March 10, 2011
Today in Libya, civilians are being killed by a besieged and isolated dictator. Libyan warplanes have been used to attack civilians, although the vast majority of the violence has come from ground attacks. The Libyan opposition’s provisional national council, meeting in Benghazi, is debating whether they should request military support from the international community, maybe the UN or NATO, starting with a no-fly zone. The Arab League announced that it was also considering establishing a no-fly zone, perhaps with the African Union.
It is unclear what casualties the airstrikes may have caused. The anti-regime forces have some access to anti-aircraft weapons, and Qaddafi has already lost planes and pilots alike to the opposition — but it is far from clear where the military balance lies.
Powerful U.S. voices — including neo-conservative warmongers and liberal interventionists in and out of the administration, as well as important anti-war forces in and out of Congress — are calling on the Obama administration to establish a no-fly zone in Libya to protect civilians.
A Libyan activist writes in The Guardian, “we welcome a no-fly zone, but the blood of Libya's dead will be wasted if the west curses our uprising with failed intervention.” He says that his hopes for a happy ending are “marred by a fear shared by all Libyans; that of a possible western military intervention to end the crisis.” He seems to believe that a U.S. or NATO no-fly zone would mean something other than a Western military intervention.
Ironically it was Secretary of Defense Robert Gates who warned that establishing a no-fly zone “begins with an attack on Libya.” It would be an act of war. And the Middle East doesn’t need another U.S. war.
What would a no-fly zone in Libya mean? A bit of history may provide some perspective.
March 10, 2011 "The Hill" -- Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) on Thursday argued that establishing a no-fly zone over Libya is an act of war that should require congressional approval, and will introduce a sense-of-Congress resolution saying the administration should seek input from the branch before imposing a no-fly policy.
"Congress should act," Paul said. "I'm preparing to introduce a resolution next week, and it's a sense of Congress, that the executive branch can't do this without approval from the Congress.
"We have to remember, a no-fly zone is an act of war," he added.
Paul equated a no-fly zone with an act of war based on the U.S. experience in Iraq, which started with a no-fly zone in the 1990s and ultimately ended in war. He also said it is difficult to establish a no-fly zone without some military activity.
"You can't just all of a sudden turn a switch and say don't fly over Libya," Paul said. "You have to bomb a lot of anti-aircraft sites and a lot of military establishment. So the war is on."
Paul also argued that there is no legitimate reason for a no-fly zone over Libya, which is entering a civil war but does not pose any national security threat to the United States.
"Now, what moral right do we have to participate in war activity against Libya?" he asked. "Libya hasn't done anything to the United States. It would be foolish, it would have a downside, and we should think very, very carefully before we go expanding the wars that we're already involved in."
Paul is one of 10 House members who sponsored a resolution on Wednesday to direct the president to remove U.S. troops from Afghanistan.
Give them HELL Ron!! Someone needs to wake these idiot fuckers ruining the country!! The WAR WHORES are screaming for ANOTHER WAR, when they can't handle the ones that are on their plate now. Perhaps it's because NONE of the gutless bastards have ever suited up in a military uniform and had defend our country! The rich pricks are quick to send the average Joe off to war, and for what reason, at what cost to them?
at 10:19 PM