The consensus on intervention in Libya has shattered

Russia and China have called for a ceasefire in Libya. Now South Africa and India have joined in the outrage over the scale of the attacks

Britain and France are facing a rising torrent of international criticism over military intervention in Libya, with Russia and China leading calls for an immediate ceasefire. Just as a majority of Britons distrusts their government's motives, according to a new YouGov poll, many, if not most, countries around the world also view the action as risky, self-interested, and duplicitous.

The fragile consensus on intervention achieved last week, when the UN security council approved "all measures necessary" to protect Libyan civilians against Muammar Gaddafi's forces, has shattered in the wake of large-scale US, British and French ground and air attacks. The attacks were widely seen internationally as disproportionate, careless of civilian lives, and extending beyond the agreed plan to impose a defensive no-fly zone.

The criticism is coming not only from leaders with a traditionally anti-western outlook, such as Russia's Vladimir Putin, who accused the allies of launching a new "crusade" against the Arab world. Leading developing countries such as India have deplored the escalation in fighting as likely to make matters worse, while a growing number of African leaders are highly critical of perceived western disregard for national sovereignty.

Read more: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/mar/23/libya-ceasefire-consensus-russia-china-india

try again.

The UN’s principal policy-making panel yesterday voted 10-0, with five abstentions, to adopt a resolution that establishes a no-fly zone over Libya, demands a cease-fire and allows “all necessary measures” to protect civilians “excluding a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory.”

Brazil, China, Germany, India and Russia abstained.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-03-17/un-security-council-approves-military-action-against-qaddafi-no-fly-zone.html

Who would have thought... :rofl:

They didn't prevent a vote on it because they saw a need for it to happen. However, they wanted to maintain a position from which they could criticize the action, because they oppose interventionist policy on general principle (to protect their own interests, partly in case they ever need to break a few heads on their own soil).

and thus have veto power.

There is no such thing as a measure passing with one vote against *if* the Nay vote is from Russia, China, France, the UK, or the US. If a permanent member of the Security Council wants to show some level of disapproval without killing a measure and antagonizing its sponsors, then it abstains.

They can not wait to post some piece of news about civilian casualties as a result of these strikes but if you post some good news then it is largely ignored.

Just incredible...

is dangerous, precarious, and could end up with us mired in a civil war is not "wanting it to fail". If you happen to notice that you are wearing a filet mignon shirt into a room full of hungry tigers, is recognizing that it isn't a good situation "wanting to fail" or is it just common sense?

They refuse to acknowledge the many civilian lives that have been saved as a result and the temporary relief that it has brought to the region. It is pretty obvious. You and I do not know what is going to happen in the future. We could only speculate.

But we know damn well that cities like Benghazi are no longer under threat of being run over by tanks and artillery shells.

How many lives must we take to ensure that this war ends favorably for western resource domination?

Ghaddafi threatened violence and war when people rebelled against him. So people and various tribes took arms.

Please do not repeat Ghaddafi's BS here.

How many lives will we take to make sure the side favorable to western resource domination wins?

.

how some can become so twisted in anger and ignorance.

It has nothing to do with the fact that we are already engaged in 3 wars that have been dragging on for 10 years, and cutting every budget to the bone, yet we have money for a 4th war.

A protracted 4th war is the last thing we need. I don't want anything to fail - particularly not our own country.

the War on Drugs?

War on Poverty?


War on Christmas???

We certainly are doing plenty of damage and spending plenty of money there, too.

How many of them were killed in Iraq in the last week? Two, by my count. And many wounded. Is that 'no longer active'?

No matter the propaganda, Iraq is not Germany where off-duty soldiers walk down to the biergarten when they get off work. They are still being shot at on a daily basis.

Iraq won't be 'no longer active' until we bring them ALL home.

Tuesday: 5 Iraqis Killed, 33 Wounded
by Margaret Griffis, March 22, 2011
At least five Iraqis were killed and 33 others were wounded in today’s violence. Most of the attacks took place in Baghdad. An unapproved demonstration in a city in eastern Iraq turned into clashes when police arrived to shut it down.

In Baghdad, a bomb targeting a Central Bank official’s convoy wounded three people. A sticky bomb attached to a lieutenant colonel’s car exploded, killing him and wounding two passengers. A policeman was killed and six others were wounded when a bomb blew up in Rashid Camp Street. Three people were wounded in a double bombing in Zaafaraniya. A bombing in a liquor store near the national theatre in Karrada wounded two civilians. Gunmen also killed two police officers in separate incidents, while two civilians were wounded in Husseiniya. No casualties were reported after rockets fell near the Green Zone.

At least one policeman was killed and 11 people were wounded in clashes in Halabja. A second policeman possibly died. The clash occurred after police tried to stop an unapproved demonstration that was calling for the ouster of the town’s major.

Shelling wounded two people in Mosul. A hand grenade wounded a soldier.

An explosion in Mahlabiya wounded a child.

One civilian was wounded during a blast in Baasheqa.

Nine suspects were arrested in Diyala province.

Ten suspects were captured in Basra province.


American Military Casualties in Iraq
Total In Combat
Since Obama Inauguration (1/20/09): 213 99
Since Operation New Dawn: 23 10
American Wounded Official Estimated
Total Wounded: 32992 Over 100000
Latest Fatality Mar. 20, 2011
Page last updated 03/22/11 7:24 pm EDT

http://antiwar.com/casualties/?du

Even after this I am ready to campaign for him and send him funds. He thought he could keep this contained but I think he misjudged things.

Rather reminiscent of wishing for a president to fail, eh?

The amazing thing is how desperate people are to show that the ends justify the means. As if going to war in violation of the US laws and Constitution to launch a war of aggression against a third world nation is just something we should forget about because something good might happen.

...us flowers! I was promised flowers. Ok, and maybe a ticker tape parade through the downtown of the biggest city in whatever country we invaded.

When they do things like this, it just spoils it- and I won't stand for that.

And I don't want any shifty shit like Russia and China sending us flowers with forged notes, either. I totally know their handwriting.

PB

...and the truth is, the entire Libya situation is suspect. We've had evidence of Britain with agents over there fomenting discord, and frankly, it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if the US was also involved in doing this - in fact, it would surprise me more to find out that we were NOT.

There are MANY places around the world that could use our help, but we did not get involved until there was oil at stake. After Iraq, most of us just aren't gullible enough to believe that we are doing this for humanitarian reasons, and many of us are weary of our nation constantly being at war. Everything is getting cut, except the defense budget - that apparently is without limit.

to the action.

Falling apart at the seams. This is what happens when you browbeat countries, just like people, into letting you have your way.

Russia and China abstained but now they've officially denounced. As Security Council Members, they can recall the Council at any time. I hope they do that. Quickly.

try again.

They are just doing what they do best, be diplomatically mealy-mouthed and hope they can pick up some business in LIbya after all the heavy lifting is done for them.

If Qaddafi retains power, even better for them as they have now properly positioned themselves.

Fuck 'em both.

Any one of those three could veto any attempt to rescind that resolution that authorized force. Russian and/or China should have vetoed the original resolution in the first place, but they didn't. So they share some of the blame.

And in this case a lot of people sincerely believe that they do deserve it. I happen to support Obama's Libya policy, but many well meaning people do not and they have the right to have their say.

So whom should we blame for the constant flow?

So NOW Russia and China are against it?

hmmm.... very suspicious (why didn't they VOTE against UNSC Resolution 1973 when THAT VOTE was THEIRS to take??? ohhhh.... the OBVIOUS hypocrisy...). Sorry, but the non-voting states have much more "credibility" (for now), although they won't make any difference... like the middle-class and the unemployed here, their voices don't "count".

"Other major African and Asian countries, notably Nigeria and India, have joined the campaign demanding Britain and France back off. "The measures adopted should mitigate and not exacerbate an already difficult situation," the Indian external affairs ministry said.

Uganda's president, Yoweri Museveni, added hypocrisy to the Anglo-French charge sheet. "In Libya they are very eager to impose a no-fly zone. In Bahrain and other areas where there are pro-western regimes, they turn a blind eye to the very same conditions or even worse conditions," he wrote in the New Vision newspaper."

They didn't, and now they can't so they may as well STFU.