Breaking News: The Usual Suspects; US, France Britian to bomb Gaddafi to save the people

[Bashiir]

There are currently 667 users browsing this thread....Lol

 

Duke keep it coming....we need updated....

[General Duke]

 

UN security council resolution on Libya: key pointsThe main details of UN Resolution 1973 authorising action to protect Libyan civilians from Muammar Gaddafi

 

The resolution expresses the UN's "grave concern at the deteriorating situation, the escalation of violence, and the heavy civilian casualties", condemns "the gross and systematic violation of human rights, including arbitrary detentions, enforced disappearances, torture and summary executions" and says the attacks against civilians "may amount to crimes against humanity" and pose a "threat to international peace and security".

 

 

• A no-fly zone is "an important element for the protection of civilians as well as the safety of the delivery of humanitarian assistance and a decisive step for the cessation of hostilities in Libya".

 

• It "demands the immediate establishment of a ceasefire and a complete end to violence and all attacks against, and abuses of, civilians" and "that the Libyan authorities comply with their obligations under international law ... and take all measures to protect civilians and meet their basic needs, and to ensure the rapid and unimpeded passage of humanitarian assistance".

 

• It authorises UN member states "to take all necessary measures [notwithstanding the previous arms embargo] to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, including Benghazi, while excluding a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory''.

• It requests the co-operation of the Arab League member states in the previous measure.

 

• It decides to "establish a ban on all flights in the airspace of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya in order to help protect civilians", exempting humanitarian flights, and authorises member states and Arab League nations "acting nationally or through regional organisations or arrangements, to take all necessary measures to enforce compliance with the ban on flights".

 

• It calls on member states to intercept boats and aircraft it believes may be taking arms and other items banned under the previously passed UN embargo and includes "armed mercenary personnel'' in that category – telling members states to "comply strictly with their obligations ... to prevent the provision of armed mercenary personnel to the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya''.

 

• Member states should ensure domestic businesses "exercise vigilance when doing business with entities incorporated" in Libya "if the states have information that provides reasonable grounds to believe that such business could contribute to violence and use of force against civilians".

• It requests that the UN secretary general creates "a group of up to eight experts" to oversee the implementation of the resolution.

[General Duke]

Royal Air Force Tornado aircraft takes off from RAF Marham in Norfolk. Photograph: Reuters

[Som@li]

Great news...

[General Duke]

The Guardian's, Owen Bowcott has been talking to legal experts about the legal aspects of military intervention in Libya. Here is the first part of his q&a.

 

Q: What does the UN resolution permit the participating allies to attack?

A: The security council vote gives wide-ranging authorisation for the use of force against targets in the air and on the ground, according to most international lawyers. The phrase in paragraph 4 of Resolution 1973 calls on member states "to take all necessary measures ..... to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack..." Malcolm Shaw, professor of international law at Leicester university, described it as giving the broadest powers for intervention since the UN resolution deploring the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in 1990.

 

Q: Can UN-backed forces put anyone on the ground?

A: Ground spotters to improve the accuracy of air strikes might even be allowed under the terms of the resolution which explicitly excludes "a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory", some lawyers suggested. If the intention is not to occupy, then their presence could be deemed not to conflict with the UN's aims. "Some supportive ground presence would be authorised," Professor Shaw said.

 

[General Duke]

We will judge him by his actions not his words. What is absolutely clear is the UN security council resolution said he must stop what he is doing, brutalising his people. If not, all necessary measures can follow to make him stop. That is what we agreed last night, that is what we are preparing for and we'll judge him by what he does.

 

British PM.

[Bashiir]

It seems the resolution is working for both sides ,,...

[General Duke]

Reuters has a very useful round-up of who might be contributing what to in any military operations against Gaddafi

 

.

 

France

Likely to deploy Mirage and Rafale fighters from air bases near the Mediterranean towns of Marseille and Istres or from Corsica. Airborne refuelling tanker aircraft are also ready to depart from Istres. Fighter jets could reach Libya in around an hour and a half from the south of France and in around an hour from Corsica. The Charles de Gaulle aircraft carrier is in Toulon so would be ready to deploy fast.

 

Britain

Britain said it would deploy Typhoon patrol jets and all-weather Tornado attack aircraft based at RAF bases in Scotland and in Norfolk but would be moved to unidentified bases nearer Libya. Britain has two frigates if needed off the Libyan coast: HMS Cumberland and HMS Westminster.

 

US

The US navy has an aircraft carrier, the USS Enterprise, and other warships in the Mediterranean, but unclear whether they would be used.

 

Italy

Italy is unlikely to take part in strikes but is expected to provide its air base at Sigonella in Sicily. Fighter jets leaving from Sicily could reach Libya in around half an hour.

 

Norway

Norway said it will make its F-16 fighter jets available for an operation in Libya and could also provide Hercules transport aircraft to assist in humanitarian efforts.

 

Denmark

Denmark said it would send six F-16 planes and one military transport plane to support an intervention in Libya. The planes were ready to leave Denmark on Saturday for a southern European base with around 100 personnel including pilots and support.

 

Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Qatar are seen as the most likely Arab nations to provide back-up for an operation.

 

[Bashiir]

Gadaffi ceasefire "not important to us" - rebel commander, AFP.

[General Duke]

Despite the announcement, bombardment of opposition-held territory by Gaddafi's forces continued with 25 people killed in the eastern city of Misrata according to a doctor. The opposition council in Benghazi rejected the ceasefire amid the continued attacks and US secretary of state Hillary Clinton demanded to see "action on the ground", rather than just words.

[Jacpher]

Where's the resolution for Yemen and Bahrain?

[Naxar Nugaaleed]

^ one at a time, one at a time, you cant attack the entire crazies in the middle east all at once. You see how long it has taken to get just a no fly zone approved against Qaddafi and his mercenaries.

[General Duke]

Now that the United Nations Security Council resolution for a no-fly zone has been passed, how will it be implemented?

 

The UNSC Resolution 1973 has made it legal for the international community to protect the Libyan people from Muammar Gaddafi's lethal and excessive force - by, among other things, imposing a no-fly zone and carrying out military strikes and other military action short of occupation.

 

However, the overzealousness of certain Western powers like Britain, France and, as of late, the US, to interpret the resolution as an open-ended use of force, is worrisome. With their long history of interference and hegemony in the region, their political and strategic motivation remains dubious at best. Likewise, their rush to use air force individually or collectively could prove morally reprehensible - even if legally justified - if they further complicate the situation on the ground.

 

This sounds like 'damned if they do, damned if they don't'?

 

Well, the onus is on these Western powers to prove that their next move and actions are based on a strictly humanitarian basis and are not meant as a down payment for longer-term interference in Libyan and regional affairs.

 

They need to demonstrate how their 'change of heart' from supporting the Gaddafi dictatorship over several years to condemning him as a war criminal and acting to topple him, is not motivated by more of the same narrow national and Western strategic interest.

 

Unfortunately, the Libyan dictator's statements and actions (and his recent cynical and contradictory threats and appeals) have played into Western hands, making it impossible for Libyans, like Tunisians and Egyptians before them, to take matters into their own hands.

 

Those who abstained at the UN Security Council, including Germany, India and Brazil, wanted to co-operate in c*****ng a brighter future for Libya, but are also suspicious of the overzealous French and British eagerness to jump into a Libyan quagmire with firepower.

 

What then should Libyans, Arabs and other interested global powers do to help Libya avoid a terrible escalation to violence or a major humanitarian disaster?

 

Now that the international community has given the Libyan revolutionaries a protective umbrella that includes a full range of military and humanitarian actions, it is incumbent upon the Libyan opposition to mobilise for mass action in every city and town both in the east and west and challenge the regime's militias.

 

As the Libyan regime loses its civilian, tribal and international legitimacy, so will his security base be shaken over the next few days and weeks.

 

In fact, if the Libyan revolutionaries avoid complacency and exploit their newly gained legitimacy and protection in order to work more closely with their Arab neighbours and to demonstrate their political and popular weight in the country, the regime could very well implode from within.

 

The most effective and constructive way to use the newly mandated use of force by the UN Security Council is to use as little of it, as accurately, as selectively as possible, and ideally not use it at all. It is still possible for the threat of the use of international force, coupled with domestic popular pressure, to bring down the weakened regime.

 

An escalation to an all out war is in no one's interest, especially Libya's.

[nuune]

The Guardian

 

 

Gaddafi could still have final say in Libya

 

The enforcement, verification and permanence of a ceasefire could be a vexed and lengthy matter

 

Muammar Gaddafi poster in Tripoli Muammar Gaddafi could still thwart Western attempts to oust him. Photograph: Ahmed Jadallah/Reuters

 

Muammar Gaddafi's ceasefire offer will not satisfy western leaders queuing up to take a shot at him – but it's unclear what will. When the US and its allies invaded Iraq in 2003 the aim was to overthrow Saddam Hussein. When Nato entered Kosovo in 1999 its purpose was to stop ethnic cleansing by Slobodan Milosevic's army. The precise objectives of the Libyan war 2011, and how they will be achieved, are less well-defined – and therefore, potentially problematic.

 

The ceasefire hastily announced by Libyan foreign minister Moussa Koussa in the wake of UN resolution 1973 authorising foreign military intervention will be seen as a welcome first step. Except that regime forces bombarding Misrata and other cities appeared not to hear the news. Given Tripoli's talent for lies, the enforcement, verification, and permanence of a ceasefire could be a vexed and lengthy matter. It will not happen overnight.

 

Downing Street has tried to clarify what its eclectic alliance – including France, the US, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Italy and Denmark (and maybe Malta) – thinks it is doing in Libya. David Cameron and Barack Obama agreed that "the violence against the Libyan people needed to cease, that Gaddafi should depart from power now, and that the Libyan regime should comply with the [uN] resolution immediately", it said.

 

William Hague, the foreign secretary, added root and branch regime change to this wish list. "The Libyan people must be able to have a more representative government and determine their own future," he said.

 

On this basis, the expanding aim of the intervention is not only to stop the violence and remove Gaddafi (and his sons) from power. Its more ambitious purpose is to oversee a democratic system on western lines in a largely undeveloped country that has never known representative governance and has no tradition of civil rights and individual freedoms. This sounds more like Afghanistan-style nation-building every minute.

 

The US and Britain both stressed the importance of Arab support. Amr Moussa, secretary-general of the Arab League, could be expected to agree. But he pointed out on Friday there must be limits to intervention, and there was already a danger they were being exceeded. The league had not backed an invasion, he said. In fact, all it had authorised was a no-fly zone – not aerial bombardment and not attacks on Gaddafi's troops and armour. And it was worried about civilians getting killed.

 

"The goal is to protect civilians first of all, and not to invade or occupy," he said. "The resolution is clear on that point … we don't want any side to go too far, including Libya, by attacking the civilian population."

 

It's plain that whichever way the stated aims of the intervention are defined, achieving them will be highly problematic. The least of them – a genuine ceasefire – would effectively freeze the current confrontation in place, with rival camps entrenched in the east and west. The conflict could degenerate into a prolonged stalemate, as in the Korean peninsula or Georgia. Meaningful negotiation would be impossible while Gaddafi remained in power.

 

Interventionists cannot achieve Gaddafi's removal, another key aim, by force of arms, bar a ground invasion or a lucky shot. (The same goes for democratic governance.) The west is relying instead on more mass defections, an army mutiny or a palace coup – what analyst Shashank Joshi of the Royal United Services Institute has called "regime breakdown".

 

By withholding immediate attacks on Friday despite French impatience to get stuck in, Obama and Cameron appeared to be hoping the pressure on Gaddafi and his supporters would lead to internal rupture and an implosion.

 

Despite its military superiority, the west's reluctance to get involved on the ground means Gaddafi still has a big say over the outcome. He could fight on asymmetrically – although the odds are daunting. He could give himself up – but that is considered unlikely, as he would probably be lynched or jailed or both. He could flee, though it's uncertain who would offer him refuge. Or more likely, he may try to sit pat, talk about negotiations, husband his resources, and bide his time until the western powers lose interest and he can resume his war of reconquest.

 

Right now Cameron and Obama appear to have the whip hand. But questions such as how long and how far they are prepared to pursue this campaign, and how they measure success, remain unanswered. Weakened though he is, Gaddafi could still thwart them. They have him in a corner. And that makes him all the more dangerous.

[Che -Guevara]

So much for Arab revolution.