Alafia wrote: 
Me too. I'm not opposed to the idea of a "no fly" zone, but I would like to the French or the Saudis or anyone else flying the planes. We can provide support.

 buzz wrote: 
I sense another mess in the making.

According te Sec Gates, the first step in instituting a "no fly" zone is destroying all the anti-aircraft weapons on the ground. That means bombing. What will happen when civilians are killed in the process? What happens if one of those new amateur soldiers accidently fires on a American jet? What happens if one of those new amateur soldiers actually shoots down an American jet? What happens if we shoot down a Libyan jet and it crashes in a populated area? I have yet to see anyone address these issues.

 cc_rider wrote: 
there's a lot of truth in this.

I know this sounds twee, but this is going to go down well in the Maghreb. Me thinks the US has just won a lot of (albeit rather cautious) new friends.

Susan Rice:

The future of Libya should be decided by the people of Libya. The United States stands with the Libyan people in their quest for their universal human rights.

 

British, French and US military aircraft are preparing to protect the Libyan rebel stronghold of Benghazi after the United Nations security council voted in favour of a no-fly zone and air strikes against Muammar Gaddafi's forces.

With Gaddafi's troops closing in on Benghazi, the French prime minister, Francois Fillon, said "time is of the essence" and that France would support military action set to take place within hours.

Jets could take off from French military bases along the Mediterranean coast, about 750 miles from Libya. Several Arab countries would join the operation.

 NoEnzLefttoSplit wrote: 
I tend to ignore Mr. Krauthammer regardless, but you make a good point. Sure plenty of Iraqis hated Saddam, but they didn't have the wherewithal to rise up in protest. Look at the destruction caused by looting and vandalism once Saddam was toppled! Given the tone of the current protests, it seems unlikely Libyans or Egyptians or Bahrainis will perpetrate such large-scale destruction after they gain their freedom.

It's like the old line "If I give you something for free, what value do you attach to it?" The Iraqis were GIVEN their freedom, while the current protesters are EARNING theirs.

Of course that's oversimplifying, but it's the kind of point Mr. Krauthammer routinely overlooks.

 frank-peter wrote: 

There might not be a big difference between Saddam and Gaddafi,

but there is a big difference in timing and legitimacy. In Iraq the local people were not rising up or calling for foreign intervention on anything like the scale we are seeing in Libya.
The Iraq war was pure intervention initiated from the outside for reasons that unfortunately remain tainted and without the backing of the security council or any local governments (apart from Israel).

Here we have a large number, if not the majority, of the local people and a lot of other Arab countries clamouring for it. That makes a big difference.

UN Security Council Reslution authorising No Fly Zone and defence of Benghazi passed, 10 in favour, 5 abstentions. Here.

Bush Doctrine: OK For Libya But Not Iraq?

By CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER Posted 03/03/2011 06:51 PM ET

 View Enlarged Image

Voices around the world, from Europe to America to Libya, are calling for U.S. intervention to help bring down Moammar Gadhafi. Yet for bringing down Saddam Hussein, the U.S. has been denounced variously for aggression, deception, arrogance and imperialism.

A strange moral inversion, considering that Saddam's evil was an order of magnitude beyond Gadhafi's. Gadhafi is a capricious killer; Saddam was systematic. Gadhafi was too unstable and crazy to begin to match the Baathist apparatus: a comprehensive national system of terror, torture and mass murder, gassing entire villages to create what author Kanan Makiya called a "Republic of Fear."

Moreover, that systemized brutality made Saddam immovable in a way that Gadhafi is not. Barely armed Libyans have already seized half the country on their own. Yet in Iraq, there was no chance of putting an end to the regime without the terrible swift sword (it took all of three weeks) of the United States.

No matter the hypocritical double standard. Now that revolutions are sweeping the Middle East and everyone is a convert to George W. Bush's freedom agenda, it's not just Iraq that has slid into the memory hole. Also forgotten is the once proudly proclaimed "realism" of Years One and Two of President Obama's foreign policy - the "smart power" antidote to Bush's alleged misty-eyed idealism.

Didn't Go Green

It began on Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's first Asia trip when she publicly played down human rights concerns in China. The administration also cut aid for democracy promotion in Egypt by 50%. And cut civil society funds - money for precisely the organizations we now need to help Egyptian democracy - by 70%.

This new realism reached its apogee with Obama's reticence and tardiness in saying anything in support of the 2009 Green Revolution in Iran. On the contrary, Obama made clear that nuclear negotiations with the discredited and murderous regime (talks that a child could see would go nowhere) took precedence over the democratic revolutionaries in the street - to the point where demonstrators in Tehran chanted "Obama, Obama, you are either with us or with them."

Now that revolution has spread from Tunisia to Oman, however, the administration is rushing to keep up with the new dispensation, repeating the fundamental tenet of the Bush Doctrine that Arabs are no exception to the universal thirst for dignity and freedom.

Iraq, of course, required a sustained U.S. military engagement to push back totalitarian forces trying to extinguish the new Iraq. But is this not what we are being asked to do with a no-fly zone over Libya? In conditions of active civil war, taking command of Libyan airspace requires a sustained military engagement.

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/564877/201103031851/Bush-Doctrine-OK-For-Libya-But-Not-Iraq-.aspx

security council voting now..

Germany will abstain (it has too for internal political reasons) but ironically, this is one they should probably be belligerent on.

 hobiejoe wrote: 
Ironic beyond measure.  Truly a golden opportunity to somewhat legitimately and in a timely fashion, depose one of the world's bona fide madmen missed.

The tide has already turned and the window of opportunity without a civil war to get rid of Qadaffy has passed.  To do so now would require an invasion, similar to Iraq.  If the Arab League had acted two weeks earlier, it could have been accomplished with a sense of legitimacy.  A no fly action then would have sealed the deal and the loss of life would have been minimal.

Timing is everything, that and leadership.  The absense of both was the point of my comment.  Now the status quo will remain.

 jadewahoo wrote: 
I don't think so, the rebels have been very careful to avoid being cast as pawns of the west. Our idiotic "government" sent in two MI6 officers with six SAS by helicopter, at night, armed with weapons, explosives and multiple passports, only to be captured by some farmers.
 
The rebels rightly took a dim view of this, humiliated the British gov't and said, and I paraphrase, "you only had to ask, after all, one of your warships is actually docked here in Benghazi already"
 
I think they are very independantly minded, and are treading a line between needing support and allowing Gaddafi to portray them as western stooges.

The Libyan 'rebellion' failed because it was not truly of and by the people of Libya, but a chess move, under the guise of a popular uprising, by Exxon/Mobil to secure the forbidden fruits of Libyan oil.

Meanwhile back in Africa ...

On Saturday, the 22 or so members of the Arab League finally got around to approving a no fly zone over Libya.  It sorta seems to be a moot point now that Qadaffy has all but succeeded in putting down the rebellion in his country.  The are about 14 days late and many, many dollars short on this one.  And I suppose they wanted the US to do the dirty work as usual.  Too bad the Arab League took so long and missed a golden opportunity to do the right thing.  But on the other hand, the US did not get involved, not a bad thing.

Oh well on this one.  Now Al Qaeda wants to start its own insurgency in Libya.  It will be interesting to see what comes next for Qadaffy, but so far, he is still sitting pretty in his tent.

Just a little note on a non event overshadowed by the tragedy and nuclear crisis going on over in Japan.

Open those xenophobic eyes of yours, Bennie Nitwityahoo, open your eyes & see that it is the People of Egypt & Libya that are sending the message to the rest of the world.

You know what I say . . . ? I say lets send that message to the Palestinians is what I say.

Netanyahu: World pressure on Libya must also be directed at Iran

PM calls for strong international action against Libya and Iran regimes, says world must send message to Libyan people that would be heard in Iran.

Nelly Furtado to Donate $1 Million From Gaddafi Performance to Charity

I just read that the Eagles got 6 million dollars for playing one song at a rich sheik's new year's eve party. Just like in politics, business comes first.

 beamends wrote: 
Libya's got oil & Cameron is tight with Uncle Sam so you can bet your bottom dollar that motivations are less than honorable.
After all everyone knows that the true Axis of Global Evil is London, Washington, Tel Aviv. Or at least you know now.

Beano, eh ? That's what Clapton was reading on that classic John Mayall's Bluesbreaker's album, right ? Must be a worthy tabloid then.

 beamends wrote: 

 
Oh, and the Beeb said yesterday that the bullet that pinged off a helmet was fired by a rebel, and that they (the rebel, not the BBC) were really sorry.

 nuggler wrote: 
Alert : Daily Mail 'news' story

What the story really is is that Britain, France, Germany and others have proposed a no-fly zone and there is talk of forming some sort of safe corridor for people fleeing to Tunisia, both of which UK forces would be involved in. The RAF has done two rescue missions to remote desert oil fields to rescue overseas people, one was fired on so there is a suggestion that the SAS might send a few bods along to help out - assuming they are not already there

Nuggs : The Daily Mail is about as reliable news source as Fox News merged with The Beano and edited by Sarah Palin.