Great, another US war

[tallywacker]

The U.N. Security Council on Thursday evening voted to authorize a no-fly zone over Libya and to “take all necessary measures” - without using an occupation force - to protect civilians and population centers under the threat of attack in Libya.

Diplomats warned that action was needed to halt Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi's rapid advances against rebel positions in his country.

The broadly worded resolution would seem to leave open the possibility that air forces implementing the no-fly zone may not only prevent Libyan military aircraft from flying, but also target Gadhafi’s wider ability to wage war.

“We’ve been told by diplomats this could certainly indeed move the door so that you have a more of a robust military approach – by the West, by Arab countries – to help the rebels and stop Col. Gadhafi from reaching Benghazi,” said CNN’s senior U.N. correspondent, Richard Roth.

“The next step is really not here anymore at the U.N. It is going to be decided elsewhere [by U.N. member states] whether there are planes flying and ships moving to counter Col. Gadhafi’s military advance,” Roth said, adding that it wasn’t clear when the establishment of the no-fly zone would happen.

Here is what Thursday’s resolution authorizes:

No-fly zone

The authorization establishes a ban on all flights in Libyan airspace to help protect civilians. The exceptions are:

– Flights by U.N. member states for the purpose of enforcing the flight ban

– Humanitarian flights (such as those delivering medical supplies, food and humanitarian workers)

– Any flights “which are deemed necessary” by nations enforcing the no-fly zone.

U.S. military officials have said that a no-fly zone would typically be enforced by fighter jets.

A no-fly zone could cost up to $300 million a week, according to data obtained by CNN’s Barbara Starr.

“Protect civilians and civilian populated areas”

In addition to the no-fly zone, the resolution authorizes 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.”

However, the resolution prohibits "a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory."

Roth, reporting on CNN and CNN International, said that the exact composition of the nations that would participate wasn’t immediately clear. The Arab League's U.N. ambassador, Yahya Mahmassani, said two Arab countries would take part in a no-fly zone operation, but he was not sure which two.

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said the United States would not act without a U.N. resolution. The United States has said it wants Arab nations to take part in no-fly zone.

Asked whether France will be involved in strikes against Libya if a resolution was passed, French Foreign Minister Alain Juppe said Thursday at the United Nations that "France is available with others to put the resolution in action, including in this domain."

Germany, one of five nations on the Security Council to abstain from Thursday’s vote, said it would not contribute any forces. The other nations that abstained from Thursday's vote were Russia, China, Brazil and India.

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2011/03/17...d-mean/?hpt=T1

Here is the wording

http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2011/ima...bya.pdf?hpt=T1

The only thing that isn't allowed is a large scale ground force. Much more than a no-fly zone. I'm tired of US service members dying for ungrateful fucks and wasting even MORE of our money that we don't have.

[pauldun170]

This should be france's and uk's ball. Europe is the one with vital interests there and they should step up to the plate. Both countries have good pilots and capable systems to handle this. U.S. involvement should go as far as the vote approving the resolution.

[derf]

Originally Posted by tallywacker

The only thing that isn't allowed is a large scale ground force. Much more than a no-fly zone. I'm tired of US service members dying for ungrateful fucks and wasting even MORE of our money that we don't have.

Yeh except it doesnt forbid advisory, force application, direct action, or observation forces. I would be more than willing to bet there are more than a few of our troops and operatives there already

[tallywacker]

Originally Posted by derf

Yeh except it doesnt forbid advisory, force application, direct action, or observation forces. I would be more than willing to bet there are more than a few of our troops and operatives there already

yeeep

[Particle Man]

Originally Posted by derf

Yeh except it doesnt forbid advisory, force application, direct action, or observation forces. I would be more than willing to bet there are more than a few of our troops and operatives there already

What he said...

[fatbuckRTO]

The logic behind what seems to be a fairly popular support in the US for this no-fly zone boggles my mind. While support for Afghanistan is waning, and I won't even mention Iraq beyond mentioning it...

[pauldun170]

Originally Posted by fatbuckRTO

The logic behind what seems to be a fairly popular support in the US for this no-fly zone boggles my mind. While support for Afghanistan is waning, and I won't even mention Iraq beyond mentioning it...

Who in this country supports a no-fly zone?
Last I checked it was a couple of idiot politicians and a few pundits mainly for brownie points.

[fatbuckRTO]

Originally Posted by pauldun170

Who in this country supports a no-fly zone?

"More than half of Americans" and "Bill Clinton."

http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenumbers/...he-future.html

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-0...an-rebels.html

From all the rhetoric I'm hearing and reading, quite a few people. In general, the ones I see are the same people who last week were crying "get out of Afghanistan!" and last year were crying "get out of Iraq!"

[smileyman]

Reagan would have said "screw a no fly zone, cruise missile his house!"

[pauldun170]

Originally Posted by fatbuckRTO

"More than half of Americans" and "Bill Clinton."

http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenumbers/...he-future.html

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-0...an-rebels.html

From all the rhetoric I'm hearing and reading, quite a few people. In general, the ones I see are the same people who last week were crying "get out of Afghanistan!" and last year were crying "get out of Iraq!"

I hate polls...you should know that. I'd have to see the questions and the way the poll was conducted. However that's not important. People are generally ignorant when it comes to things like this.
Luckily the administration has at least shown that it will be taking a different route. UK already has things in motion and I'm sure France is doing the same.
There is no need for US involvement. All that was needed was our vote on the council.

Now if only one of those righteous countries would put to vote a resolution condemning Bahrain's (including the Saudi's rolling in and shooting up protesters) crackdown.

I'd love to see how we vote on that resolution

The no-fly zone over Iraq “did not prevent Saddam Hussein from slaughtering people on the ground and it did not get him out of office,” Hillary Clinton said before a House Appropriations subcommittee.

Iraqi Kurds were kept safe from Saddam’s air force by the air blockade, which helped them develop a viable and democratic enclave there, Bill Clinton said.

Looks SOMEONE will be sleeping on the couch tonight