UN Gives No Fly Zone Mandate In Libya

[LONDON!]

looks like the system is bloodthirsty for libya's oil, they see oil in there eyes, plus revenge for some of the revolutionary movements that fought againsgt the system back in the day like the ira, the sandinista's in nicarugua and farc in colombia and the el rukn's street organization in the states that libya funded back in the day

i don't see the system calling for resolutions for the atrocity's there puppet goverment in bahrain is doing to civillians, which there is concrete evidence for not hearsay and propaganda


UN approves no-fly zone over Libya


AP/APTN
This image taken from video shows plumes of smoke rising into the sky at Benina, a civilian and military airport, outside Benghazi in eastern Libya Thursday March 17, 2011. More photos »



Email
Print
Slideshow:Anti-government protests in Libya
Play VideoBarack Obama Video:AP Top Stories AP
Play VideoBarack Obama Video:Obama: Harmful radiation not expected in US AP

AP – Former Libyan permanent representative Abdurrahman Mohamed Shalgham, left, embraces United States permanent …
By EDITH M. LEDERER, Associated Press – 47 mins ago
UNITED NATIONS – The U.N. Security Council voted Thursday to impose a no-fly zone over Libya and authorize "all necessary measures" to protect civilians from attacks by Moammar Gadhafi's forces, hours after the Libyan leader vowed to crush the rebellion with a final assault on the opposition capital of Benghazi.
The U.N. vote paved the way for possible international air strikes on Gadhafi's advancing military and reflected the past week's swift reversal of the situation in Libya, where once-confident rebels are now in danger of being obliterated by an overpowering pro-Gadhafi force using rockets, artillery, tanks, warplanes. That force has advanced along the Mediterranean coast aiming to recapture the rebel-held eastern half of Libya.
The resolution establishes "a ban on all flights in the airspace of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya in order to help protect civilians." It also authorizes U.N. member states to take "all necessary measures ... 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."
The vote was 10-0 with five countries abstaining including Russia and China, which have veto power in the council, along with India, Germany and Brazil. The United States, France and Britain pushed for speedy approval.
In Benghazi, Al-Jazeera satellite TV channel showed a large crowd watching the vote on an outdoor TV projection burst into celebration as green and red fireworks exploded in the air.
In an interview broadcast just before the Security Council voted, Gadhafi dismissed its actions. "The U.N. Security Council has no mandate. We don't acknowledge their resolutions," he told the Portuguese public Radiotelevisao Portuguesa. He pledged to respond harshly to U.N.-sponsored attacks. "If the world is crazy, we will be crazy too," he said.
U.S. officials have said the authorization for "all necessary measures" provides a legal basis for countries to carry out air strikes to protect civilians from Gadhafi's forces.
"We had said all along that Gadhafi must go," said British Foreign Secretary William Hague. "It is necessary to take these measures to avoid greater bloodshed."
In Britain, a lawmaker with knowledge of defense matters confirmed that British forces were on stand by for air strikes and could be mobilized as soon as Thursday night. The lawmaker declined to be named because the Defense Ministry has not issued official confirmation.
French Prime Minister Francois Fillon told France-2 Television that if the resolution was approved France would support military action against Gadhafi within a matter of hours.
Immediately before the vote, France's Foreign Minister Alain Juppe urged adoption of the resolution saying sanctions imposed by the Security Council on Feb. 26 aren't enough and "violence against the civilian population has been redoubled."
"We cannot let these warmongers ... do this," he said. "We have very little time left. It's a matter of days. It's perhaps a matter of hours. We should not arrive too late."
The resolution also calls for stronger enforcement of the arms embargo, adds names of individuals, companies and other entities to the list of those subject to travel bans and asset freezes, and requires all countries to ban Libyan flights from landing, taking off or overflying their country.
It also demands that Libya ensure the "rapid and unimpeded passage of humanitarian assistance" and asks U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon to establish an eight-member panel of experts to assist the Security Council committee in monitoring sanctions.
Russia and China had expressed doubts about the United Nations and other outside powers using force against Gadhafi, a view backed by India, Brazil and Germany who also abstained.
Germany's U.N. Ambassador Peter Wittig expressed fear that using military force could lead to "the likelihood of large-scale loss of life."
Despite the lack of consensus, U.S. Ambassador Susan Rice said: "Today the Security Council has responded to the Libyan people's cry for help."
She said "Colonel Gadhafi and those who still stand by him continue to grossly and systematically abuse the most fundamental of the human rights of his people."
Gadhafi, in the Radiotelevisao Portuguesa interview, said that he rejected any U.N. threats of action.
"The U.N. Security Council has no mandate," Gadhafi said. "We don't acknowledge their resolutions."
He warned that any military action would be construed as "colonization without any justification" and would have "grave repercussions."
The Arab League has supported the call for a no-fly zone, and Gadhafi said that as a result "it's finished."
The United States joined the resolution's initial supporters — Britain, France and Lebanon — not only in pushing for a speedy vote but also in pressing for action beyond creation of a no-fly zone to protect civilians from air, land and sea attacks by Gadhafi's fighters.
This marked a dramatic about-face by the Obama administration which for weeks hesitated about supporting a no-fly zone, fearing that the United States could get sucked into another war in a Muslim nation.
U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told reporters in Tunisia on Thursday that a U.N. no-fly zone over Libya would require action to protect the planes and pilots, "including bombing targets like the Libyan defense systems." She said no ground intervention is being considered.
Michael Mann, a spokesman for EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton, called the situation "very worrying" and said the EU was looking to the U.N. Security Council before making further decisions. "We have always said all along that we are planning for all options," he said.
Russia's U.N. Ambassador Vitaly Churkin, whose government had expressed misgivings about a no-fly zone, proposed that the council vote first on a resolution calling for a cease-fire in Libya. The council refused but added a paragraph in the resolution calling for an immediate cease-fire "and a complete end to violence and all attacks against, and abuses of, civilians."
France and Britain failed to win support for a no-fly zone during a two-day meeting of Group of Eight foreign ministers in Paris on Tuesday and the G-8's final communique did not mention a flight ban, leaving any action to the Security Council.
___
Associated Press Writers Anita Snow at the United Nations and Jamey Keaten in Paris contributed to this report.

[GuardianOne]

It looks like intelligence might have made some wrong assumptions. Not according to events but how both sides have played it out.

The Libyan president will have to go sometime in the future as is with all presidents. But looking at the scores from an independent view point against the other nations advocating for Military action

Libya won this fair and square, they claim its rebels, so they are acting on national interest protecting the country from rebels.

And they have won (i mean libya has the wealth to win a war in its own country) no matter who is president.

On the other hand other nations supported the rebels, who are illegitimate and they seem to have lost on both fronts - local support and as for international well "half of it appears like they are misled" while the other half they're correct to ease all the suffering - cause beside all this civilians suffer the most in any conflict.

Doesn't matter who has the big guns. This time around intelligence miscalculated we'll see next time.

Kind of reminds of the Gulf war....

[brock]

bout fucking time.

[soul controller]

Galloway saying it how it is.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zk2u-pvOpcc

[LONDON!]

Galloway saying it how it is.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zk2u-pvOpcc

galloway always chats sense

[tostones]

"This is a list of countries by proven reserves of oil based on The World Factbook as of 1 January 2010.[1] According to CIA definition:

Proved reserves are those quantities of petroleum which, by analysis of geological and engineering data, can be estimated with a high degree of confidence to be commercially recoverable from a given date forward, from known reservoirs and under current economic conditions.

↓ Country↓ Reserves (bbl)↓ Share of World %↓
1 Saudi Arabia (more information) 264,600,000,000 19.00%
2 Canada (more information) 175,200,000,000 12.58%
3 Iran (more information) 137,600,000,000 9.88%
4 Iraq (more information) 143,000,000,000 8.26%
5 Kuwait (more information) 104,000,000,000 7.47%
6 United Arab Emirates (more information) 97,800,000,000 7.02%
7 Venezuela (more information) 97,770,000,000 7.02%
8 Russia (more information) 74,200,000,000 5.33%
9 Libya (more information) 47,000,000,000 3.38%
10 Nigeria (more information) 37,500,000,000 2.69%
11 Kazakhstan 30,000,000,000 2.15%
12 Qatar 25,410,000,000 1.82%
13 China 20,350,000,000 1.46%
14 United States (more information) 19,120,000,000 1.37%
15 Angola 13,500,000,000 0.97%
16 Algeria 13,420,000,000 0.96%
17 Brazil 13,200,000,000 0.95%
18 Mexico (more information) 12,420,000,000 0.89%
19 Azerbaijan 7,000,000,000 0.50%
20 Sudan 6,800,000,000 0.49%"

[LONDON!]

former US assistant secretary of the US treasury breaks down the american goverment and the rest of the puppet system goverments in the west imperialism tactics and beef & warmongering wit china

from www.globalresearch.ca

'US To Recoup Libya Oil From China'
Interview with Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, former assistant secretary of US Treasury

by Dr. Paul Craig Roberts






Global Research, April 17, 2011
Press TV

Email this article to a friend
Print this article

3
digg

256
Share


Press TV has interviewed Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, former assistant secretary of US Treasury from Panama City, who gives his insight on the revolution in Libya and why US President Barack Obama needs to overthrow Qaddafi when no other US presidents did.

Press TV: Russia has criticized NATO for going far beyond its UN mandate. In other news a joint Op Ed is going to be written by Obama, Cameron and Sarkozy who have said that “leaving Qaddafi in power would be an unconscionable betrayal to the Libyan people”.

We do know that the mandate does not call for regime change; the Obama administration has been saying they are not in there for regime change; but things seem a little different now don't they?

Roberts: Yes they do. First of all, notice that the protests in Libya are different from the ones in Egypt or Yemen or Bahrain or Tunisia and the difference is that this is an armed rebellion.

There are more differences: another is that these protests originated in the eastern part of Libya where the oil is - they did not originate in the capital city. And we have heard from the beginning credible reports that the CIA is involved in the protests, and there have been a large number of press reports that the CIA has sent back to Libya its Libyan asset to head up the Libyan rebellion.

In my opinion, what this is about is to eliminate China from the Mediterranean. China has extensive energy investments and construction investments in Libya. They are looking to Africa as a future energy source.

The US is countering this by organizing the United States African Command (USAC), which Qaddafi refused to join. So that's the second reason for the Americans to want Qaddafi out.

And the third reason is that Libya controls part of the Mediterranean coast and it's not in American hands.

Press TV: Who are the revolutionaries. The US say they don't know who they're dealing with, but considering the CIA is on the ground in contact with revolutionaries - Who are the people under whom Libya will function in any post-Qaddafi era?

Roberts: Whether or not Libya functions under “revolutionaries” depends if the CIA wins - we don't know that yet. As you said earlier, the UN resolution puts constraints on what the European and American forces can achieve in Libya. They can have a no fly zone, but they are not supposed to be in there fighting together with the rebels.

But of course the CIA is. So we do have these violations of the UN resolution. If NATO, which is now the cover for the “world community,” succeeds in overthrowing Qaddafi, the next target will be Syria. Syria has already been demonized.

Why are they targeting Syria? - Because the Russians have a very large naval base in Syria. And it gives the Russian navy a presence in the Mediterranean; the US and NATO do not want that. If there is success in overthrowing Qaddafi, Syria is next.

Already, they are blaming Iran for Syria and Libya. Iran is a major target because it is an independent state that is not a puppet of the Western colonialists.

Press TV: With regards to the expansionist agenda of the West, when the UN mandate on Libya was debated in the UN Security Council, Russia did not veto it. Surely Russia must see this expansionist policy of the US, France and Britain.

Roberts: Yes they must see that; and the same for China. It's a greater threat to China because it has 50 major investment projects in eastern Libya. So the question is why did Russia and China abstain rather than veto and block? We don't know the answer.

Possibly the countries are thinking to let the Americans get further over- extended, or they may not have wanted to confront the US with a military or diplomatic position and have an onslaught of Western propaganda against them. We don't know the reasons, but we know they did abstain because they did not agree with the policy, and they continue to criticize it.

Press TV: A sizeable portion of Qaddafi's assets have been frozen in the US as well as some other countries. We also know that the Libyan revolutionaries have set up a central bank and that they have started limited production of oil and they are dealing with American and other Western firms. It begs the question that we've never seen something like this happen in the middle of a revolution. Don't you find that bizarre?

Roberts: Yes it's very bizarre and very suggestive. It brings back the fact of all the reports that the CIA is the originator of this so-called revolt and protest and is fomenting it and controlling it in a way that excludes China from its own Libyan oil investments.

In my opinion, what is going on is comparable to what the US and Britain did to Japan in the 1930s. When they cut Japan off from oil, from rubber, from minerals; that was the origin of World War II in the pacific. And now the Americans and the British are doing the same thing to China.

The difference is that China has nuclear weapons and it also has a stronger economy than do the Americans. And so the Americans are taking a very high risk not only with themselves, but with the rest of the world. The entire world is now at stake on American over-reach; American hubris - the drive for American hegemony over the world is driving the rest of the world into a World War.

Press TV: In the context of America's expansionist policies, how far do you think the US will stretch beyond the UN mandate? Are we going to see boots on the ground?

Roberts: Most likely - unless they can find some way of defeating Qaddafi without that. Ever since we've had Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and now Obama, what we've learned is law means nothing to the executive branch in the US. They don't obey our own laws; they don't obey international law; they violate all the civil liberties and buried the principal of habeas corpus, no crime without intent, and the ability for a defendant to be legally represented.

They don't pay any attention to law so they're not going to pay any attention to the UN. The UN is an American puppet organization and Washington will use it as a cover. So, yes, if they cannot run Qaddafi out they will put troops on the ground - that's why we have the French and the British involved. We're using the French elsewhere in Africa also; we use the British in Afghanistan - they're puppets.

These countries are not independent. Sarkozy doesn't report to the French people - he reports to Washington. The British PM doesn't report to the English people he reports to Washington. These are puppet rulers of an empire; they have nothing to do with their own people and we put them in office.

Press TV: So these other countries would welcome having NATO troops on the ground?

Roberts: Of course. They are in the CIAs pocket. It's a CIA operation, not a legitimate protest of the Libyan people. It's an armed rebellion that has no support in the capital city. It's taking place in the east where the oil is and is directed at China.

Press TV: Where do you see the situation headed? There seems to be a rift between NATO countries with Britain and France wanting to increase the momentum of these air strikes, but the US saying no, there is no need.

Roberts: The rift is not real. The rift is just part of the cover, just part of the propaganda. Qaddafi has been ruling for 40 years - he goes back to Gamal Abdel Nasser (before Anwar Sadat) who wanted to give independence to Egypt.

He (Qaddafi) was never before called a brutal dictator that has to be removed. No other president has ever said Qaddafi has to go. Not even Ronald Reagan who actually bombed Qaddafi's compound. But all of a sudden he has to go. Why?

Because he's blocking the US African Command, he controls part of the Mediterranean and he has let China in to find its energy needs for the future. Washington is trying to cripple its main rival, China, by denying China energy. That's what this is really about; a reaction by the US to China’s penetration of Africa.

If the US was concerned about humanitarianism, it wouldn't be killing all these people in Afghanistan and Pakistan with their drones and military strikes. Almost always it's civilians that are killed. And the US is reluctant to issue apologies about any of it. They say we thought we were killing Taliban or some other made-up enemy.

Press TV: Who will benefit from all of this other than the US? The other countries that comply with US wishes - What do they stand to gain from this?

Roberts: We are only talking about NATO countries, the American puppet states. Britain, France, Italy, Germany, all belong to the American empire. We've had troops stationed in Germany since 1945. You're talking about 66 years of American occupation of Germany. The Americans have military bases in Italy - how is that an independent country? France was somewhat independent until Washington put Sarkozy in power. So they all do what they're told.

Washington wants to rule Russia, China, Iran, and Africa, all of South America. Washington wants hegemony over the world. That's what the word hegemony means. And Washington will pursue it at all costs.