An Obama Double Take

In 2002, House Joint Resolution 114 authorized the use of force against Iraq and Iran at the Presidents discretion. Remember that? 


In 2007, then Senator Barack Obama introduced a bill to strip the resolution provision authorizing the use of force against Iran. The rational was to prevent Bush from indiscriminately bombing Iran's nuclear plants.


Later that year, Senator Obama stated in an interview “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."


Now, President Obama launches a unilateral attack, without congressional approval as required by the War Powers Resolution of 1973 against a nation that poses no threat to us.

Where are all the "unarmed civilians" in Libya?

Are these the "unarmed civilians" allegedly being slaughtered by Ghaddafi?

Libyan rebels appear to have their own defense. Why do they need the help of their former colonial masters?

Maybe there is an ulterior motive for the sudden rush to war with Libya.

 

"Unarmed civilians" or armed protesters. How do you define a civil war?

Libya's Civil War

The United Nations security council has voted to enforce no-fly zones in Libya. This is essentially an act of war since it requires military strikes within Libya's borders. I am puzzled. I thought the mission of the U.N. was to keep the peace. I decided to read the United Nations Charter. It's available on the Internet here.

Basically, the purpose of the U.N. is to keep international peace and security. By its own charter, the U.N. is required to respect the sovereignty of all nations and shall remain out of matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state. If the domestic affairs of a state get out of hand and threaten international peace and security, the U.N. can act by imposing economic and political pressures. The use of force is a last resort, but only in circumstances that disrupt international peace and stability.

So what has Mr. Ghaddafi done to disrupt the international order of peace and security? Nothing. What has been happening in Libya has been happening all around the Arab states. However, there is a slight difference. The anti-Ghaddafi rebels have weapons and can escalate the violence beyond police action deployed to squash protests. In like kind, pro-Ghaddafi forces have launched a counter attack against the rebels. I still fail to see the impact on the international order of peace and security. This is a civil war. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it must be a civil war.

The U.N. and the rest of the war mongering nations have made the rebel cause to be the victim. Ghaddafi, the madman, is reigning genocide down on unarmed civilians according to several members of the Security Council. Never mind the U.N. charter or what international laws have to be broken. Western governments have to be the policemen of the world.

I believe there is very good reason Germany, Russia, China, India and Brazil think military intervention in Libya is a bad idea. Remember Resolution 1441 and the rush to war with Iraq? Besides, where exactly is the evidence of unarmed civilians being killed? Al Jazeera has video of armed rebel fighters shooting down a Libyan military jet. Far from what is being portrayed as a slaughter of unarmed citizens. If it smells like a duck, it must be civil war.

There have been reports of civilians killed in Libya ranging between 30 to 500. That would be the average number of civilians killed each year by CIA drone attacks in Afghanistan and Pakistan. So if we call that collateral damage, wouldn't any civilians killed in Libya's civil war also be considered collateral damage?