U.N. authorizes 'all necessary measures' to stop Gadhafi in Libya

In late-breaking news, which may end up changing the title, the United Nations Security Council has in fact voted 10-0 to impose a no-fly zone against Gadhafi's air force.

But who will enforce the no-fly zone?

I think no matter what, Gadhafi's forces may kill a lot of people, but he will never crush the rebellion.

I can't believe China and Russia abstained. I wish I could say that Gadhafi's days as a ruler were numbered but it is hard to say what will happen in this conflict.

What's needed more is a 'no-drive' zone, and I've heard talk of implementing such. Gadhafi doesn't seem to understand the extent his neck of the woods has changed - but, oh well, in the end it is his neck.

Badsey, you are clearly a troubled individual. It would be nice to see Europe take the lead on this, though.

French Prime Minister Francois Fillon said if the resolution was approved, France would support military action against Gadhafi within hours. The U.S. said it was preparing for action. Several Arab nations were expected to provide backup.

This is very good news. Gadhafi needs to go.

French Prime Minister Francois Fillon said if the resolution was approved, France would support military action against Gadhafi within hours.

Cowboy Europeans protecting their oil interests.

Right?

"Cowboy Europeans protecting their oil interests"

Protecting oil interests, you bet. Not just euros involved here though, heh and you'll note the UN mandate as opposed to the massacre initiated by the US "cowboy" you're tacticly referring to!

With Us Or Against Us diplomacy it 'aint.

How about Bahrain, the western countries seem to adopt double standard for situation in Libya and Bahrain.

Quadaffhi presented Obama's friend and admirer, the neo-segregationist Louis Farrakhan, with millions back in the 80s, and the president's other spiritual mentor Rev Jeremiah Wright even traveled to Libya. Somehow I doubt Obama calling for a no-fly zone (albeit only after his Sec of State makes noises about quitting...) represents the kind of return on his investment that the colonel was hoping for back then.

It's hard to believe Obama would order U.S. aircraft to engage Gadhafi's air defenses/air force.

"Cowboy Europeans protecting their oil interests"

bang on, mate.

Even Canada is sending warplanes.

Did Libya attack Canada?

Protecting oil interests, you bet. Not just euros involved here though, heh and you'll note the UN mandate as opposed to the massacre initiated by the US "cowboy" you're tacticly referring to!

Hope those stray France bombs do not slaughter innocents so France can gas up.

Madverts: Protecting oil interests, you bet. Not just euros involved here though

You mean countries who are not dependent on Libyan oil are involved? Well good on 'em. We all know where Europe would stand if they weren't taking orders from BP. They'd be...um....pacifists. No threat to you, right?

Surely there must be some stinging self-analysis going on in European newspapers right about now. Without the US to fall back on and without the US taking the lead it's difficult to imagine how Europeans will feel seeing their fighters blowing up Libyans. Something tells me they'll soon by longing for the good old days where they could just throw the US to the wolves while reaping the benefits. Can't wait to to see the front pages showing burned out buildings with "Made in Europe" written on the bombs.

Can anyone say "root cause of terrorism?" The catchphrases are just going to be endless...

By the way, thanks for your email. I'm fine...heh.

C'mon buddy, un-like the trolls above you can surely see the stark difference here.

Acting with a UN mandate (get it?) to assist civillians bearing the brunt of a civil war with one side far better armed than the other is a tad different to ordering a contreversial, un-provoked ariel bombardment of a city of 5 million people....and naturally, under utterly false and fabricated pretexes none less!

I can take this a step further and speculate that since Hussein didn't even get 1, heh 1 single plane off the ground when under attack un-like Ghadaffi, that down-trodden Iraqi's could have joined the wave of popular up-risings that we've seen and not lost what 100....200....300,000 civillians in the process?

Furthermore, I'm really not surprised to see you all in a flurry to jump on the band-wagon here. But you've missed it, and badly. It's got to be some subliminal guilt over the costly mistake in Iraq that you can't quite admit to, or else default and face the facts of your own mis-guided and bloody intervention.

It must indeed be a bitter pill to swallow to see Europe acting under the guise of a humanitarian mission whilst actually protecting her interests, and with an international mandate to back it up.

When I've more time I'll try to explain to the other offenders the difference between a no-fly zone and bombing cities full of innocent people. Though I doubt they're equipped to comprehend....

Stay away from that nuclear zone, wontcha buddy ;)

Protecting oil interests? I'm not sure. I would think that a reliable dictator might be easier to deal with than a democratically elected government might.

As far as comparing Libya to Bahrain, I don't see an organized rebellion in Bahrain (yet) so who would the UN support there?

Since this is a UN sanctioned action I'm less inclined to condemn it so quickly. Also interesting is that a Libyan minister has announced an immediate cease fire. Trying to avoid the UN intervention, no doubt.

Well, I wasn't expecting this. I guess Gadhafi is a victim of his own success: his rapid victories kicked the UN into action. Now, they just need to follow up on it...

I can not wait until the good people of Libya get their hands on Gadhafi with his stupid name that I have seen spelled in at least 10 different ways, but who is counting? Time for the good people of Libya to not only stand up to this monster but to give him a death blow, ASAP! (With a little help from Nato and US warplanes! Go! F-16s Go! or F-18s etc..like Top Gun??

Madverts: Acting with a UN mandate (get it?)

Oh I certainly get it. When oil wasn't on the line the Europeans decided to prevent the mandate. Now with BP in play suddenly they're more than happy to make a mandate. And just how important is the mandate? The UN didn't approve of NATO's actions in Yugoslavia. Europe seemed gung ho to get involved in that one with or without the mandate. So telling me that a mandate is important to them just isn't going to fly.

But my point to you is....do you support military action by (what amounts to) NATO is Libya? Many times you've brought up the "no threat to me" argument so I'm curious if you're going to hold on to that position. You seem to be bringing up the humanitarian angle, something you easily dismissed on a much larger scale (Iraq). It seems that Libya is an easy target and it helps European oil interests so suddenly they want to be humanitarians. Strip away the ease of the assignment and the oil interests and the humanitarian angle just seems to fade away. Is that different from the US? Not particularly. The difference is that for the last decade Europeans have been screaming to the world (and themselves) that they're somehow more "evolved" than the US.

"Oh I certainly get it. When oil wasn't on the line the Europeans decided to prevent the mandate. Now with BP in play suddenly they're more than happy to make a mandate."

Which Europeans? Heh, many governments in Europe became part of the coalition of the bribed, despite the total objection from their citizens. BP? What about Total?

And are you really going to argue that American intervention in Iraq had nothing to do with profiteering on a planetary scale, oil included?

Get real.

"And just how important is the mandate? The UN didn't approve of NATO's actions in Yugoslavia. Europe seemed gung ho to get involved in that one with or without the mandate. So telling me that a mandate is important to them just isn't going to fly."

Again, what's with the "them"? You can't group Europeans together as if they're a country, nor do they agree on everything - in fact they're usually at logaheads on just about everything. Perhaps your initial comments on this thread stem from feeling inferior, or perhaps superior in some way to Europeans?

"But my point to you is...."

Ahhh, enfin...

"do you support military action by (what amounts to) NATO is Libya?"

I support military action to remove Ghadaffi, for obvious reasons.

"Many times you've brought up the "no threat to me" argument so I'm curious if you're going to hold on to that position."

Iraq was no threat to me. It was no threat to you or the US either, despite the US insistence of the "clear and present danger" that they did not pose or "Mushroom Clouds" they couldn't muster.

Nor is Ghadaffi a threat to me. He's a threat to his own people, the very people he's slaughtering to retain power as we argue. Now dust off your "saddam was sodomizing incubator babies" retort if you must, but we've seen the American propaganda against that regime for what it is. And as I mentioned earlier, Iraqi's should have ousted Saddam, not Junior. And this is straying off topic...

"You seem to be bringing up the humanitarian angle, something you easily dismissed on a much larger scale (Iraq)."

Jesus. My whole argument against invading Iraq was hinged on humantarian issues. That's why I continue to cringe at an intelligent soul such as yourself justifying that particular carnage and it's six figure body-count.

"It seems that Libya is an easy target and it helps European oil interests so suddenly they want to be humanitarians."

The opposition to Ghadaffi's regime are an easy target for Ghadaffi. That's why I support taking out military targets.

"Strip away the ease of the assignment and the oil interests and the humanitarian angle just seems to fade away."

That's just your Euro-bitterness talking. The humanitarian angle is as plain as a French peasant-girl.

"Is that different from the US? Not particularly. The difference is that for the last decade Europeans have been screaming to the world (and themselves) that they're somehow more "evolved" than the US."

Like I said, you can see Europeans governments acting selfishly to protect it's oil supplies under the shroud of a justified humanitarian mission, only they have the international credibility your own much argued intervention in the region did not. Europe hasn't led the charge because of spurious allegations fabricated by people with dubious credentials - it's a genuine massacre by a dictator that has held on to power too long, and who is quite clearly a candidate for a mental institution IMO.

In this case, the diplomacy is certainly more "evolved" as opposed to the immediate post 9/11 With Us or Against Us "diplomacy" that got the US such a bad reputation as it is. Had Bush any kind of leadership skills he'd have got the French and German's on board instead, of whizzing on them from a high height and stirring up a pot of needless hatred on both sides.

I'm sad to see you so bitter and anti-European, but thanks for the reply anyway. Europeans aren't as bad as you think, but I sort of understand why people take offence when I see the comportment of certain Euro's abroad. Heh, kinda the opposite to Americans I meet abroad, but there you go....

I suppose it's hard to see when I'm being serious and when I'm just throwing fuel on the fire. I do have to admit it's fun being the lead cheerleader for a rather large group of people who seemed to have suddenly vanished. NO BLOOD FOR OIL! heh There are probably a hundred or so dumbed down bumper stickers I could throw on to this thread but I'll do my best to keep it at a minimum.

First of all, the mandate. Both of us know governments aren't like you and me and they're just acting in their own self-interest. But despite knowing that you seem to attach credibility to the concept of a mandate and that's confusing to me. It's hard to know how much you really believe that when you also come out and say that they're working to protect their interests. It would appear that a mandate is valid if all of the parties agree to be selfish at the same time.

You probably know that I support military action against Gadhafi. The problem is that I've backed off quite a bit. Is it because I feel it's not justified? No. It's because I know it comes down to how the media spins it. I'd like to see Gadhafi stopped but knowing that you've stopped him pales in comparison to the one stray missile that hits the wrong building and the pictures land on the front page of the BBC. We both know that that's going to happen and honestly I'd rather it be a European missile. That's to say I'd rather have all of the baggage that goes along with helping the average Libyan to fall on your lap, but still reap the benefits of knowing I supported helping Libyans.

Obama is talking about the US being in a supporting role and I'm happy with that. I think he knows how the catchphrase machines can churn out the headlines despite the bigger picture and I think he's smart to not get involved with that. Personally, I'd rather not see the Raptors involved. If Europe wants to take the lead then let them take the lead. If it means inferior technology is used and pilots die it's because of your choice. Another bumper sticker for ya: HE DIED FOR NOTHING!

Finally, I just have a hard time accepting the things you say when you compare Iraq and Libya. The fact is that the US and Europe mostly split when deciding on the UN's choice of words, and that's where most of Europe refused to keep the option of force on the table. It wasn't that they didn't just want to prevent an invasion, they refused to support any kind of military action. You'll notice that the words above say, "all necessary measures" to stop Gadhafi. Personally, I think that's a pretty big change and personally I think it exposes a bit of hypocrisy.

In the end if the people think it's a positive mission the media will report it as such. Technology give us the ability to make anything look like anything we want. If it's a popular action then the media will most likely talk about the people being saved. If things go wrong and support drops they'll start talking about how a no-fly zone is preventing sick people from being flown to other areas for life saving operations or even limiting what the opposition is able to do. Ever since the BBC ran the front page story about dogs in Iraq with post traumatic stress syndrome I realized there really is no stone that is left unturned if that's what they people want. If you're taking the lead, good luck. You might accomplish all of your goals and keep the negative impact to the lowest level humanly possible but there will be more than enough images to create the perception that you're Hitler.