cap28:

i oppose this intervention on moral AND economic grounds, moral grounds because it is morally bankrupt to invade a sovereign nation under the guise of humanitarianism when your own troops are killing unarmed civilians in iraq, afghanistan and pakistan.  Immoral because the racist zionist govt of israel kill and maim palestinians on a daily basis and america not only arms and finances this country to the tune of $2 billion per annum but actively vetoes any attempt to stop this injustice, immoral because this same so called international community failed to intervene in rwanda in 1994 despite the fact that 1 million people were butchered at the hands of hutu militias, immoral because even in our country nigeria this same international community did  jackshit when obasanjo slaughtered innocent men women and children in odi , gbamaratu and zaki biam, immoral because nothing was said when abacha executed (extra judicially) ken saro wiwa .

economic because financially it is absolutely ludicrous to expect tax payers to foot the bill for a neo colonialist offensive when america and britain have more pressing socio economic problems to deal wiht in thier respective countries.

the ONLY beneficiaries of this debacle will be the american oil companies the arms dealers and the international financial institutions.

the african nations who voted for this are nothing but paid up rented who.res their own day of reckoning will soon come, how long before america moves south to appropriate the oil reserves in nigeria, equatorial guinea, gabon and angola ?  they deserve everything that will come there way for selling out an entire continent -  i thought they opposed AFRICOM - now AFRICOM is about to arrive on the african continent via a so called humanitarian intervention.  

All good points, Cap. After watching world politics for some time, there's been a lot of unbelievable moments, but I threw up my hands when they were able to hang Sadaam after that kangaroo court proceedings in occupied territories. There's no one to stand up anymore and challenge US/UN. Mitterand is gone, and Russia/China are pursuing a new world agenda. More of this type of nonsense to come. Imagine? Openly supporting rebels attempting to overthrow a sitting government!

This is the begining of the end of the world as we know it.

The 'Machinery' these imperialist nations have in place must be dismantled - UN,NATO,IMF, World Bank, Arab League etc.

Its even more depressing to know that the EU/UN/Arab League now decide what wars take place on African soil.

Its too late for Africa to unite and fight the real enemy.

As has already been pointed out - We are witnessing the recolonization of Africa!

Breaking News - Arab League Criticise 'No Fly Zone'

http://www.khaleejtimes.com/DisplayArticle09.asp?xfile=data/international/2011/March/international_March1130.xml&section=international#

Arab League criticises Western strikes on Libya (AFP)

20 March 2011, 5:55 PMCAIRO - Arab League on Sunday criticised Western military strikes on Libya, a week after urging the United Nations to slap a no-fly zone on the oil-rich North African state.

“What has happened in Libya differs from the goal of imposing a no-fly zone and what we want is the protection of civilians and not bombing other civilians,” Arab League secretary general Amr Mussa told reporters.

On March 12, the Arab League urged the United Nations to impose a no-fly zone on Libya and said Moamer Kadhafi’s regime had “lost legitimacy” as it sought to snuff out a rebellion designed to oust him from power.

In the West’s biggest intervention in the Arab world since the 2003 US-led invasion of Iraq, US warships and a British submarine fired more than 120 Tomahawk cruise missiles into Libya on Saturday, the US military said.

French warplanes also carried out strikes.

The UN Security Council passed Resolution 1973 on Thursday authorising military action to prevent Kadhafi’s forces from attacking civilians.

Sun of god:

Breaking News - Arab League Criticise 'No Fly Zone'

http://www.khaleejtimes.com/DisplayArticle09.asp?xfile=data/international/2011/March/international_March1130.xml§ion=international#

Arab League criticises Western strikes on Libya (AFP)

20 March 2011, 5:55 PMCAIRO - Arab League on Sunday criticised Western military strikes on Libya, a week after urging the United Nations to slap a no-fly zone on the oil-rich North African state.

“What has happened in Libya differs from the goal of imposing a no-fly zone and what we want is the protection of civilians and not bombing other civilians,” Arab League secretary general Amr Mussa told reporters.

On March 12, the Arab League urged the United Nations to impose a no-fly zone on Libya and said Moamer Kadhafi’s regime had “lost legitimacy” as it sought to snuff out a rebellion designed to oust him from power.

In the West’s biggest intervention in the Arab world since the 2003 US-led invasion of Iraq, US warships and a British submarine fired more than 120 Tomahawk cruise missiles into Libya on Saturday, the US military said.

French warplanes also carried out strikes.

The UN Security Council passed Resolution 1973 on Thursday authorising military action to prevent Kadhafi’s forces from attacking civilians.

really so how do you explain the following:

Qatar defends participation in Libya operations
Qatari Prime Minister Sheikh Hamad bin Jassem al-Thani on Sunday defended his country's participation in military operations in Libya, saying the aim was to "stop the bloodbath"AFP , Sunday 20 Mar 2011
Print  Send   
Qatar's Foreign Minister Sheikh Hamad Bin Jassem Bin Jabor Al Thani surrounded by bodyguards as he arrives to attend the Arab League's emergency meeting in Cairo, March 12, (AP).An international coalition began strikes in Libya with combat jets and cruise missiles on Saturday, aiming to stop Libyan leader Moamer Kadhafi from suppressing a revolt launched on February 15 against his rule.

"Qatar is participating in the military action because it is necessary for Arab states to take part," Sheikh Hamad, who is also foreign minister, told Al-Jazeera satellite channel.

"The situation is untenable in Libya,  this is not a confrontation between protesters and police forces; it is an open war in which mercenaries are participating, and this must stop as soon as possible," Sheikh Hamad said.

However, he also said the operation "is not directed against the Libyan people, nor against the colonel (Kadhafi) and his sons. The important thing is to stop the bloodbath."

Qatar is the only Arab state to have promised Saturday at an emergency meeting in Paris to participate in military operations in Libya.

A United Nations diplomat said the United Arab Emirates would also participate, but this has not been confirmed.

The United States has stressed the importance of Arab participation in the international effort.

Its not for me to explain - but the Arabs are saying they didn't anticipate what they have seen.

They are now panicking - they appear to now know what they are a part of and want out.

This is now solely a 'Western Intervention' in Africa.

isale_gan2:

All good points, Cap. After watching world politics for some time, there's been a lot of unbelievable moments, but I threw up my hands when they were able to hang Sadaam after that kangaroo court proceedings in occupied territories. There's no one to stand up anymore and challenge US/UN. Mitterand is gone, and Russia/China are pursuing a new world agenda. More of this type of nonsense to come. Imagine? Openly supporting rebels attempting to overthrow a sitting government!

isale i cant tell you just how disgusted i am with this whole situation, the brazen hypocrisy, the treachery the out and out in your face evil of america and britain in this attack on libya is beyond belief -

the other thing that occurred to me is this - had nigeria, gabon and south africa abstained from voting in favour of this resolution, america and britain would have been totally screwed.

the 5 real nations whose stand on this matter really does matter (china, russia, brazil, india and germany) abstained, so it looks like the african nations were called in to make up the numbers when it looked like things were not going to go the way of the US/UK, obviously nothing has changed africans are still being used as pawns.

here is an interesting article which echoes some of the points raised by you and sun of god:

http://landdestroyer..com/2011/03/libya-another-war-another-pack-of-lies.html

cap28:

isale i cant tell you just how disgusted i am with this whole situation, the brazen hypocrisy, the treachery the out and out in your face evil of america and britain in this attack on libya is beyond belief -

My disgust reached its apex after Iraq/Abu Ghraib incident.  I'm all out of disgust.  Anything they do now, its just 'same ol same ol' to me.  The beginning of cynicism.

the other thing that occurred to me is this - had nigeria, gabon and south africa abstained from voting in favour of this resolution, america and britain would have been totally screwed.

It's too bad Nigeria couldn't dig in and at least refuse to vote. Despite that, I am sure a "No" vote would not have stopped this attack though. An alternate way would have been found. Some other reason would have been cooked up. Libya simply has too much oil and is too close physically to Israel and too motivational to other African "independent thinking" to not get its comeuppance.

I further understand that their main complaint is that civilians are being bombarded by rockets and missiles.

110 missiles in one night is not being very selective. Its a typical US 'Gun-Hoe' response.

Many have died or are injured.

The Arab league seems to be trying to minimise the amount of blood on their hands.

Expect the cry of outrage to grow throughout the Arab world - Once Al Jazera get the footage out.

This could get messy - The UN/US/EU need to retreat quickly.

^^^^

al jazeera are complicit in the disinformation campaign being used to justify this current attack on libya so i wouldnt hold my breath with regard to them, about half of their reporters and editorial staff are former bbc world service staff.  Also al jazeera is based in a western puppet nation - qatar, i think the US even have  a military base there so you are not going to get anything objective coming out of their media.

kodewrita:

really so how do you explain the following:

qatar is a puppet nation of america it receives millions of dollars in military aid from the US, so you are not going to hear anything critical about america coming from them.

The 'Arabs' feel decieved.

[flash=400,400]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vnQT3RGe0AE[/flash]

nakedall:

It should demands immediate halt to Gbagbo regime killing his own people first!

and the corrupt-useless Afro-leaders forgot to talk Gadhafi to stop bombing his own people.

leaders and tomorrow dey will beg for food from whiteman.

First there is no govt that is spotless anywhere. 
Africa has a lot of resources, they don't need to beg warmongering subhumans for food. They can cut the aid cos those come with too much inconveniences. Nevertheless, this is a slippery slope in the making. Any govt can take out any other govt  so europe ought to panic too

America is poor, bankrupt, service industry with high unemployment and it can barely rescue itself. Now, do you really think it helps to create more poverty over in libya, soon those people will be like afghan - begging to eat, they will also become a burden to the rest of Africa/europe and america. They will get tired of those humanitanrian handouts and head to Europe-watch and see. It has always been that way.

African union is not perfect but the land is africa's, how will europeans feel if America or Asia or even russia goes to europe and take out their govt.  This is the beginning of a  slippery slope in the age of information. For the record, yes AU did try - they wanted dialogue and did not attend the no -fly zone meeting in paris cos they wanted dialogue first.

http://www.euractiv.com/en/global-europe/african-union-speaks-libya-message-west-expected-analysis-503032
http://www.myweku.com/2011/03/african-union-rejects-foreign-military-intervention-in-libya/

@ Bastage:
It's either you have been brainwashed by Sky news and BBC or you are completely biased.
No offence!
Where is the real propaganda coming from?
Now the rebels are gaining ground, are they not going to fight their way back to tripoli too?
Do you not think there would be killing of civilians in that?
However you see this, the UN ,Cameron, Sarkozy are taking the shoe off one foot and putting it on the other.
Ghaddafi is the target here. Oil is the reason. Personal revenge on Lockerbie bombings etc.

If Ghaddafi is a mad man, why did they enter into any deals with him? Bear in mind this just happened a matter of months ago?
You need to get your facts right. Even people in the UK think it is wrong!

International alliance divided over Libya command

President Barack Obama, speaking in Santiago, Chile on Monday, defended his decision to order U.S. strikes against Libyan military targets, and insisted that the mission is clear.

And like a parade of Pentagon officials the past few days, Obama insisted that the United States' lead military role will be turned over—"in days, not weeks"—to an international command of which the United States will be just one part.

The only problem: None of the countries in the international coalition can yet agree on to whom or how the United States should hand off responsibilities.

The sense of urgency among White House officials to resolve the command dispute is profound: with each hour the U.S. remains in charge of yet another Middle East military intervention, Congress steps up criticism that Obama went to war in Libya without first getting its blessing, nor defining precisely what the end-game will be. (On Monday, Obama sent Congress official notification that he had ordered the U.S. military two days earlier to commence operations "to prevent humanitarian catastrophe" in Libya and support the international coalition implementing UN Security Council Resolution 1973.)

Below, an explainer on the military mission in Libya, the dispute over who should command it after its initial phase, and whether the military is concerned about mission creep.

What is the U.S. military task in Libya?

The military mission in Libya is implementing U.N. Security Council Resolution 1973, which calls for Gadhafi's forces to pull back from rebel-held towns, and the establishment of a no-fly zone to protect Libyan civilians from attack by Gadhafi, and for civilians to be allowed access to food, water and other humanitarian supplies.

Is the U.S. military trying to kill Gadhafi?

No, the U.S. military is not authorized to kill Gadhafi, said Gen. Carter Ham, the commander of U.S. African Command at a press conference in Stuttgart, Germany, Monday. Ham's command is currently leading the first phase of the international coalition effort to establish a no-fly zone in Libya, together with the United Kingdom and France. Nor is the U.S. military currently coordinating with anti-Gadhafi rebels or authorized to provide them military support, Ham said.

The main objective, Ham stressed, is to protect civilians from attack. "The military mission is very clear, frankly. What is expected of us to do is establish a no fly zone to protect civilians, to get withdrawal of regime ground forces out of Benghazi," Ham said. "What we look forward to is the transition to designating the headquarters" of the command of the next phase of operations.

How can the coalition reconcile a military mission that could leave Gadhafi in power with the many calls for his removal?

On Monday, Obama answered this by underlining the language of UN Security Council resolution 1973, which calls for protecting civilians from attack. That narrow military mission is distinct, Obama said, from the larger political goal of seeing Gadhafi step down—a call that Obama himself has repeatedly echoed, along with other major Western diplomatic players such as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and French President Nicolas Sarkozy. The international community has other non-military tools to achieve that goal, Obama said, such as economic sanctions, diplomatic isolation, international war crimes investigation, and cutting off the Gadhafi regime's access to financial assets abroad.

"First of all, I think it is very easy to square our military actions and our stated policies," Obama said in Chile Monday. "Our military action is in support of an international mandate from the UN Security Council that specifically focuses on the humanitarian threat posed by Gadhafi to his people."

Who is currently commanding the international military coalition?

U.S. African Command (AFRICOM), the U.S. regional military command dealing with the continent of Africa, and its commander Gen. Carter Ham, are leading the first phase of what the Pentagon has dubbed "Operation Odyssey Dawn" to suppress Libya's air defenses to establish a no-fly zone over Libya.

Other early members of the international coalition imposing a no-fly zone over Libya include France and the United Kingdom, joined Monday by Belgium and Canada.

Ham and other Pentagon officials have said the U.S. is eager to turn over the lead role in the operation to international coalition partners, but as yet the command of the next phase has not been agreed.

What's really at issue in the dispute over who should command the next phase of the international mission over Libya?

Put simply, the members of the international coalition are at odds over whether the international coalition command should be led by NATO, or not.

The French, Turks, and Germans reportedly object to NATO running the operation, all for their own reasons. The Italians, the UK, and the United States, among others, think that NATO is best equipped to be able to take swift control of the mission.

"There is not only one problem. Each player has its own perspective, sensitivity, priority," said one European defense official on condition of anonymity given the sensitivity of the dispute Monday. "You have the weak, the prudent, the strong, the opportunists."

"The problem is, the Italians are calling for it to be a NATO operation, but it's not clear all members of NATO support this," said Anthony Cordesman, a veteran defense analyst at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. "It's also clear that the French initiated part of this operation. And behind it is the reality that it is only the United States that has the combination of satellite targeting and precision strike capabilities in terms of cruise missiles that are critical to overall command and control and situational awareness."

Why do the French and others object to a possible NATO command structure?

"There are technical considerations and political ones," said Justin Vaisse, of the Brookings Institution Center for the United States and Europe. Sarkozy has two basic objection, Vaisse explains: "One, NATO is radioactive in the Arab world and seen as a tool of US imperialism. And two, there's also the question of not having Turkey and Germany [who have expressed reservations about the Libya military mission], impede" the international mission in Libya, given that NATO is a consensus organization.

Turkey reportedly resents that French president Sarkozy did not invite Turkish prime minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan to his Paris summit on Libya Saturday with other world leaders. (The perceived insult is "completely absurd," a French official said, explaining that the summit was open to any country interested in implementing the Libya UN resolution, and France did not "send 200 invites to all members of the UN." A Turkish official said the Ankara would have gladly sent a representative had they been invited.)

Germany reportedly is not interested in participating in a military mission in Libya, but could opt-out but approve NATO being otherwise involved.

NATO ambassadors met in Brussels Monday to debate the issue.

When is the command issue likely to be resolved?

U.S. officials insist it has to be resolved soon--"days, not weeks," as Deputy National Security Advisor for Strategic Communications Ben Rhodes said Sunday.

"I would not put a date certain on this," Gen. Carter Ham said Monday. "The first thing that has got to happen is identification of what that organization is. We have been from the start planning how to effect this transition once that follow-on headquarters is established. It's not so simple as to have a handshake and say, 'you're now in charge.' "

Does the top U.S. commander worry about mission creep?

"No, I don't worry too much about mission creep," Ham said after a pause Monday. "I think the mission is clear, and moving forward and achieving the military objectives consistent with our mission."

(A group of protesters angry about international intervention in Libya blocked the path of U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon as he left a meeting at the Arab League.: Nasser Nasser/AP)

The real propaganda comes from Gaddafi.

I ask you: If, as he says, many civilians have been killed in the airstrikes, where are the news reports?
Do you think that he would not be crowing to the world? Do you think that there would not be pictures both on Libyan and Western TV of the casualties?
I have seen many videos of funerals of protestors but not one of a funeral of a casualty of an airstrike.

Deals have nothing to do with it. He started killing his own people. Once that happens, all deals are off the table. If Lockerbie is the motive, they would not have released the bomber and made the deals with Gadaffi would they? They would have kept him out in the cold where he had been for the last decade.

^^ sounds like you don't know much about world politics,what has UN done about Yemen and Bahrain or there are no killings there irrespective of the approach

Yemen and Bahrain have nothing to do with Libya. They are a totally different situation.

Let me tell you why the UN won't do anything about them. The answer is Iran in Bahrain and Al Qaeda in Yemen. The West thinks that if their governments fall, the alternative is far worse.
Not just the West as the Saudis sent their troops to Bahrain.

I could throw the accusation that you know nothing about world politics right back at you.

they should have also allowed the Arab league handle the situation in Libya.
the same way they jumped into iraq and 8 years after the country is far worse than it was when they invaded it. now tell me,when Gadhafi is ousted, who takes over the mantle of leadership,France, Us or Uk.

Do you have the timetable for the Libyan Mission,when is it ending

would you also support UN to side boko haram or Mend if GEJ was man enough to unleash terror on them because they are also rebels who are challenging the state apparatus and killing Nigerians like no mans biz

aguiyi:

^^ sounds like you don't know much about world politics,what has UN done about Yemen and Bahrain or there are no killings there irrespective of the approach

you hit the nail on the head bruv.

the current situation is that this supposed coalition against libya  is in disarray, norway has pulled out of it,  the UAE are getting jittery because its people dont like the fact that imperialists are killing their fellow arabs next door in libya, turkey doesnt want anything to do with this and has condemned these barbaric attacks on a sovereign nation,  even the US defence secretary Gates doesnt want the US to be spearheading this and wants to pass the buck to cameron aka "colonel blimp".

aguiyi:

they should have also allowed the Arab league handle the situation in Libya.

LOL. Good joke.

The Arab League can't even handle their own individual countries. That's why they screamed and screamed for the West to intervene. Everyone seems to completely miss the fact that the West was dithering whilst the Arab League was demanding a No-Fly zone and complaining that the West wouldn't help.
Tell me, when the Arab League has ever sorted anything out on it's own.
Arab nations are too worried about giving fuel to their own extremists. They ask the West to act and when it does, they appease those extremists by doing a complete turnaround and stating that the West should stay out. The West does their dirty work for them and then gets the blame.

As for who takes over Libya when/if Gaddafi is ousted, that should be for the Libyans themselves to decide.

Bastage:



As for who takes over Libya when/if Gaddafi is ousted, that should be for the Libyans themselves to decide.

thanks for the joke of the day.
Can you tell me who is deciding that in Iraq and the issue i raised about rebels trying to topple a govt with reference to mend and boko haram,whats your take on that.
maybe you possibly need some help in understanding who a rebel is

aguiyi - the arab league are a bunch of western backed puppet dictators, they have however underestimated the mood of their people, the arab people are not happy that western imperialists are raining down 120 tomahawk missiles on libya while remaining completely silent over the massacre of unarmed civillians in neighbouring bahrain and yemen, oil eh its a real bi.tch!!!!

here is a british mp george galloway's take on the unfolding events in libya and the conduct of the political prostit.utes aka the arab league:



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u1BOMxDZQd4

Simply put, they don't want to kill Ghaddafi? But they are empowering 'civilians turned rebels' to kill him with their own hands? Ghaddafi has supporters too. I see a civil war in the horizon.

The motive behind this? So the west can have their way.

@Backstage, take it or leave it. The truth takes only a little while to come out. When it does, there will be consequences.
The attacks on the US, UK and france by extremist, do we condemn them? Yes, we all do? But don't you also think it is a way of paying back?
There are several countries like protugal, spain, germany etc who dpn't even have sophisticated defence systems but how many attacks have you heard of there?
By the way, what right have they got to invade a country that is 10 times better than theirs economically

thats an old story,the world is patiently waiting for those documents to enable her put sarkozy were he belongs maybe he forgot that he has enemies in his own country and around the world like Gadhaffi

phantom23:

@Backstage, take it or leave it. The truth takes only a little while to come out. When it does, there will be consequences.
The attacks on the US, UK and france by extremist, do we condemn them? Yes, we all do? But don't you also think it is a way of paying back?
There are several countries like protugal, spain, germany etc who dpn't even have sophisticated defence systems but how many attacks have you heard of there?
By the way, what right have they got to invade a country that is 10 times better than theirs economically

Are you speaking through your anus? Pls, the brain is meant for thinking and not the heart

@ koastar. What is your point exactly?
Cos I know for fact that the quality of life in Libya is a lot better than France, uk etc

phantom23:

@ koastar. What is your point exactly?
Cos I know for fact that [b]the quality of life in Libya is a lot better than France, uk e[/b]tc

You have to proof this, i'm waiting,

^^ if you need elightenment ,at least be polite

[flash=400,400]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I2LJQR4oKUo[/flash]

http://www.nationsencyclopedia.com/economies/Africa/Libya-POVERTY-AND-WEALTH.html.  Belive it or not he standard of living in Libya is quite high, with a life expectancy of about 70. Libya is considered a developed country. These improvments came after ghaddafi deposed of king farooq. I heard the BBC say that the majority of libian live in uttur poverty. You see the lies and decrepancies from the media?