Un Vote Clears Way For Libya Air Strikes, are you for, or against?

[polywog999]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20110318/ts_afp/libyaunrestmideast_20110318003319

BENGHAZI (AFP) – The UN Security Council has authorized air strikes to halt Moamer Kadhafi's offensive against embattled rebel forces in Libya, with the first bombing raids possible within hours.

The council Thursday voted to permit "all necessary measures" to impose a no-fly zone, protect civilian areas and impose a ceasefire on Kadhafi's military. Enforcement will rely on air power as the resolution rules out sending ground troops.

Celebratory gunfire immediately rang out across Libya's main rebel-held city of Benghazi. Tracer bullets streaked across the night sky as preachers at mosques shouted "God is greatest!" over loudspeakers.

"This resolution demands an immediate ceasefire and a complete end to violence and attacks against civilians," the US ambassador to the UN, Susan Rice, said.

"The security council has authorized the use of force, including enforcement of a no-fly zone to protect civilians and civilian areas targeted by Colonel Kadhafi, his intelligence and security forces and his mercenaries," Rice said.

Kadhafi vowed earlier that his troops would take Benghazi within hours.

"The decision has been taken. Prepare yourselves. We will arrive tonight," Kadhafi said on state television. "Show them no mercy. The world needs to see Benghazi free."

His defense ministry, meanwhile, warned that foreign assaults on Libya would trigger retaliation putting "all air and maritime traffic in the Mediterranean" in danger.

The UN vote passed 10-0 with five abstentions in the 15 member council. Permanent members China and Russia were among those abstaining, but did not use their veto power. Germany also abstained.

Diplomats have indicated that air strikes from a coalition led by Britain, France and the United States -- but also including some Arab countries -- could now be imminent.

"We have very little time left. It is a matter of days. Perhaps it is a matter of hours," French Foreign Minister Alain Juppe said at the United Nations. "We should not arrive too late."

Juppe said the world had to act to support Libya, following peaceful revolts against authoritarian leaders across the Arab world.

"The world is living one of its great revolutions that changes the course of history," he said. "In Libya, alas, for a number of weeks the people's will has been shot down to its feet by Colonel Kadhafi."

A UN diplomat who asked not to be identified said that Qatar and United Arab Emirates could be among the Arab nations to join a military coalition.

However, countries abstaining in the UN vote warned of an open-ended conflict that could undermine stability across the oil-rich region.

"There is a need to avoid such destabilizing developments," the Russian ambassador said, calling the resolution "most unfortunate."

Germany's ambassador foresaw "great risks. The likelihood of large-scale loss of lie should not be underestimated. If the steps proposed turn out to be ineffective, we see the danger of being drawn into a protracted military conflict that would affect the wider region."

The UN vote set the stage for a dramatic widening of the war between Kadhafi and rag-tag rebel forces seeking the veteran strongman's overthrow.

The Libyan defense ministry warned that "any military operation against Libya will expose all air and maritime traffic in the Mediterranean to danger."

"Any civilian or military moving traffic will be the target of a Libyan counter-offensive," the official Jana news agency quoted the defense ministry spokesman as saying.

On the ground around Benghazi tensions mounted with rebel commanders ordering fighters to man artillery and missile batteries against the expected onslaught by government forces.

However, CNN reported that one of Kadhafi's sons, Saif al-Islam, had announced a change in tactics following the UN vote.

"He said they're going to change the tactics around Benghazi, that the army is not going to go into Benghazi. It's going to take up positions around the stronghold," the CNN correspondent....

Click link for more...

[airborneskins]

I voted to obstain. I am not against a no-fly zone being enforced, but it should be UN led. They have to get something right eventually. :pfft:

Seriously though. I think that the UN should do what it takes to enforce the no-fly zone. I just hope that minimal US forces are involved.

[G.A.C.O.L.B.]

Depends on how involved the US is in this.

And why the hell are you rocking an ICP sig?

[polywog999]

Depends on how involved the US is in this.

And why the hell are you rocking an ICP sig?

Ughh! I hate ICP! I didn't know

[JMS]

The world would be a better place, a safer place, both for us and Libyans if Kadafi was gone. There have been more than a few time over the years where the United States has thought seriously about taking him out. It seems with half his country in revolt this is as good a time as any to achieve that long cherished goal.

I have two questions on this issue which would decide where I came down on this. Two questions with no answers.

(1) Have we waited too long. The Rebels seem to be in full retreat. Have we waited too long to support their uprising? Doesn't do us any good to back the looser.

(2) Who are the Rebels and what are their goals. If they want a democratic Libyia at peace with her neighbors and advancing the issues of her people... That would be great. If they have some sort of whacked out religeous radicals waiting in the wings bent on the destruction of Israel or a return to the Caliphate then Kadaffi is looking much more attractive to me as a long term solution to Libya.

[twa]

I voted to obstain. I am not against a no-fly zone being enforced, but it should be UN led. They have to get something right eventually. :pfft:

Seriously though. I think that the UN should do what it takes to enforce the no-fly zone. I just hope that minimal US forces are involved.

+1

and agree with JMS's questions....much of the world acted to support Gaddafi over the yrs ,let them lead in cleaning up their mess.

[visionary]

The world would be a better place, a safer place, both for us and Libyans if Kadafi was gone. There have been more than a few time over the years where the United States has thought seriously about taking him out. It seems with half his country in revolt this is as good a time as any to achieve that long cherished goal.

I have two questions on this issue which would decide where I came down on this. Two questions with no answers.

(1) Have we waited too long. The Rebels seem to be in full retreat. Have we waited too long to support their uprising? Doesn't do us any good to back the looser.

(2) Who are the Rebels and what are their goals. If they want a democratic Libyia at peace with her neighbors and advancing the issues of her people... That would be great. If they have some sort of whacked out religeous radicals waiting in the wings bent on the destruction of Israel or a return to the Caliphate then Kadaffi is looking much more attractive to me as a long term solution to Libya.

1. I don't think it's too late yet, but it's getting close over the weekend.

There are still parts of the western Libya that are very much in revolt as well and heavy fighting is going on in Misrata, Zintan and along the Tunisian border this morning. In the East Gaddafi's forces seem to have run into a wall at Ajdabiya and haven't been able to advance.

This could all change in the next few days though if some sort of solid help isn't provided.

2. I don't worry too much about the country becoming a religious dictatorship like Iran or like with the Taliban.

There are islamists there in the East and other places in Libya, but so far most of the talk has been get rid of Gaddafi, keep the country unified, and give the people a democracy to empower them.

Personally I think this could be a huge blow to islamist infiltration into other warzones if Libyans are busy deciding their own fate and fixing their country.

Now I do have some worries about Gaddafi's ex ministers who are part of the council, so there is some concern there.

On the other hand they appear to be wanting to head towards an actual democracy from all that they've said.

Let's hope they keep their promises. I think the people wouldn't be too happy to be betrayed by them either.

[Bang]

I vote no. But, not that we should stay out of other people's messes, we should stay out of THIS mess.

It's always amusing / sickening to me that whenever I hear "UN coalition" it usually means 85% US troops, 85% US equiplment, 95% US expense, and 100% of the blame for everything that goes wrong.

**** them. We've been the world's cop for 65 years and right now we owe everyone and their mother money, and they want us to get out there in front again.

No. We have our own problems to solve first.

~Bang

[Riggo-toni]

I think a very likely outcome of this is Ghadafi will end up the leader of a "rump" state in the west. While rebels establish de facto rule in the east, much like post-91 Iraq. It could be quite revealing how well a provisional govt operates in the east.

[visionary]

At the moment, Gaddafi's regime has agreed to a ceasefire and is supposedly ending all military operations.

So...we'll have to see what happens.

If he actually keeps his word, there may be no international military involvement at all.

That said, he was heavily attacking cities in the west this morning, and I can't see his forces sitting around if protests break out across the west and specifically in Tripoli again.

[zoony]

We've got one too many threads on Libya right now. Two of them on the main page have become streaming... I think all the relevant opinions are there.