Anti-Neocons

wasn't 2003 little bush decided to lift the ban and sell ballistic missiles to Gaddafi?

I'll look that up.

_________________
Check your slides

Gaddafi's forces: Bombed but not broken
Wednesday, 23 March 2011
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 50163.html
As dictator stands firm, Britain lowers its expectations of 'victory'
The Western allies yesterday struggled to find a coherent strategy in Libya as Colonel Muammar Gaddafi's forces renewed attacks on rebel strongholds despite a no-fly zone and a fourth day of allied strikes against government military targets. In Washington, top officials insisted the US intended to hand over command of the operation to its allies within days, but wrangling within Nato continued yesterday along with confusion over what the mission was increasingly clear that despite the scale of the damage inflicted on Colonel Gaddafi's forces, the rebels were highly unlikely to achieve a military victory.

In London, a Government minister acknowledged the crisis could end in stalemate, and partition of the country. "A stable outcome where they weren't killing each other would, in a sense, be one way of achieving the humanitarian objective," the armed forces minister Nick Harvey told the BBC.

At the same time, he went further than any British minister yet and refused to rule out the deployment of British forces on the ground, claiming there was a clear distinction between sending in a full-scale occupation force – explicitly barred by the UN Security Council's Resolution 1973 – and a more limited operation.

Gadhafi, Allies May Be Seeking Way Out, Clinton tells ABC News
In World News Interview, Secretary of State Downplays Concerns about Coalition and Power Transfer: 'I'm Very Relaxed'
March 22, 2011
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/hillary- ... d=13196414
Clinton said details on who will assume leadership are still being worked out but that NATO will play a front role.

"NATO will be definitely involved because we do have a lot of NATO members who are committed to this process. And, you know, they want to see command and control that is organized," she told Sawyer. "But I'm very relaxed about it... I think it is proceeding. It's moving forward in the right direction and we will have what we need in the next few days."

_________________
●▬▬▬▬▬▬★ЯΞ√ΩLUT↑☼N★▬▬▬▬▬▬●
▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀
It's not just for breakfast any more.

"Single acts of tyranny may be ascribed to the accidental
opinion of a day; but a series of oppressions, begun at a
distinguished period and pursued unalterably through every
change of ministers, too plainly prove a deliberate, systematic
plan of reducing [a people] to slavery."
~~ Thomas Jefferson

"Power kills, absolute power kills absolutely. The more power a government has, the more it can arbitrarily make war on others and murder foreign and domestic subjects. The more that government is constrained and diffused, the less tendency there is for them to commit genocide."
~~ Art Crino

When they put you in the internment camp, if you're really, really good, they might let you watch Dancing With The Stars.

Stalemate would be the best outcome. A reason to never stop harassing Libya.

_________________
Check your slides

And here is the pretext

http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/fe ... 13547.html
Responsibility to Protect (R2P)

The R2P concept rose to prominence largely because of the genocides in Bosnia, Rwanda and Darfur. It became something of an official UN position in 2005, when hundreds of heads of state publicly endorsed the idea at a meeting of the General Assembly in New York.

And it was explicitly invoked in resolution 1973, which declared a core goal of "protect[ing] civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack."

The resolution is based on chapter VII of the United Nations charter, which gives the Security Council wide-ranging authority to identify and stop "threats to the peace" and "acts of aggression." Chapter VII has been used to justify a variety of UN actions in the past, including those in Somalia, Sierra Leone and Afghanistan. But experts say this is the first time it has been explicitly used in the context of protecting civilians.

Hypocrites, liars, murderers, rapists, and thieves.

Yeah, yeah. What's on teevee tonight honey? Hey hurry up with that goddamn beer, willya?

UN Powers Violate Their Own Resolution By Targeting Gaddafi

Attack on Libya is illegal under both U.S. law and UN charter; Manufactured pretext of “protecting civilians” completely collapses as Russia, Arab League and African Union condemn air strikes

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Monday, March 21, 2011
http://www.prisonplanet.com/un-powers-v ... ddafi.html

As the contrived moral high ground behind the absurdly hypocritical “humanitarian” pretext of the attack on Libya collapses in the wake of Russia, the Arab League and the African Union condemning the US-led NATO bombings, so does any pretense of legality that the “no fly zone” resolution holds, because the obvious attempt to assassinate Gaddafi violates not only U.S. law, but the UN’s own charter.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BvP3BW21VWU

Vladimir Putin’s characterization of the air strikes as a “medieval crusade” and his warning that the attacks prove why Russia has to build up its defenses against NATO is the most damning indictment of the campaign thus far. It follows an Arab League u-turn as well as an African Union condemnation, as all the lies and bluster about a “humanitarian mission” crumble within days of the assault being launched.

The Orwellian delusion that the “no fly zone” anything other than a cruel hoax became obvious within hours, as NATO rejected Libya’s proposal for independent third party countries to patrol the skies and instead launched an instantaneous bombardment of Gaddafi’s military facilities, strikes that have killed dozens of innocent people according to Libyan claims that have been confirmed by Russia.

From the very beginning, this war had nothing to do with “protecting civilians” and everything to do with toppling the leader of Africa’s richest oil nation.

Now western leaders have all but admitted that the sole focus of the campaign is to kill Gaddafi, as air strikes pound targets around the beleaguered Libyan leader.

Asked if Gaddafi could be assassinated to force regime change, British defence secretary Liam Fox said that the Libyan leader was a “legitimate target,” adding, “That would potentially be a possibility,” entertaining a notion that was soon backed up by force as RAF warplanes reduced Gaddafi’s Tripoli compound to rubble last night after a massive air bombardment.

Fox later said that a “bunker-buster” attack on Gaddafi’s residence was also being considered.

Meanwhile, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, French President Nicolas Sarkozy, and British Prime Minister David Cameron have all gone on record to state that Gaddafi “must go,” “needs to go,” and has “lost his legitimacy”.

In addition, Salwa el-Deghali, of the national transitional council, called for, “More attacks on Gaddafi’s forces, and fast. We need these attacks until he is crushed.”

Does this sound like a mission to protect civilians or a mission to topple Gaddafi, especially given the fact that SAS commanders have been on the ground for weeks, again in violation of the UN resolution, directly supporting Libyan rebel armies?

The UN resolution that supposedly gave the air strikes their legal foundation does not authorize the use of military force to enact regime change, and yet that’s precisely what NATO and the United States is pursuing – the murder or removal of Gaddafi.

Once again we are reminded of the fact that the United Nations only abides by its own resolutions when it is convenient. The UN will flagrantly violate its own charter with relish if there is a pre-existing geopolitical agenda to accomplish.

International law codified under the UN prohibits state-sponsored assassination, except under conditions of warfare. By characterizing the attack on Libya as merely a “no fly zone,” and stopping short of declaring war on on the country, the UN along with the powers that signed the resolution, namely America, France, Britain and Italy, are in violation of their own resolution by targeting Gaddafi.

Indeed, killing Gaddafi would be a war crime because it clearly qualifies as an act of “treachery” under Article 23 of the Hague Convention IV of 1907. Even in times of declared war, assassinating a leader under false pretenses is illegal.

“A state that uses “treachery” to kill an enemy may be guilty of war crimes,” states the Encyclopedia of Genocide and Crimes Against Humanity. “Article 23 of the Hague Convention IV of 1907 provides that “it is especially forbidden . . . to kill or wound treacherously, individuals belonging to the hostile nation or army.” Treachery is usually defined as a breach of confidence, such as an attack on an individual who believes that there is no need to fear the attacker.”

In addition, under U.S. law, employees of the United States are prohibited from engaging in assassination during peacetime. This law has of course been violated numerous times, most notably in 1986 when the Reagan administration attempted to kill Gaddafi by bombing army barracks where Libyan leader was known to be sleeping.

The attack on Libya is not only immoral, with the “humanitarian” pretext transparently a pack of lies, it is also completely unconstitutional having not been authorized by the U.S. Congress. As Francis Boyle, Professor of international law at the University of Illinois College of Law, points out, “Without authorization by the United Nations Security Council and express authorization from the U.S. Congress pursuant to the terms of the War Powers Resolution, for President Obama to establish any type of so-called ‘no-fly zone’ over Libya would be illegal and unconstitutional.”

Above all, since the assault was launched under UN auspices with the presumed “legitimacy” of the international community, it directly violates the UN’s own charter in that the entire scope of the mission is about regime change, supporting one side in a civil war, and has nothing whatsoever to do with “protecting civilians”.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YgnJ28YeTKU

_________________
●▬▬▬▬▬▬★ЯΞ√ΩLUT↑☼N★▬▬▬▬▬▬●
▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀
It's not just for breakfast any more.

"Single acts of tyranny may be ascribed to the accidental
opinion of a day; but a series of oppressions, begun at a
distinguished period and pursued unalterably through every
change of ministers, too plainly prove a deliberate, systematic
plan of reducing [a people] to slavery."
~~ Thomas Jefferson

"Power kills, absolute power kills absolutely. The more power a government has, the more it can arbitrarily make war on others and murder foreign and domestic subjects. The more that government is constrained and diffused, the less tendency there is for them to commit genocide."
~~ Art Crino

When they put you in the internment camp, if you're really, really good, they might let you watch Dancing With The Stars.

Here in europe they all want to do some bombin' of libya. They are almost screaming "I want to bomb libya, goddamned!!" "No I want to bomb libya!" "Me first!"
Except for germany. Don't know whats going on with the germans but it feels like a slow awakening to something.

_________________
Check your slides

http://www.monstersandcritics.com/news/ ... nd-eye-tag
Germany rejects Libyan "blind-eye" tag
Berlin - Germany denied Wednesday it was one of the nations accused by the United States of turning a blind eye on the Libyan rebels struggling to unseat leader Moamer Gaddafi.

Germany abstained in the UN Security Council vote on a no-fly zone over Libya and withdrew its units from NATO forces imposing the ban.

'I think it's sufficiently evident that Germany is paying attention,' said a government spokesman, Christoph Steegmans, when asked to comment remarks by US President Barack Obama.

Speaking on Tuesday, Obama said: 'Some nations may be able to turn a blind eye to atrocities in other countries.

'The United States of America is different. And as president, I refused to wait for the images of slaughter and mass graves before taking action,' he said. This is passive aggressive shit talk

Asked in Berlin if Germany would supply arms to the rebels, Steegmans said the government was not contemplating 'such hypothetical issues.'

I bet they are/will.