Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi announced that Italy will now take part in air strikes against Libya. He says the order came from U.S. President Obama.
Italy previously said it would not join bombing raids, because of its “friendly” relationship with its former colony. But Obama, in a phone call, convinced Berlusconi to take military action. What was that Obama said about this NOT being a U.S. led operation?
The United States, the Europeans, even the United Nations, ignored the African Union when they expressed concerns about military action being taken against one of their own; Libya. Now, the U.S. wants the AU’s help.
“In addition, we seek the African Union’s assistance in arriving at a political solution in Libya.”-Hillary Clinton, U.S. Secretary of State
So now the Obama administration wants a political solution to Libya? Why didn’t they do that to begin with! Is this just part of the U.S. plan to move on to attacking Syria?
China’s Xinhuanet news is reporting that the Libyan government is arming civilians, to counter a possible invasion by NATO.
Most of the population in the western half of Libya supports the government. It also happens to be the half of Libya with very little oil production. The rebellion/civil war started in the oil rich eastern half.
The Libyan government accused NATO of intercepting an oil tanker that was operating for the Libyan government. That act is not authorized under UNSCR 1973.
In a press conference held in Benghazi, Libyan rebel leaders said NATO air strikes were not enough, and that ground troops were needed, official to protect civilians.
The spokesman said that initially rebels were opposed to foreign ground troops, but under present conditions (meaning they are losing to government forces) they will now accept foreign ground troops. Remember when President Obama said the UN attacks against Libya would be over soon?
In an earlier posting I warned that the Libyan situation could lead to World War 3. It’s all about not letting China have Libya’s oil.
Former U.S. Treasury official, Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, admitted to Iranian media, that the so called rebellion in Libya was about oil, and not letting China have it: “In my opinion, what this is about is to eliminate China from the Mediterranean. China has extensive energy investments and construction investments in Libya.”
Roberts says the real reason the United States wants Gaddafi out, is because he refused to join the U.S. created United States African Command, which was created to counter China’s influence in the region: “The U.S. is countering this by organizing the United States African Command (USAC), which Qaddafi refused to join. So that’s the second reason for the Americans to want Qaddafi out.”
Roberts says if NATO succeeds in Libya, Syria and then Iran will be next: “If NATO, which is now the cover for the ‘world community,’ succeeds in overthrowing Qaddafi, the next target will be Syria. Iran is a major target because it is an independent state that is not a puppet of the Western colonialists.”
Roberts warned that this could lead to World War 3. He compared what the U.S. and U.K. did to Japan before World War 2: “In my opinion, what is going on is comparable to what the U.S. and Britain did to Japan in the 1930s. When they cut Japan off from oil, from rubber, from minerals; that was the origin of World War II in the pacific. And now the Americans and the British are doing the same thing to China.”
There is much more to the interview by Press TV
After announcing that they will send military advisers to train Libyan rebels, France announced they will increase air strikes in Libya. France is a UN coalition member, but is not a member of NATO.
France was even reluctant to allow NATO to take official control of the coalition forces military actions against Libya. The latest decision by France, to increase air strikes, is independent of NATO.
The decision was made after rebel leaders met with French officials, and asked for more help.
To the people of the United States it’s one slap in the face after another. Recently President Obama gave a speech saying cuts need to be made to U.S. government spending. Then he gives $3 million so some students can study in China, and now he’s giving Libyan rebels $25 million in equipment!
On April 20, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton made the announcement. Obama is joining with United Kingdom, France and Italy in openly taking sides with Libyan militants, some of who might actually be al-Qaeda, according to military officials, including NATO boss U.S. Admiral James Stavridis.
Following the British announcement that they will send troops to train Libyan rebels, France and Italy say they will do the same.
The UN coalition members say, officially, they are within UNSCR 1973 because training rebel militants will protect civilians.
It’s interesting that Libyan government troops are being portrayed as non-Libyan, while rebels are being portrayed as the only Libyans. Don’t forget that even U.S. officials admitted that some rebels could be al-Qaeda.
This is not a rebellion, it is a Civil War.
The United Kingdom (Britain), a member of NATO, and a United Nations coalition member supposedly enforcing UNSCR 1973, announced they are sending 20 commandos to train Libyan rebels.
UNSCR 1973 states that efforts should be made only to protect civilians.
Recently NATO members (including the United States) announced that their main objective is to get rid of Moammar Gadhafi (Gaddafi), which is also a violation of UNSCR 1973.
The United Kingdom has admitted to sending 1,000 suits of body armor, and satellite phones, to the rebels. NATO members are also considering sending the rebels electronic counter measure equipment.
The total disregard for UNSCR 1973, by coalition forces, and the lack of condemnation by the United Nations, is proof that any resolution passed by the UN is worthless.
Despite the fact that UNSCR 1973 doesn’t say anything about taking sides, and supporting a militant group (it’s supposed to be about protecting civilians), NATO, and other UN coalition members say they are now going to give money to the Libyan rebels (where’s the money coming from? taxpayers?).
They’re calling the funds a “temporary financial mechanism”.
The coalition has already recognized the non-elected rebel council as the new government of Libya.
Rebels say they want more weapons as well, but coalition members still say, officially, they are not supplying weapons. Here’s what one rebel leader said publicly: “We’re discussing weapons deals with countries that officially recognised the council; we’ve been getting positive replies.” They also said: “…participants in the contact group agreed to continue to provide support to the opposition, including material support.”
Sounds to me like the rebels are trying to tell the truth and the coalition members (including the U.S.) are flat out lying. It makes you question the motive of the coalition for supporting the rebels. It wouldn’t be the first time western powers supported one group, only to put another group into power once the dirty work was done.
Franco Frattini, the Italian foreign minister, was most honest when he demanded: “…either we make it possible for these people to defend themselves, or we withdraw from our obligation to support defending the population of Libya.” Many analysts say the UNSCR 1973 includes an arms embargo, but Frattini doesn’t interpret the resolution that way. This is an example of the continued division within the UN coalition, which is proof of the lack of coalition building by Sarkozy and Obama. Which, again, is another reason to question this whole adventure into North Africa. Where’s Erwin Rommel?