=http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2011/02/26/post-qaddafi-libya-on-the... Libya[/url]

Quote:

“Most participants argued for privatization and a strong private sector economy.” That is a statement culled from a report of a panel discussion entitled “Post-Qaddafi Libya: The Prospect and The Promise,” organized by Washington’s Center for Strategic and International Studies in 1994.[1] Dr Ali Tarhouni stated at the conference, “with privatization, entrepreneurs will reach out and get involved in regional cooperation by searching for markets.”[2] Is that what the long-planned, well-funded “spontaneous revolts” now toppling regimes like a house of cards is actually about?

Regional economic zones are a prime part of the globalization process. One well-known example is the concept of a “Trilateral” bloc of Asia, Europe, and North America, instigated by David Rockefeller as per the Trilateral Commission.[3] Others include NAFTA, European Union, APEC,[4] and the like.

The globalists under the impress of “market forces” could attempt what could not transpire under Qaddafi or Nasser, an Arab bloc. As the neocon ideologist and military strategist Maj. Ralph Peters stated, the global market place and the life’s-meaning it gives in the soulless, mindless narcotic of luxury consumption and entertainment, is addictive. This addiction is the means by which the masses will be led to destroy their traditional heritage in what Peters calls “creative destruction.”[5]

Now the people are rising up under the banner of mammon under the guise of slogans such as “democracy” and “human rights.” The “freedom” they desire is the freedom of the Western consumer.

Other participants at the 1994 conferences included: Executive Secretary Abdul Majid Buik of the National Front for the Salvation of Libya (NFSL); Former Prime Minister Abdoulhamid Al-Backoush; Omar Fathaly, formerly Director of Strategic Studies at Tripoli’s Arab Development Institute; Ezzedin Ghadamsi, a veteran trade union activist and diplomat; Political analyst and writer Ashur Shamis; Islamist scholar Aly R. Abuzaakouk; Shaha Aliriza, senior program officer, Middle East, National Endowment for Democracy; Tarik Al-Magariaf, Harvard-educated economist and son of NFSL leader Mohamed Al-Magaria; Economist Misbah Oreibi; Management consultant Mahmoud Dakhil.[6]...

I would expect the Liberals and Conservatives to rub the noses of the NDPers in the fact that all three parties are peas in a pod when it comes to supporting Canadian-led imperialist attacks on Libya. The more war and hatred the better for right wing politicians whatever they call themselves.

Too bad that on such a fundamental issue the NDP will be ... mostly silent.

I suspect it's probably a mixture of useful idiots (to the NATO attackers) and genuine reform elements. But then you've got to ask yourself ... what sort of "Libyan patriot" would play the role of justifying or (worse) inviting NATO to bomb their country? Decades could pass and such people would still be held in disdain and contempt.

Intervening in Libya  - by Vijay Prashad

http://www.zcommunications.org/intervening-in-libya-by-vijay-prashad

"...To create the 'no-fly' zone, the UN Security Council allowed member states to act 'nationally' or through regional organizations,' viz. NATO, 'to take all necessary measures'to enforce compliance with the ban on flights. It is the 'all necessary measures' that allows the member states (US, the UK and France) to extend the zone at will and to push from enforcement of a 'no fly zone' to the removal of Qaddafi, including by the targeting of his compound in Tripoli. For Obama, the war aim is to remove Qaddafi, which exceeds the authority of UN Resolution 1973. US Cruise missiles struck Libyan Armed Forces units and Qaddafi's home (what the media calls his 'compound').

The murkiness of the mission perplexes General Carter Ham of the US African command. He acknowledged that many of the rebels are themselves civiians who have taken up arms. Resolution 1973 does not call upon the member states to assist the rebels, only to protect civilians. Would the 'no-fly' zone give an advantage to the rebels and so violate the mandate? 'We do not provide close air support for the opposition forces', General Ham noted, 'We protect civilians.' However, 'It's a very problematic situation...

Few have any illusions about the actions of the coaliton. Even the guru of liberal interventionism, Michael Walzer believes that this is the 'wrong intervention'. Why does the West seek to bomb Libya and not the Gulf States or Ivory Coast or Darfur, indeed the Congo is plain to see. The answer to every question is the same: oil."

BAR Obama's War in Libya   - by Margaret Kimberley

http://tipggita32.wordpress.com/2011/03/25/freedom-rider-obama's-war-in-libya

"Operation Odyssey Dawn sounds like the title of a bad novel or action movie. It is actually the name given to a plan to kill many people and partition their country for the use of others. Congratulations to Barak Obama. He now has a war to call his own and rhetorical flourish to go along with it. No longer is he a mere poseur, forced to justify his murderous action by saying that he inherited a 'dumb war' from George W Bush. Now it is official. Obama is a true American president, killing people at will under the pretext of saving them from an oppressive dictator, in this case Muammar Gaddafi...

The United States is in the beginning of a full-fledged intervention and plan to carve up Libya and take its oil and that doesn't sound very nice at all. Nothing makes the approval ratings soar for a president like a good dose of death and destruction meted out against some swarthy foreigners.."

John Chuckman: The Meaningless Concept of Ethical War

http://www.counterpunch.org/chuckman03252011.html

"...There are many reports, not carried in the mainline press, about Israel supplying the African mercenaries who have been doing most of the bloody work in Libya. They are said to have been supplied by an Israeli military contracting firm connected to Mossad at the highest per diem rates which Gaddafi's oil wealth allows. One of Gaddafi's sons also made a visit for private talks in Israel in the early days of the rebellion's repression. Such events, we can be absolutely sure, also do not happen without approval from Washington. It appears America has both indirectly helped the tyrant while directly, albeit belatedly, fighting him. I don't see any evidence of ethics in this situation..

Up to the point of intervention, information from Libya suggests nothing on quite that [Gaza] scale of barbarism had occurred, rather there was the beginning of a conventional civil war with one side having better resources. So why the immense difference in response between the two situations? Yet there was no effort to punish or even restrict Israel as we are seeing today imposed on Gaddafi. How can anyone claim that the response in Libya is ethical?"

Bec.De.Corbin wrote:

We give those Arab states all those advanced fighters and then they sit on their asses after they made it look like they wanted a no fly zone... honestly, I can't help feeling like we were suckered into this... sigh!

Those nasty Arabs will get you coming and going.  I am sure that the weapons manufacturers only have the best interests of the people in mind when they "give away" advanced weapons systems.  I know one thing is for sure that if the people of Qatar aren't paying for them then some other government's taxpayers are.   So explain to me how we got suckered, I couldn't follow that part. 

African Union Warns of Regional Crisis  -  by Argaw Ashine

http://www.monitor.co.ug/News/National/-/688334/1133032/-/c3dhm6z/-/

"The African Union has warned of a wider regional crisis unless the international community acts fast, to find a lasting solution to the Libya crisis. African Union chief Jean Ping said the current situation is posing a regional security threat as well as offering an opportunity to armed groups in the region. African Union together with the UN, EU, US and Arab League started a crucial meeting yesterday morning on Libya, with an aim of seeking an immediate ceasefire.

The Libyan government has sent its delegation to Addis Ababa, AU headquarters to discuss a ceasefire and political reform in Libya. However, until midday, no one from the rebel side had appeared for the meeting. AU had invited both the rebel leaders and the Libyan government officials for talks.

Four ministers from Libya's government led by Mr. Mohamed Zowya the Speaker of the Libyan Congress (parliament) appeared for the meeting despite the no-fly zone restrictions against Libya. Ping underlined the current situation as very alarming and serious, saying the AU wants to broker a lasting peaceful solution for the Libyan people concerned for Libya's future...

The agenda of the meeting includes the secession of hostilities, access for humanitarian aid, protection of migrant workers and adoption and implementation of political reform. According to diplomatic sources the AU wants immediate dialogue between the Libyan government and the rebels. The AU has rejected the idea of foreign intervention and called for an end to the strikes. Some African leaders including Rwanda's Paul Kagame have supported military action against Col. Muammar Gaddafi.

Meanwhile, Western allies have secured a deal to put the entire military campaign against Co Gaddafi under NATO command. The agreement also gives political oversight of the military's action to a committee of the international coalition in the campaign, under the scheme agreed, the transfer to NATO when the parties to the coalition against Gaddafi gather in London for a special 'contact group' conference. French sources said leaders of the Benghazi based Libyan rebels would be in London to attend.

The conference will consist of two meetings: a war council made up of the main governments taking part in the military action as well as a broader assembly including Arab and African countries concerned for Libya's future.."

talk and bomb sessions, almost no coverage of this in western msm

French Plans to Topple Gaddafi On Track Since Last November

http://www.voltairenet.org/article169069.html

"According to right-wing Italian journalist Franco Bechis, plans to spark the Benghazi rebellion were initiated by French intelligence services in November 2010. As Miguel Martinez from the progressive 'ComeDonChiciotte' website observes, these revelations which have the blessing of the Italian secret service, should be interpreted as the sign of existing rivalries within the European capitalist camp.

Voltaire network wishes to point out that Paris promptly paired up with London in its scheme to overthrow Colonel Khadafi (Franco-British expeditionary force). This plan was recalibrated in the context of the Arab revolutions and taken over by Washington, which imposed its own objectives (counter revolution in the Arab world and landing AFRICOM on the Black continent).

Therefore, the current coalition arises from a diversity of ambitions, which accounts for its internal contradictions. The timeline of events which set the stage for the military intervention against Libya is presented below.."