News_Editor Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 NATO says alliance ready to protect Libyan civilians, urges UN agreement 2011-03-17 20:32:27 GMT+7 (ICT) BRUSSELS (BNO NEWS) -- NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen on Thursday said the alliance is ready to protect Libyan civilians against government-led attacks, but only if there is a 'demonstrable need'. Rasmussen made the comments on his official Twitter account, where he urged the United Nations Security Council to quickly reach an agreement on action against Libya. "If [Libyan leader] Gaddafi prevails it will send a clear signal that violence pays," he wrote. Rasmussen initially wrote that the alliance "stands ready to protect the civilian population against attacks from the regime", but later deleted the message. He then posted a new message which said NATO stands ready to protect the civilian population, but only if there is a "demonstrable need, clear legal basis and strong regional support." The United Nations Security Council is currently debating a draft resolution which would authorize a no-fly zone being imposed in Libya, where government forces have violently cracked down on anti-government protesters. Some leaders have criticized the Council for being too slow to react. -- © BNO News All rights reserved 2011-03-17 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LaoPo Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 BREAKING NEWS 6:34 PM ET (NY TIME) U.N. Security Council Approves No-Flight Zone in Libya LaoPo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LaoPo Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 Libya No-Fly Zone Approved By U.N. Security Council http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/17/libya-no-fly-zone-un-united-nations_n_837378.html LaoPo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LaoPo Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 U.N. imposes no-fly zone over Libya March 17th, 2011 06:39 PM ET (NY TIME) The U.N. Security Council on Thursday imposed a no-fly zone extending over all of Libya to try to halt Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi's mounting attacks against rebel positions. The resolution states that "all necessary means" can be used to enforce the no-fly zone. Flights to provide humanitarian aid, medicine or for evacuations are exempt. The vote was 10 for, none against and five abstentions. http://news.blogs.cn...one-over-libya/ LaoPo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LaoPo Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 Dutch NOS expects air raids by France, U.K. against Qaddafi troops. 'Very soon' #Libya #News #Benghazi #UNdecision LaoPo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LaoPo Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 UN authorises no-fly zone over Libya Security Council imposes a no-fly zone over Libya and authorises "all necessary measures" to protect civilians. Last Modified: 17 Mar 2011 22:40 The United Nations Security Council (UNSC) has voted on a resolution authorising a no-fly zone over Libya and "all necessary measures" - code for military action - to protect citizens. Ten of the council's 15 members voted in favour of the resolution, with Russia, China and Germany the five that abstained. No votes were recorded against the resolution, which was co-sponsored by France, Britain, Lebanon and the United States. The resolution fulfills a long-standing demand from pro-democracy opposition forces in Libya asking for a no-fly zone to be established in order to prevent Muammar Gaddafi, the Libyan leader, from using fighter jets to bombard their positions, as they have been doing. Continues: http://english.aljaz...0311168561.html LaoPo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LaoPo Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 Breaking News Alert The New York Times Thu, March 17, 2011 -- 6:39 PM ET ----- U.N. Security Council Approves No-Flight Zone in Libya The United Nations Security Council approved a measure on Thursday authorizing "all necessary measures" to protect Libyan civilians from harm at the hands of forces loyal to Colonel Muammar el-Qaddafi. The measure allows not only a no-flight zone but effectively any measures short of a ground invasion to halt attacks that might result in civilian fatalities. It comes as Colonel Qaddafi warned residents of Benghazi, Libya, the rebel capital, that an attack was imminent and promised lenient treatment for those who offered no resistance. Read More: http://www.nytimes.c...ons.html?emc=na LaoPo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manarak Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 I cannot support this move - Libya and Khaddafi's forces haven't threatened or committed acts of war against other countries. Khaddafi rightly regards this as an aggression against him personally. He threatens with terrorism, but what else can he do? I have an uneasy feeling about this, and if the NATO misses the colonel, this could be a reciepe for disaster. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lopburi99 Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 I cannot support this move - Libya and Khaddafi's forces haven't threatened or committed acts of war against other countries. Khaddafi rightly regards this as an aggression against him personally. He threatens with terrorism, but what else can he do? I have an uneasy feeling about this, and if the NATO misses the colonel, this could be a reciepe for disaster. You can't support the attempted prevention of a genocide? By the U.N.? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LaoPo Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 (edited) I cannot support this move - Libya and Khaddafi's forces haven't threatened or committed acts of war against other countries. Khaddafi rightly regards this as an aggression against him personally. He threatens with terrorism, but what else can he do? I have an uneasy feeling about this, and if the NATO misses the colonel, this could be a reciepe for disaster. It's not just a no-fly zone; all necessary steps to prevent the rebels from being slaughtered can be taken by (probably) mainly the UK and France with possible help from one or 2 Arab countries as well. It will not be a combined NATO operation since a few NATO countries, like Germany and Turkey abstained. It wouldn't surprise me if afore mentioned countries (UK and France) will act immediately, within a few hours from now, and prevent Libyan jet fighters from attacking the Benghazi area, protecting the population there; that could include air strikes against airports where Gaddafi's 80 (or some) jet fighters are based. LaoPo Edited March 17, 2011 by LaoPo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lopburi99 Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 (edited) I agree. I expect an immediate response. My guess buttons are being pushed as we speak. Edited March 17, 2011 by Lopburi99 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canuckamuck Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 Oh the libs will have another torch to bear against western aggression. Poor Mohamar, he was just misunderstood. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LaoPo Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 It was reported on CNN that Italy will provide it's air bases to other countries for the Libyan No-Fly zone and other options... LaoPo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coma Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 I cannot support this move - Libya and Khaddafi's forces haven't threatened or committed acts of war against other countries. Khaddafi rightly regards this as an aggression against him personally. He threatens with terrorism, but what else can he do? I have an uneasy feeling about this, and if the NATO misses the colonel, this could be a reciepe for disaster. I feel the same way. However if it is used ONLY to protect the portion of population that attempted to overthrow Gaddafi from Genocide then it has merit. However if it is used as a offensive means to topple or assist the rebels in conducting offensive operations against the regime then that would not be good and may indeed escalate and already frightening situation. I hope that all sides show restraint. This could well turn into another foriegn policy failure in the Middle East. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ulysses G. Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 Gaddafi is a lunatic, but is he any worse than those who would replace him? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hawaiian Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 I cannot support this move - Libya and Khaddafi's forces haven't threatened or committed acts of war against other countries. Khaddafi rightly regards this as an aggression against him personally. He threatens with terrorism, but what else can he do? I have an uneasy feeling about this, and if the NATO misses the colonel, this could be a reciepe for disaster. I feel the same way. However if it is used ONLY to protect the portion of population that attempted to overthrow Gaddafi from Genocide then it has merit. However if it is used as a offensive means to topple or assist the rebels in conducting offensive operations against the regime then that would not be good and may indeed escalate and already frightening situation. I hope that all sides show restraint. This could well turn into another foriegn policy failure in the Middle East. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hawaiian Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 I cannot support this move - Libya and Khaddafi's forces haven't threatened or committed acts of war against other countries. Khaddafi rightly regards this as an aggression against him personally. He threatens with terrorism, but what else can he do? I have an uneasy feeling about this, and if the NATO misses the colonel, this could be a reciepe for disaster. I feel the same way. However if it is used ONLY to protect the portion of population that attempted to overthrow Gaddafi from Genocide then it has merit. However if it is used as a offensive means to topple or assist the rebels in conducting offensive operations against the regime then that would not be good and may indeed escalate and already frightening situation. I hope that all sides show restraint. This could well turn into another foriegn policy failure in the Middle East. Having posting problems. Will try again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hawaiian Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 (edited) I cannot support this move - Libya and Khaddafi's forces haven't threatened or committed acts of war against other countries. Khaddafi rightly regards this as an aggression against him personally. He threatens with terrorism, but what else can he do? I have an uneasy feeling about this, and if the NATO misses the colonel, this could be a reciepe for disaster. I feel the same way. However if it is used ONLY to protect the portion of population that attempted to overthrow Gaddafi from Genocide then it has merit. However if it is used as a offensive means to topple or assist the rebels in conducting offensive operations against the regime then that would not be good and may indeed escalate and already frightening situation. I hope that all sides show restraint. This could well turn into another foriegn policy failure in the Middle East. As they say in the real estate business, "Location. location. location." From a logistical standpoint, Libya is quite accessible for the countries that will be involved in any military action. If the loyalist on the ground can be cut off from Tripoli and supplies cutoff, then there may be a chance to halt further bloodshed. Once embargoes and sanctions have their desired effects, Gaddafi's days will be numbered. Hopefully, once Gaddafi is gone the Libyan people will put their tribal rivalries aside, rebuild the country and put an end to Gaddafism. Edited March 18, 2011 by Hawaiian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crushdepth Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 Khaddafi rightly regards this as an aggression against him personally.He threatens with terrorism, but what else can he do? He can leave or die. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chuckd Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 Now let's see who steps up to the plate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geriatrickid Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 I cannot support this move - Libya and Khaddafi's forces haven't threatened or committed acts of war against other countries. Khaddafi rightly regards this as an aggression against him personally. He threatens with terrorism, but what else can he do? I have an uneasy feeling about this, and if the NATO misses the colonel, this could be a reciepe for disaster. You can't support the attempted prevention of a genocide? By the U.N.? The concern raised is valid. I do not believe that the civil war meets the definition of a genocide. I find it odd that the EU's big countries of Italy, Germany, France and the UK were all lined up kissing the Colonel's posterior not so long ago and it was only the USA that protested the release of the Lockerbie bomber. Now all of a sudden the EU has had an epiphany on the way to the petrol station? They sure as heck weren't saying anything when the Colonel was murdering and abusing his people last year, were they? Instead they were scurrying to sign lucrative contracts. All of a sudden the Arab League which condemns the west, expects the west to pacify the country? Sorry, but this is an African and an Arab crisis. The region's leaders should be leading on this and not saying to the west come do our dirty work. If the USA is smart it stays out of this. It should do what the Germans, French and Italians do: Offer empty platitudes about the need for peace. That way no one has to deal with the crisis. The USA should focus on getting out of Iraq, finding a way out of Afghanistan and helping its ally Japan with the nuclear crisis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wallaby Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 Gaddafi is a lunatic, but is he any worse than those who would replace him? Exactly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Samuian Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 Gaddafi is a lunatic, but is he any worse than those who would replace him? Exactly. I agree, just take him out, don't let him bve replaced by any of his cronies! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geriatrickid Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 Gaddafi is a lunatic, but is he any worse than those who would replace him? Exactly. I agree, just take him out, don't let him bve replaced by any of his cronies! That would necessitate killing several thousand people, if one is to go by the pro Gadaffi rallies. Is Turkey going to be sending a flotilla? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coma Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 IMO The only way he should be " taken out" as some members have posted is if his own people do it. IMO there are striking similarities with this thought pattern and to the taking down of Saddam Hussien and his regime in Iraq . It m,ay sound harsh but the fact of the matter is some of these countries unfortunatley need to be ruled with a firm hand. Just removing him from power and leaving them to it could very well leave this country open as another breeding ground for terrorist groups and activities hell bent on destroying the entire centre of gravity in the region. The alternative would be for Western powers to go meddling in Middle Eastern affairs once again which is every bit as much a flawed prospect, As I have said from the start. IMHO we should have left this one for the Arab League and African Union states that were so vocal and instrumental in gaining the UN charter for military operations in and over Libya. Time will only tell if we have learnt from the horrible mistakes we made last decade. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zzaa09 Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 I cannot support this move - Libya and Khaddafi's forces haven't threatened or committed acts of war against other countries. Khaddafi rightly regards this as an aggression against him personally. He threatens with terrorism, but what else can he do? I have an uneasy feeling about this, and if the NATO misses the colonel, this could be a reciepe for disaster. You can't support the attempted prevention of a genocide? By the U.N.? Of course. The U.N. and Nato's first {and only} concern is the peeeooople. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ulysses G. Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 If the USA is smart it stays out of this. It should do what the Germans, French and Italians do: Offer empty platitudes about the need for peace. That way no one has to deal with the crisis. The USA should focus on getting out of Iraq, finding a way out of Afghanistan and helping its ally Japan with the nuclear crisis. Again, I agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
powderpuff Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 Yep. No need to feed the Iranian hate machine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steely Dan Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 If the USA is smart it stays out of this. It should do what the Germans, French and Italians do: Offer empty platitudes about the need for peace. That way no one has to deal with the crisis. The USA should focus on getting out of Iraq, finding a way out of Afghanistan and helping its ally Japan with the nuclear crisis. Again, I agree. I do have sympathy for the U.S, They are almost the sole nation with a military capable of doing the U.N's work for them as budget cuts have left E.U Countries with a pretty depleted military capability. And what thanks do the U.S get? Little or no gratitude or help from those that co-sponsored the action and a derision from left wing liberals happy to sit in the comfort of their living rooms with no missiles pointed at them and the luxury of a comfortable life largely safeguarded by the U.S putting out the worst flare ups. I do on the other hand think the U.S could have played this better tactically by never clearly stating intervention would need a U.N mandate, ambiguity may have made Gadaffi hesitate in bombing his own people. There is a clear humanitarian argument for intervention which on balance justifies action, though the trouble is, as with Egypt or any other middle eastern state, democracy is not the most likely outcome when the dust settles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bangkokeddy Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 If the USA is smart it stays out of this. It should do what the Germans, French and Italians do: Offer empty platitudes about the need for peace. That way no one has to deal with the crisis. The USA should focus on getting out of Iraq, finding a way out of Afghanistan and helping its ally Japan with the nuclear crisis. Again, I agree. Unfortunately the opposite is true. Smart are the Germans - they stay out of this. The US isn't smart and pushing this and telling empty platitudes about peace, the French joined this time the stupidity. That nuclear reactor in Japan is a completely different issue than the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now