Obama to Qaddafi: Comply with UN resolution or face military action



The Guardian, 18 March 2011




Daily Mail, 18 March 2011




The Sun, 18 March 2011




London Evening Standard, 18 March 2011




The Times, 18 March 2011




Obama to Qaddafi: Comply with UN resolution or face military action

[propaganda alert]
compiled by Cem Ertür
19 March 2011
"The [UN Security Council] resolution that passed lays out very clear conditions that must be met.[...]  Let me be clear, these terms are not negotiable.[...] If Qaddafi does not comply with the resolution, the international community will impose consequences, and the resolution will be enforced through military action."
[US President Barack Obama, remarks on the situation in Libya, White House, Washington D.C., 18 March 2011]  (*)
(*) Remarks by the President on the situation in Libya
The White House website, 18 March 2011
related links:
Full text of UN Security Council resolution 1973 (2011) on Libya
United Nations website, 17 March 2011
Libya, hypocrisy and betrayal by the United Nations: Death and destruction. US-NATO's new war in North Africa
by Felicity Arbuthnot, Global Research, 18 March 2011
War on Libya, surge in the price of crude oil
"Humanitarian wars are good for business".... Speculators applaud....
by Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, 18 March 2011
"Operation Libya": Recognizing the opposition government constitutes a pretext for military intervention
by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya, Global Research, 13 March 2011
"Operation Libya" and the battle for oil: Redrawing the map of Africa
by Prof Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, 9 March 2011
Point of no return: U.S. and NATO prepare for war with Libya
by Rick Rozoff, Global Research, 8 March 2011
propaganda alerts:
British Army ready for Libya mission at 24 hours’ notice
by Cem Ertür, 911 Blogger, 6 March 2011
UK Prime Minister Cameron: We will use military force to free Libya
by Cem Ertür, 911 Blogger, 2 March 2011

VIDEO: Foreign intervention in Libya: Creation of World's 4th War theater

by Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, 19 March 2011


VIDEO: America's project of conquest: All-out "humanitarian war" on Libya?
by Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, 9 March 2011
VIDEO: Pentagon propaganda sways US opinion of Libya
by Keith Harmon Snow, Global Research, 8 March 2011


Human Rights Watch:

"Just when the "responsibility to protect" doctrine seemed to have become irretrievably tainted at the United Nations, the Security Council at last lived up to its duty to prevent mass atrocities. For the second time in three weeks, the council accomplished the politically impossible, first referring Libya to the International Criminal Court, then, yesterday, authorizing military force to protect civilians from Muammar al-Qaddafi's wrath. "

The US is attacking NOW!

From information Clearing House:

The UN Security Council Has Not Authorized Regime Change in Libya
By Robert Naiman
Some of the reporting on the Security Council resolution has been misleading. The Security Council has not authorized military action for any purpose. The Security Council has authorized military action necessary to protect civilians. http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article27726.htm

Libya, Hypocrisy and Betrayal by the United Nations
By Felicity Arbuthnot
Shame on France, shame on Britain and the US and a UN avowed: "... to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war. Every shattered body, every child maimed or blown to bits, every widow, widower, orphan, will have their name of those countries, and the UN., written in their blood in their place of death. http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article27727.htm

Washington and the Civilians of Libya
By Lawrence Davidson
It was Oscar Wilde who once said that "the true hypocrite is the one who ceases to perceive his deception, the one who lies with sincerity. http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article27728.htm

Selective Nature of UN Intervention
By Sasha Simic
When Israel bombed Gaza at the end of 2008 in a brutal action which killed 1,300 people and destroyed 20,000 buildings, there was no question of the US allowing the UN to impose a no-fly zone over Gaza to protect its people, 50% of which are children. http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article27725.htm

Pentagon: U.S. launches missile strike in Libya:
U.S. Pentagon says 110 Tomahawk missiles hit more than 20 targets http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2011-03-19-libya_N.htm

France fires on Libyan military vehicle:
French Defense Ministry spokesman Thierry Burkhard says the strike was reported around 1645 GMT Saturday. http://www.ajc.com/news/nation-world/france-fires-on-libyan-878067.html

U.S. says five-nation coalition launching Libya strikes:
A coalition of the United States and four other nations launched military action against Libya on Saturday, officials said, as the West tries to force Muammar Gaddafi from power. http://reut.rs/f9kLWl

Libya TV: airstrikes hit civilian areas in Tripoli:
Libyan TV claims that airstrikes have hit civilian areas in the capital, Tripoli, but the report couldn't be independently confirmed. http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/top/all/7480956.html


U.S. says five-nation coalition launching Libya strikes:

A coalition of the United States and four other nations launched military action against Libya on Saturday, officials said, as the West tries to force Muammar Gaddafi from power. http://presstvmobile.com/blog/2011/03/19/jets-pound-civilian-targets-in-...



Britain and the USA have bombed Libya with more than one hundred Tomahawk cruise missiles. These are not precision guided weapons but weapons of mass destruction that will create many civilian casualties in Libya. http://stopwar.org.uk/component/option,com_frontpage/Itemid,1/

Officials: US missile attack on Libya prepared:
One official said the U.S. intends to limit its involvement - at least in the initial stages - to helping protect French and other air missions by taking out Libyan air defenses. http://www.ajc.com/news/nation-world/officials-us-missile-attack-878207....

Gaddafi says UN action invalid, rebels hit:
The Libyan leader says he sent a message to US President Barack Obama defending his decision to attack rebel cities: "If you found them taking over American cities by the force of arms, tell me what you would do." http://bit.ly/dViwZA

Libya wants international observers, won't attack Benghazi:
French President Nicolas Sarkozy and US President Barack Obama warned Gaddafi to not only end the attacks but also pull out all his troops from the opposition stronghold. Sarkozy demanded that the government restore electricity, gas and water services to the affected areas. "This is not negotiable," Sarkozy said in a statement from the Elysee Palace in Paris. http://bit.ly/fSDwHu

gall and hypocrisy

Sasha Simic: "When Israel bombed Gaza at the end of 2008 in a brutal action which killed 1,300 people and destroyed 20,000 buildings, there was no question of the US allowing the UN to impose a no-fly zone over Gaza to protect its people, 50% of which are children."

Gaddafi is a brutal thug, but the history of US state support for brutal thugs amenable to US corporate/elite financial interests, to the point of assassinations and coups, and despite torture and killing of millions over the course of the 20th century, makes it clear this action is not about protecting civilians; there's US elite interests at stake in the region, probably related to oil.

Charlie Wilson's war (movie)

has reshaped my credence of spontaneous uprisings

Call me a cynic but sorry !


The no fly zone starts on the same date as the 2003 Iraq invasion: 19th March. Now that is a strange coincidence!

A Quote

Congress is not preparing to defend the people of the United States. It is planning to protect the capital of American speculators and investors.... Incidentally this preparation will benefit the manufacturers of munitions and war machines.... Strike against war, for without you no battles can be fought! Strike against manufacturing shrapnel and gas bombs and all other tools of murder! Strike against preparedness that means death and misery to millions of human beings! Be not dumb, obedient slaves in an army of destruction! Be heroes in an army of construction!

-Helen Keller at Carnegie Hall January 5, 1916

Out of the 2 options

1 special forces/ a precision missile strike takes out Gaddafi, thus bringing a quick end to the war
2 the war goes on long enough that the non US facilities in Libya are significantly damaged overall (eg russian , argentinian , french, italian facilities)

I wouldn't be surprised if 2 happens , paving the way for US corporate interests - reconstruction by (for eg) Halliburton

Naked Agression: 'Libya assault planned months ahead'

Libyan Rebels Maintain Benghazi Media

The segment that aired on Democracy Now on 17 March 2011 shows the situation from the rebels in Libya's point of view..


No question that Lybia's oil is an incentive in forming a relationship with those following up on the recent pro-democracy movements in that region.. But without support from the air.. these brothers/sisters taking a rebel stand would be slaughtered.. Things in this case is not black and white like using 9/11 to blame Afghanistan, and attacking Iraq..

I agree

I agree

i agree

What is worse: 68 dead Gaddafi-soldiers or thousands of killed civilians in bengasi and Misratah without the air-attacks?

Read the statement of human rigths watch please.

You are incredibly naive to think this is for...

humanitarian reasons.

Agree - Invasion of Lybia has been planned by US

"Humanitarian assistance" is a pretext for military intervention.
This is only a PR justification.
Lybia is part of a planned agenda.

The "crisis" in the middle east is by design.
This current crisis (with more strife to come) was forecasted in 2009 when agendas were exposed. ...watch for oil to eventually reach $150-$200 a barrel.

The rabbit hole runs deep.

The allegiance of the reporter of the

initial alleged slaughter of "defenceless" civilians was Al Jazeera- owned by Qatar, a client state of the US

Was it an armed uprising or an unarmed demonstration ?

Media exaggeration of atrocities used to unleash a no fly zone.

A no fly zone ups the death toll significantly as it turns an armed insurrection into a very bloody civil war which takes longer to end and has a higher death toll.

Now, again , Was it an armed uprising or an unarmed demonstration ?

Western-friendly exaggeration of atrocities then a no fly zone and extended bloodshed?

Sounds like the balkans all over again:

(from wikipedia)

Media citizen journalist killed in Benghazi

The citizen journalist in my previous comment was reported as killed by Democracy Now in today's show:

Libyan Citizen Journalist Mohammed Nabbous Killed by Gunfire While Reporting on the Battle for Benghazi

Greenwald: Obama on presidential war-making powers

"Obama's answer seems dispositive to me on the Libya question: "The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation." And he went on to say that the President could constitutionally deploy the military only "in instances of self-defense." Nobody is arguing -- nor can one rationally argue -- that the situation in Libya constitutes either an act of "self-defense" or the "stopping of an actual or imminent threat to the nation." How, then, can Obama's campaign position possibly be reconciled with his ordering military action in Libya without Congressional approval (something, it should be said, he has not yet done)?"

the terror must end

i agree with your point of view.. and i am sure there are others.. let's say the threat by Gaddafi to massacre all opposing him could be taken seriously, then one would wonder what else he would do.

it is clear though that the West's defense of rebels in Libya has more to do with oil and other agreements..

the question i ask myself is if the rebellion was a ruse produced by the West..

i have not seen evidence of this to date.. and still assume it is genuine as the pro-democracy rebellions going on in many countries.

activists supporting a new investigation into 9/11 is part of this grassroots movement that is really global and local.. the corruption the fear, the terror must end!

The action is conducted not

The action is conducted not unilaterally by the US but by a coalition that enforces a UN resolution. As such it can't be construed as war between the US and Libya, it is the international community using the military capabilities of some western nations to enforce an international resolution. There was no UN resolution authorizing force (although there were no fly zones under international agreements in the 90's) in the case of Iraq, nor did the US have the backing of the Arab league. Of course, if this ends up being a long term commitment I am prepared to eat my words, but I understand that our military commitment is scheduled to end in a matter of days, not weeks. Recall that the foreign policy establishment was trying to put the brakes on the Egyptian revolution, but progressives supported it. So why wouldn't we support a Libyan revolution if it appears to have similar origins? If Mubarak had started shelling Egyptians and hitting them with airstrikes would you have supported an intervention in that case under an international banner? In my mind it is undesirable to do so, but only for reasons of general pacifism, not because there is not a humanitarian justification.

If Obama can attack Libya w/o Congressional authorization...

Vulich: "The action is conducted not unilaterally by the US but by a coalition that enforces a UN resolution. As such it can't be construed as war between the US and Libya, it is the international community using the military capabilities of some western nations to enforce an international resolution."

The resolution didn't require any nation to do anything; it gave member states cover under international law “to take all necessary measures… to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack in the Libyan Arab Jamhariya, including Benghazi, while excluding an occupation force.” "All necessary measures" is left wide open to interpretation, and the US and western allies have interpreted this as immediate barrages of cruise missiles, some of which have killed civilians, and the size and violence of the measures has caused some in the Arab League to back off their early support.

In any case, as far as what Greenwald pointed out; the UN resolution doesn't authorize Obama to defy the US Constitution; attacking another nation w/ over 100 cruise missiles sounds like an act of war, and the Constitution requires Congress to authorize those.

Giving Obama a pass on this opens up a dangerous can of worms:
"To put it crudely: as a matter of logic, if President Obama can bomb Libya without Congressional authorization, then President Palin can bomb Iran without Congressional authorization. If, God forbid, we ever get to that fork in the road, you can bet your bottom dollar that the advocates of bombing Iran will invoke Congressional silence now as justification for their claims of unilateral presidential authority to bomb anywhere, anytime." http://www.truth-out.org/congress-must-debate-libya-war68643

Vulich: "Recall that the foreign policy establishment was trying to put the brakes on the Egyptian revolution, but progressives supported it. So why wouldn't we support a Libyan revolution if it appears to have similar origins? If Mubarak had started shelling Egyptians and hitting them with airstrikes would you have supported an intervention in that case under an international banner?"

I wish people everywhere the best in toppling dictators, US supported or not, but I don't think US meddling or cruise missiles are a long term solution to foreign conflicts. Gaddaffi's a thug and doesn't deserve to rule, but he was responding to attempts to topple his govt, not conducting a genocidal pogrom, like there was in Sudan, which didn't inspire intervention, if i recall correctly.

Certainly, it's good to help people - but even better than do-gooding would be to simply refrain from supporting brutal and corrupt dictators simply cuz they're amenable to US corporate/elite exploitation of their people/resources. If US corporations/elites and their toadies in the US govt would get their dollar-dirty hands out of foreign countries and leave these people work out their own solutions to their problems, they'd probably be better off.

Giving them knowledge and tools to make democracy and equitable/sustainable economic development work would be fine, but that's not what's been going on - that's not even going on in the US, and unfortunately Americans keep voting for the corporate-sponsored Democrat and Republican shills for fascism.

I agree with basically

I agree with basically everything you have said here and although I am willing to support the international action I am skeptical and will reverse myself if it ends up looking like an occupation or longer term engagement. US presidents have been using the military around the world without congressional authorization since the Korean war and I agree it is a big problem. In this case I was thinking that we might be seeing a benign display of American power, because I do believe that the Arab youth protest movement is authentic. I think that Sarah Palin, or any conservative, is going to war with Iran no matter what Obama does if they get their hands on the presidency; they can rely on the wider precedent. But it would have been good for Obama to have held firm as had signaled that he wanted to do in the early days of the Libyan civil war. Had he done that he would have sent a stronger message that he does not believe in US interventionism, and that he has a more constitutionally grounded understanding of executive power.

on the War Party and foreign interventions

Petraeus and a State Dept spokesperson have explicitly refused to say this will be over soon.

No US candidate gets the nomination to either the Dem or Rep party w/o being favored by the US corporate/elite. Recall those referred to as the "top tier" on the Dem side in 2008; Obama, Clinton and Edwards. Kucinich and Ron Paul were marginalized in the primaries and MSM coverage, and even so they consistently ranked at or near the top in online polling; among people who don't just believe their TVs. And the choice btwn a Dem and a Rep is still a vote for the War Party. Obama's voting record and activities as a Senator, and his words/deeds on the campaign trail made it clear he's a sold-out shill for the corporate state, and his record in office has made that even clearer; see this post, plus all the links i included in the comments, which I haven't added to in many months:

Obama - Change we can Deceive In - A listing of parallels

Certainly, Presidents, Dem and Rep, have used the military for many interventions in the past w/ questionable legality, and there's never been any consequences. I think this may constitute a new level of abuse, though; I'm not an expert, but a number of Dems http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=D4680F8A-C127-4BEF-8049-9F85..., plus Constitutional experts like Greenwald seem to think so - and, according to Obama's own interpretation (Greenwald comment above), the President does not have the authority in this situation, which is not self-defense.

Also see this from Kucinich:

"President Obama moved forward without Congress approving. He didn't have Congressional authorization, he has gone against the Constitution, and that's got to be said," Kucinich told Raw Story. "It's not even disputable, this isn't even a close question. Such an action -- that involves putting America's service men and women into harm's way, whether they're in the Air Force or the Navy -- is a grave decision that cannot be made by the president alone."

"And I'm raising the question as to whether or not it's an impeachable offense. It would appear on its face to be an impeachable offense," Kucinich said. "Now, it doesn't necessarily follow that simply because a president has committed an impeachable offense, that the process should start to impeach and remove him. That's a whole separate question. But we have to clearly understand what this Constitution is about."

Again, giving Obama a pass on this is dangerous.

As far as Iran, certainly many Dems and Reps are itching for regime change there, and i hope it happens- non-violently, w/o US intervention, as Ahmadinejad is a thug, unpopular, and apparently stole the last election. But US intervention would likely be another disaster, and if it happens the way most US interventions have, it would probably be illegal and immoral. However, i don't think it's guaranteed to happen; the Bullshit Administration was looking for a way to do it, and wasn't able to make it happen. And, apparently not all of the power elite are on board w/ it; you may recall Brzezinski's statement to the Senate FR Cmte in 07, essentially a public warning to the Bush Administration and to Congress about a possible invented pretext:

"If the United States continues to be bogged down in a protracted bloody involvement in Iraq, the final destination on this downhill track is likely to be a head-on conflict with Iran and with much of the world of Islam at large. A plausible scenario for a military collision with Iran involves Iraqi failure to meet the benchmarks; followed by accusations of Iranian responsibility for the failure; then by some provocation in Iraq or a terrorist act in the U.S. blamed on Iran; culminating in a “defensive” U.S. military action against Iran that plunges a lonely America into a spreading and deepening quagmire eventually ranging across Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan." http://www.oilempire.us/zbig.html#falseflag

‘Barack-A-lujah! I Have Seen The Light!’ By Cindy Sheehan 3-20

‘Barack-A-lujah! I Have Seen The Light!’

By Cindy Sheehan

March 20, 2011 "Information Clearing House" -- Thanks to the helpful feedback I have received over these past two, or so, years, I have seen the enormous error of my ways.

I used to be against ALL wars and the use of violence, but (and I must admit a little confusion on this one, at first) now it seems that I am against wars, acts of war, and violence ONLY if a Republican is president. Now I understand with perfect clarity that it was good to protest Bush—and if the US-UN resolution against Libya was done when Bush was president, it would have been wrong—but now it’s “compassionate.” I must admit, I was a little shocked to find out that the US actually commits compassionate acts and, again, silly me—I thought most acts of war and war were for profit. I realize that only a jerk (or racist) would think that now. I have repented.

I cringe with embarrassment when I think of the wasted years imagining that there could be any other way to solve problems without killing more innocent people! It’s okay to bomb Libyans to save Libyans (or Iraqis to save Iraqis; or Afghans to save Afghans; or Yemenis to save Yemenis, etc) because a Democratic president who has been given the cover of the UN Security Council may bomb them. Yep, it’s all starting to make sense. With all the continuing conflicts, imagining a world without war was starting to seem useless—and now I know it was! Phew!

This is another kooky idea I had—that the Security Council of the UN oftentimes, if not always, bowed to the will of the global oligarchy—or should we say, OILigarchy. I chuckle, because apparently that notion was either dead wrong, or was just a fact of life up until January 20, 2009.

Here’s another mistaken notion that I labored under all these years: Torture is inhumane and a war crime. Up until just last week, I thought the US torture camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba should be closed and that military tribunals should not resume—but President Obama signed an executive order to keep Gitmo open and resume military tribunals. Wow, it’s like from almost one day to the next, torture and illegal, indefinite detention became acceptable practices.

Pssst—since I am in confession mode, I want to, with a red face, confess something else. Please, I hope you laugh with me and not at me, but this is so hard to admit. I thought I learned that US citizens were to be arrested only with reasonable cause, given their due process, and THEN punished if found guilty. I must admit I still thought that was wrong earlier today, but when I was (not so) gently and repeatedly reminded that we have a change agent as president, the scales fell from my eyes and now I get it! If Barack Obama (D) thinks that a US citizen needs to be executed without a trial or even a handshake, then by golly that person must need to be killed. Barack Obama (D) is a Constitutional scholar after all and I am sure his interpretation of the Bill of Rights is the correct one. Who am I to argue? What a relief—thinking is so unnecessary and hard!

Now the skeptical, old and ignorant Cindy Sheehan would have thought that the US was only concerned with the regime in Libya “killing its own citizens” because Libya has large crude oil reserves, but that was before I reflected on the fact that Barack Obama (D) has told us that offshore drilling and nuclear power is safe! Like my new hero, Barack Obama (D) keeps saying, we do need to “reduce” US dependence on “foreign oil,” but not before we kill as many people as we must to get all of that oil. The old me also would have thought that we needed to entirely eliminate our dependence on petroleum and petroleum products all together, but if Barack Obama (D) says it’s safe, that’s good enough for me!

I just hope the people of Libya realize that it’s way more of an honor to be killed by a US bomb then by a Libyan bomb and what an honor it is that the US is paying attention to their internal strife, because we don’t always do that—we like to pick and choose—and Libya, it’s probably just a coincidence that we choose YOU because you have oil. My country would never do anything wrong when a Democrat is president and I will forget history, too, because I don’t need it anymore.

I also must admit that I used to spend a lot of time worrying about Pfc Bradley Manning being incarcerated and tortured at Quantico for allegedly dumping info about US policy to Wikileaks. Now, I believe that if he did that to my wonderful president, he must deserve the treatment he is getting. Manning, that traitor, is lucky President Obama (D) hasn’t just decided to drop a Hellfire missile on him from one of those righteous drones he loves to use! Additionally, if Obama (D) says that Manning’s treatment is “appropriate,” I believe him now. Worrying about Bradley was keeping me up at night and now I wish I had the money back that I incorrectly donated to his legal defense fund so I can send it to the Committee to Re-Elect the President.

The old axiom is true! Confession is good for the soul!

I hope with this confession and subsequent penance (10 Our Fathers, 20 Hail Mary’s and a pledge to vote Democrat for the rest of my life) that I am accepted back into the fold of the Democratic Party. I will also voluntarily swear to uphold healthcare for profit and to love Wall Street, the war machine, and the bankers with all my heart while detesting working people and those people who want to “kill Americans” for absolutely no reason.

In Obama I trust. What a relief! Having a conscience is very isolating.

Let’s Party with a capital D because if I can CHANGE, then there is HOPE for everyone and anyone else who are still lost wandering nearly alone in that wilderness of integrity.

Come home!

War is Peace!

Freedom is Slavery!

Ignorance is Strength.

2 + 2 = 5

Kucinich: Libya war unconstitutional

Kucinich: Libya war unconstitutional