SMORGASBORD OF RANDOM THOUGHTS: A FACEBOOK DEBATE ON THE "NO-FLY ZONE" ON LIBYA

Two hours ago, I posted on my Facebook Wall (Yep, I write it like it is a place.) the Al-Jazeera news about the UN Security Council imposing a no-fly zone over Libya. The post generated a very vibrant discussion which readers might be interested in.

Cheryl L. Daytec
IMMANUEL WALLERSTEIN SEEMS TO HAVE MISCALCULATED THE UN WHEN HE HYPOTHESIZED THAT THE "NO-FLY ZONE" WOULD FAIL TO GET THE NOD OF THE UN SECURITY COUNCIL. NOW A REMOTE FEAR IS VERY IMMINENT: THERE IS GOING TO BE ANOTHER WAR.

UN authorises no-fly zone over Libya

english.aljazeera.net

Security Council imposes a no-fly zone over Libya and authorises "all necessary measures" to protect civilians.

2 hours ago · · · · Share

Anne de Bretagne likes this.
- Cheryl L. Daytec Wallerstein was confident that China and Russia would veto a "no-fly zone." These two States merely abstained.
  2 hours ago ·
- Cheryl L. Daytec Ghadaffi 'pledged to respond harshly to UN-sponsored attacks." "If the world is crazy, we will be crazy too," he said.
  2 hours ago ·
- Lynn B. Macalingay It only shows how Khadaffy has alienated the friendship of those two nations, and how widespread globally the support is for the ousting of the Libyan leader. For a long time, he has been crazy alright. It is not surprising that he is saying these words now.
  2 hours ago ·
- Cheryl L. Daytec There is no global support. The 15-member Security Council would not even vote unanimously. Only 10 did. If they will bring the issue to the General Assembly, I am sure the no-fly zone will lose the vote.
  2 hours ago ·
- Cheryl L. Daytec And the Arab dictators will cheer not because they believe in helping Libyans but because the no-fly zone will scare people's movements preparing to oust them as well.
  2 hours ago ·
- Lynn B. Macalingay No global support? The opposite is pretty obvious. Re the Arab world, that would be assuming too far methinks. And you know pretty well that UN sanctioned interventions are legal.
  2 hours ago ·
- Cheryl L. Daytec On what do you base your observation that there is global support? As I said, only 10 of the UNSC even voted for the no-fly zone. For sure, most of South America will oppose this. Africa is quiet but that continent is more allergic to Western imperialism than we are given their history. The issue here is not the legality of the intervention. You know that the UN is a big imperial government controlled by a few.
  2 hours ago · · 1 person
- Lynn B. Macalingay
  Rather, I can ask you the same question. Basically, the UN represents the world - what better evidence can that be, even on a simple level? If there are those opposed, how come they are not making noise at the moment? You think South America is all anti-US? What else do you want to hear? I understand where you stand against US intervention, and I am not speaking for or against it for now, but this is not the issue in Libya. My question if at all is would you rather the UN just stand there while Khaddafi continues to slaughter civilians? From a human rights advocate to another, would that not stand as a reason enough to justify that the UN just did?
  2 hours ago ·
- Anne de Bretagne
  Lynn, re your, " From a human rights advocate to another, would that not stand as a reason enough to justify that the UN just did?" This decision will only aggravate the many human rights issues that western nations are facing because military no-fly zone operations will ultimately result in the killings of civilians (in the hands of Western military!!!!) The UN which, by the way, doesn't alway make excellent decisions, SHOULD HAVE MANDATED the Arab League of Nations to intervene instead of issuing blanket authority for the Western nations to effect this ridiculous military no-fly zone. The UN was perfectly capable of doing that just as they mandated NATO to intervene in Afghanistan. So, why should they now resolve that the West should perform military intervention in what seems to me to be a full pledged Libyan to Libyan problem? If at all, the ones that have the moral right to intervene in what is certainly an Arab or pan-Arab problem, are the Arabs themselves and they have the Arab Leaque of Nations to do that. And if we are speaking of military capability, Egypt on her own has the military capability to effect such military operation.
  2 hours ago ·
- Cheryl L. Daytec Uncle Lynn, it is ridiculous for the US to say that it cannot stand Ghadaffi slaughtering people and so UN intervention in Libya is a necessity. Simply put, human rights outside of the US and the US do not belong to the same sentence. It is naive for anyone to believe that the US is going to Libya to prevent slaughter.
  2 hours ago ·
- Cheryl L. Daytec So I am very suspicious of any intervention that involves the US. The UN does represent the world- there is no legal debate about that. But to say that the globe is for the no-fly zone on the basis of the votes of 10 of the 15-member UNSC is stretching numbers.
  2 hours ago ·
- Lynn B. Macalingay
  Hi Anne, I am romantic in that I believe the No-Fly Zone will eventually minimize if not end Khaddafy's slaughter of his constituents just because they happen to be on the opposite side of the fence. Since you so strongly believe that more civilians would be ultimately killed by reason of such UN decision, I would try to keep tab on that. On the other hand, the UN cannot mandate any nation at all, much less the Arab League of Nations (the UN is 'voluntary' after all). The UN can mandate NATO because it is the UN's own creation. True, I agree that it is a Libyan-to-Libyan problem, but since the crazy guy at the helm started killing civilians then it becomes a UN mandate to intervente. Egypt intervening against Libya? Come on, it has its own problems at the moment - I don't think it has enough taste to start another armed issue.
  2 hours ago ·
- Cheryl L. Daytec ‎"Some of the people who have defected from the Gaddafi regime have been the loudest voices from in the Council for a the UN to impose a “no-fly zone”. And some of these may come from the more neoliberal wing of the Gaddafi regime (previously believed by Western governments to be headed by Gaddafi’s son, Saif)."- http://networkedblogs.com/fnfRw
  2 hours ago ·
- Cheryl L. Daytec Full text of the UN Security Council Resolution:http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/17/un-security-council-resolution
  2 hours ago ·
- Anne de Bretagne
  Lynn, we have our problems in the West too... so why should we intervene? Why should my sons go and join a mission that will inevitably result in Libyan deaths; the Libyans have done nothing to them -- are we sure that the Libyans will welcome Western military intervention with open arms? Another thing, we are talking here of capability -- Egypt (true, has her own problems) and a host of nations in the Middle East have the military capabity to eventually minimise if not end Khaddafi's, as you say, "slaughtering" of his people... This western military intervention is bound to have repercussions on the west... and to me it's time we stopped believing that we in the West can solve the ills of those in the Middle East.
  about an hour ago · · 1 person
- Anne de Bretagne re: "but since the crazy guy at the helm started killing civilians then it becomes a UN mandate to intervente." Let me tell you tat there is absolutely no guarantee that our western military will NOT kill Libyan civilians...
  about an hour ago · · 2 people
- Lynn B. Macalingay Ha-ha, Chyt,I know - you probably are thinking of the likes of Darfur, etc. I may be naive, but that's my stand at the moment. At least, that's how I believe this administration - maligned on either side by so-called moralists - is doing.
  about an hour ago ·
- Lynn B. Macalingay Anne, exactly - that should have been asked way, way, before - even before the US started becoming the self-appointed watchdog of the free world. And I am sure a lot of Iraqis who died did not even know who the 'Allies' are. My point is, each situation has to be determined individually. If we start comparing this to that, then we may end up getting this and/or that - whatever either means. As to the Libyans welcoming the NATO forces, at least there are some footages showing exactly that. Definitely, not all wil.
  about an hour ago ·
- Cheryl L. Daytec I know that Barry remains as your poster boy for world peace. I am no longer in love with him. He got the Nobel but what is he doing now? If there is one leader in whom the world pinned its hopes in 2008, it was tall, dark and handsome Barry. (Take off your blinders, will you? It is not even about him. It is about who control the White House.)
  about an hour ago ·
- Cheryl L. Daytec And this is the millionth time I am going to say this, "You cannot change the White House, but the White House WILL change you."
  about an hour ago ·
- Lynn B. Macalingay He-he, you should be here to really see/feel the mire he is in. And it has a lot to do with his color. Bottomline, he can only do so much. And it is not about who controls the White House, rather who controls thePentagon (again, methinks only). But, come on, let's give him a chance. Nevermind what the Ku Klux Klan thinks - and these people think they are Christians, tsk-tsk.
  about an hour ago ·
- Anne de Bretagne Lynn, NATO will not be involved in Libya. NATO does things on concensus. Some countries that are members of NATO will be involved in possibly carpet bombing of some military zones in Libya, most likely radar and anti-air defence military installations (which will inevitably result in the killing of both civlian military Libyans) but NATO will not be involved. Germany abstained so there's no way NATO will be involved at all.
  about an hour ago ·
- Anne de Bretagne Is Obama perhaps sensing that a wartime presidency is required to ensure a successful 2nd run for the White House? Then he is wrong...
  about an hour ago · · 1 person
- Cheryl L. Daytec This is belated but I wanted to say it : I love you, Germany. For now, that is.
  about an hour ago ·
- Lynn B. Macalingay You seem so sure,Anne, so I'll not argue on that - but we'll see. These few days, nothing has been definite at all. Here's what I think though - there would be not much resistance from the Libyan forces because their weapons are outdated.
  about an hour ago ·
- Anne de Bretagne Chyt, let me tell you that many of my military friends at NATO predicted that UN resolution would pass and had been hoping against hope that it wouldn't because they believe that it was not the right thing to do. And I'm speaking of 2 and 3 star ranking US officers...
  about an hour ago ·
- Lynn B. Macalingay If you have been following the Libyan issue, you may have gathered that the Obama administration gathered flak for not 'immediately' dealing with it. He is in a precarious situation - anything he does is 'damn-if-you-do-damn-if-you-don't' - hence it took him sometime to even come up with a speech re the matter.
  about an hour ago ·
- Cheryl L. Daytec Who controls the Pentagon controls the White House because the Pentagon controls the White House. So I think Mr Audacity of Hope is now Mr Audacity of Disappointment. Big time!!! He seems to be getting worse. Probably that is what the Nobel meant. A former colleague of his at Columbia was my professor. The latter had very nice things to say about Mr Audacity. When I expressed my reservations on his getting the Nobel, my professor said that the award is pre-emptive, that is, it is for what Barry will do in the future. Whoaaaaaaaaaa.
  about an hour ago ·
- Lynn B. Macalingay Anne, good to know that - and we are honored that we have you here chit-chatting with us naysayers:>)).
  about an hour ago · · 1 person
- Cheryl L. Daytec This was Obama's chance to prove he was deserving of the Nobel. He could have said No. Who were criticizing him for not immediately dealing with the Libyan issue? The Military Industrial Complex? Now they have a market for their weapons.
  about an hour ago ·
- Anne de Bretagne Lynn, I'm a militarist through and through but believe that not all military operations prodded by western civilian political leaders are morally right, and this is one of them.
  about an hour ago ·
- Lynn B. Macalingay Chyt, I hope the Republicans are not getting into you. Harvard loves him so much (I was there last week for Benjie's presentation of his proposed dissertation once he gets approved for doctorate next year). One thing you might not know, Obama was not that interested in the Nobel Peace award - something he did not participate in the awarding of. If he was rude, he would have boycotted the same - at least that was what came out of the grape vine. U
  about an hour ago · · 1 person
- Cheryl L. Daytec I do not listen to Republicans. If I do, it is only to laugh and relax.
  about an hour ago · · 1 person
- Lynn B. Macalingay Who was criticizing him? The right and a lot of centrists here. (Mea culpa, we don't share the same TV networks - wrong assumption for me.) You mentioned it - for him to 'approve' of a war would benefit the - as you termed it - Military Industrial Complex, and you know who these are (definitely not democrats).
  about an hour ago · · 1 person
- Anne de Bretagne I'm still hoping that Obama will do the right thing. I liked him and I think he is a better bet than most of those Republican loonies!
  about an hour ago · · 1 person
- Cheryl L. Daytec That is the point, Uncle Lynn. He could have said No. But is he now controlled by the Republicans?
  about an hour ago ·
- Cheryl L. Daytec Anne, may an epiphany visit Barry boy this Lenten season.
  about an hour ago · · 1 person
- Lynn B. Macalingay Anne, I read you. Personal differences. I know a lot who worked in Libya, and I believe I have a sense (no matter how minute) of what goes on in there. Hence my belief. The Iraq Invasion was one I don't even consider legit for one dime.
  about an hour ago · · 1 person
- Cheryl L. Daytec But let me save Barry from my question: IT WAS NEVER UP TO HIM!
  about an hour ago ·
- Lynn B. Macalingay Ha-ha, ladies, come on - Barry still has his head on where it should be. He is learning still, as we all are.
  about an hour ago · · 1 person
- Lynn B. Macalingay Chyt, exactly - but some people would want the populace (defined "voters") to know that he is.
  about an hour ago · · 1 person
- Anne de Bretagne ‎@Chyt, hahahah... yep, he'll need it... poor man! I really think he's the best thing that's happened to America these last 10 years but by gum, the man must, as you say, walk the talk.
  about an hour ago · · 1 person
- Cheryl L. Daytec Uncle Lynn, you have always been anti-war. Your position on Libya gives me the goose-bumps. This is what Barry did to you. You are still wearing blinders as far as he is concerned. Sure, the guy is nice, but as US President, he is self-destructing. I guess he should go back to being a Senator so he can be himself. Better yet, he should work as a human rights lawyer- full time. Can you tell him that for me? :-)
  about an hour ago ·
- Lynn B. Macalingay So... ladies, who do you suggest can best spearhead the Libya issue? Or country?
  about an hour ago ·
- Cheryl L. Daytec Me...I will repeat myself. Leave the Libyans to do their own business. If there is a massive appeal for help, then that is another matter.
  about an hour ago ·
- Anne de Bretagne Any of them arab nations. (I also believe that perhaps things wouldn't have been as bad in Afghanistan if the coalition of forces was led not by the US or a Western nation but by a Muslim nation.)
  about an hour ago ·
- Lynn B. Macalingay Far from it, Chyt, far from it. See, what you are not getting at from what I've been saying all along is that I am not equating per the just-concluded UN resolution to a 'war'. I still am anti-war. It is the incessant and/or utter disregard for lives by Khadaffy that makes me cheer the resolution. Hope this explains my position.
  about an hour ago ·
- Anne de Bretagne Agree with Chyt...
  about an hour ago ·
- Lynn B. Macalingay Chyt, so you still think there was no appeal for help (not probably massive under normal circumstances, but still serves the purpose).
  about an hour ago ·
- Cheryl L. Daytec That is a virtual war, Uncle Lynn. It is even worse because it pretends to be no war but the consequences are the same. Sure, the resolution prohibits the sending of foreign troops- which means no citizen of a NATO country will die, huh. But the bombings will be at great cost of civilian lives and property.
  about an hour ago · · 1 person
- Cheryl L. Daytec Who are appealing for help? The former Ghadaffi loyalists who are of the same color as he is. They want to take over and be Ghadaffi. That will spoil the revolution.
  about an hour ago · · 1 person
- Lynn B. Macalingay You know there is no such thing as 'virtual war' in international law. The parameters are defined, and I don't mean to re-define them.
  about an hour ago ·
- Anne de Bretagne Absolutely, Chyt!
  about an hour ago ·
- Cheryl L. Daytec Are bombings and air strikes acts of peace? If they are not, then they are acts of war. There is no middle ground.
  about an hour ago ·
- Lynn B. Macalingay Like I said, we watch different media - and over here, there have been a lot of footages for exactly that. Understandably, these appeals have been directed at those who are capable of lending help.
  about an hour ago ·
- Cheryl L. Daytec I watch Al-Jazeera. I sometimes watch CNN and BBC but never Fox. And I get in touch with friends in the Arab world.
  about an hour ago ·
- Lynn B. Macalingay Per se, no. But sometimes they are necessary. Let's not go into that merry-go-round type of thingy.
  about an hour ago ·
- Anne de Bretagne Lynn, right you are... no such thing as virtual war even by normal military standard. The rules of engagement have been defined (per UN resolution) but enforcing a military no-fly zone involves destruction and death by bombing.
  about an hour ago ·
- Cheryl L. Daytec Uncle Lynn, they are showing a different story in the US media perhaps to condition you to support the "no-fly zone?" :-)))
  about an hour ago ·
- Lynn B. Macalingay Anne, if necessary. Yup, I know where you are leading - but hasn't that always been the case. Otherwise, what else could/should be done.
  about an hour ago ·
- Lynn B. Macalingay The US media can be biased vis-a-vis the 'rest of the world', that much is true. But commentaries from personalities are live, and that sometimes can spell the differences in what really is going on out there.
  about an hour ago ·
- Anne de Bretagne But Lynn, why should the Western military do the dirty job that the Arabs can do themselves? By all means, let them do what they think needs to be done if they think it's their only option but heavens, if the purpose is to solve the Libyan Kaddafi problem, then I don't think OUR killing Libyans and our destroying their properties will solve the problem at all.
  about an hour ago ·
- Cheryl L. Daytec Correct. They can just kidnap Ghadaffi. The Mossad is good at that.
  about an hour ago · · 1 person
- Cheryl L. Daytec I mean that is illegal but nearly not as bad as bombing civilians and properties.
  about an hour ago ·
- Lynn B. Macalingay Anne, the answer should be simple: the Arabs don't want to do it. Not without much prodding, or on conditions of promises by western nations. If we go by history, I don't think I can recall any instance where a collective Arab force was utilized to police their own. The only one that can even get near that scenario is the 7-Day War against Israel (I could be wrong, begging your indulgence).
  about an hour ago ·
- Anne de Bretagne Chyt, besides they (the Mossad) will never announce it to the world so nobody will be the wiser hehehe!
  about an hour ago · · 1 person
- Cheryl L. Daytec And Uncle Lynn, in the Philippines we have access to news all over, thanks to the internet.
  about an hour ago ·
- Lynn B. Macalingay Ha-ha, on kidnapping Khadaffy, Chyt, now, now - if it was that simple, it would have been done years ago.
  about an hour ago ·
- Cheryl L. Daytec Anne, this reminds me of Entebbe and the kidnap of Barbie/Altman.
  about an hour ago · · 1 person
- Cheryl L. Daytec Uncle Lynn, it is simple. As I said, they can ask Mossad to do that.
  about an hour ago ·
- Lynn B. Macalingay Good for you, but internet news can be limited - unless you have paid subscriptions of course.
  about an hour ago ·
- Anne de Bretagne Lynn, re "If we go by history, I don't think I can recall any instance where a collective Arab force was utilized to police their own." Then they should begin to learn. You yourself seem to disapprove of the so-called moralists in us, i.e., the Westerners, so why should we continue to moralise on the grounds that they "need us", "we alone could do it,", etc., etc.?
  about an hour ago ·
- Anne de Bretagne Lynn, the West didn't want Khadaffi kidnapped I suppose because he served their purpose well, up to recent years.
  about an hour ago ·
- Cheryl L. Daytec Hahaha. Uncle Lynn, are you saying I am not getting enough news and analysis. Trust this niece of yours. I have access to what is necessary. I am in the middle of writing a book and do not go out much. I am glued to the computer and I do not sleep. You should instead be worried that the US might not be allowing you access to the progressive media.
  about an hour ago ·
- Lynn B. Macalingay Anne, because of the immediacy of the need. Well, the US can be biased on this perhaps - but let me illustrate: if the US were to let this Libya issue slide on its own, then the US economy would be affected, i.e. prices of oil would soar, stocks plummeting, etc.
  about an hour ago ·
- Cheryl L. Daytec You hit it right, Uncle Lynn. This is not about the slaughter of Libyans. This is about US interest.
  about an hour ago · · 1 person
- Anne de Bretagne Ah... so THAT is essentially why the US wants to go and carpet bomb Libya, eh? Not quite for some altruistic human rights reason... then as I say, this is another morally warped military intervention! And it's bound to have horendous repercussions on the US and on her NATO allies! Dang!
  about an hour ago ·
- Lynn B. Macalingay Chyt, like I said, it is presumptous to assume that the Mossad can just go and kidnap Khaddafy. Khaddafy may be foolish, but he has some of the best security force in that part of the world. And, no, I am not saying you are not getting enough analysis. It's just that you may have some wrong notions on some issues, which is not per se wrong from your vantage point of view.
  about an hour ago ·
- Cheryl L. Daytec I do not even believe in the Mossad kidnapping Ghadaffi. But if Ghadaffi is the problem, then that problem can be solved without bombing Libya. If Libya is bombed, will it be Ghadaffi who will die? I am sure he has a secure bomb shelter somewhere.
  about an hour ago · · 1 person
- Anne de Bretagne The US is being penny wise dollar foolish... When all is said and done, i.e., Kaddafi deposed, Libya set ablaze, civil war in progress, the US will be facing worse problems.
  about an hour ago ·
- Lynn B. Macalingay Ha-ha, easy, you've been itching me to state that, eh? The good thing is that that is only my personal assumption, as you have yours. Unfortunately, altruistic (borrow your word, Anne) human rights reason/s can be equated only with individuals and not with governments - sad as it is.
  about an hour ago · · 2 people
- Lynn B. Macalingay Perhaps, Anne, perhaps...
  about an hour ago ·
- Lynn B. Macalingay Chyt, Libya has been bombed several times over. And I am not sure the intent of the UN Resolution per se is to kill Khaddafy. I may be playing it safe, but....
  about an hour ago ·
- Cheryl L. Daytec Of course, it is not. If he gets killed, it is merely a collateral consequence. What are wars for? Who are wars for?Dick Cheney is grinning from ear to ear.
  58 minutes ago ·
- Cheryl L. Daytec Anyway, let us pray for the people of Libya.
  57 minutes ago ·
- Lynn B. Macalingay Yeah - The Dick alright. Fortunately, he is not part of this administration or he would be selling weapons left and right in Iran, North Korea, Egypt, Tunisia, and probably Libya.
  56 minutes ago ·
- Lynn B. Macalingay Ladies...uh...gotta go do some errands. It was nice chatting with you both. Gave me a chance to flex my fingers and gray matter (or whatever is left of it). Hope to catch you again later. And Anne, nice meeting you here.
  56 minutes ago · · 1 person
- Cheryl L. Daytec http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20110317-717027.html - And better start enjoying walking, Uncle Lynn. Obama's decision is now sending oil prices to the high heavens.
  54 minutes ago ·
- Anne de Bretagne Lynn, trying to think of another instance when arabs grouped together not necessarily to police their own... the making of Saudi Arabia and the Arab war against the Ottoman empire but the Arabs, were led by Col Lawrence...
  53 minutes ago · · 1 person
- Anne de Bretagne Me too, gotta go... nice meeting another relative of Chyt! Nite nite, Chyt...
  52 minutes ago · · 1 person
- Cheryl L. Daytec Anne, Uncle Lynn is very, very smart. And he will never approve of any bombing even of a fly. I think he is just still in love with Barry and this colors his perception of the Libyan issue. Do not tell him I said this.
  46 minutes ago ·
- Anne de Bretagne hahahahah! OK, promise I won't... chat to you tomorrow! gotta get my beauty sleep....
  45 minutes ago · · 1 person