A U.N. resolution is not a unilateral U.S. action.

[ProSense]

President Obama didn't take unilateral action and certainly didn't declare war.

The U.S. is a signatory of the U.N. Charter. A unilateral declaration of war is different from a U.N. sanctioned action under its Charter.

See: United Nations Security Council resolution

The Libyan action, unlike the U.S. led unilateral invasion of Iraq war, is sanctioned by the U.N.

The UN didn't issue a resolution approving the Iraq war. This is why the RW hates the U.N. They hate international law and order, and only approve of U.S. dominance, including the U.S.'s unilateral right to attack/invade other countries at will.

After securing an AUMF from Congress, Bush still managed to violate it to illegally invade Iraq. The Afghanistan war was basically a declaration of war by Congress, approved by nearly every member of Congress.

United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973 specifically states no ground troops.

Congressional authorization, including funding, would be required for the U.S. to take any direct action beyond the U.N. resolution parameters.

The first Gulf war was launched in August 1990 and the AUMF approved January 1991.

The Persian Gulf War (August 2, 1990 – February 28, 1991), commonly referred to as simply the Gulf War, was a war waged by a U.N.-authorized coalition force from thirty-four nations led by the United States, against Iraq.

link

<...>

Within hours of the invasion, Kuwaiti and U.S. delegations requested a meeting of the UN Security Council, which passed Resolution 660, condemning the invasion and demanding a withdrawal of Iraqi troops. On 3 August the Arab League passed its own resolution, which called for a solution to the conflict from within the League, and warned against outside intervention. On 6 August UN Resolution 661 placed economic sanctions on Iraq.

United Nations Security Council Resolution 665 followed soon after, which authorized a naval blockade to enforce the economic sanctions against Iraq. It said the “use of measures commensurate to the specific circumstances as may be necessary ... to halt all inward and outward maritime shipping in order to inspect and verify their cargoes and destinations and to ensure strict implementation of resolution 661.”<28>

link

The no-fly zones weren't established until after the war:

The Iraqi no-fly zones were a set of two separate no-fly zones (NFZs), and were proclaimed by the United States, United Kingdom and France after the Gulf War of 1991 to protect humanitarian operations in northern Iraq and Shiite Muslims in the south. Iraqi aircraft were forbidden from flying inside the zones. The policy was enforced by US, UK and French aircraft patrols until France withdrew in 1998. While the enforcing powers had cited United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 as authorizing the operations, the resolution contains no explicit authorization. The Secretary-General of the UN at the time the resolution was passed, Boutros Boutros-Ghali called the no-fly zones "illegal" in a later interview with John Pilger.<1><2>

<...>

The NFZ in the north of Iraq was established shortly after the Gulf War. In August 1992 the NFZ in the south to the 32nd parallel was established,<3> but in 1996 it was expanded to the 33rd parallel.<4> From 1992 to the United States-led coalition invasion of Iraq in 2003, there were two NFZs in Iraq. The northern NFZ extended from the 36th parallel northwards, while the southern extended from the 33rd parallel southwards. The northern NFZ was initially part of Operation Provide Comfort relief operations to a persecuted Kurdish minority in Iraq, and was followed on by Operation Northern Watch. The southern NFZ was maintained by Operation Southern Watch.

<...>

United Nations Security Council Resolution 688

[tabatha]

1. Thanks, ProSense

I just heard an Al Jazeera commentator state that this is a typical Obama non-Bush undertaking - i.e. a minimal role for the US.

[hlthe2b]

2. I agree and am saddened at how readily the conflation with Iraq..

Whether or not our actions under UN auspices in Libya will prove successful, it is NOT comparable to what we did in Iraq.

[YvonneCa]

32. The start date of...

...March 19th rings a bell...

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jberryhill]

8. It is not easy to get a definite UN resolution on use of force

Let alone an Arab League resolution to the same effect.

You either buy into the process of international intergovernmental institutions or not, I suppose.

[tabatha]

10. They already have.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DLBhQE35rhY

[14thColony]

12. I doubt they'll need to

Since there will be no "us" to greet. The UN resolution prohibits ground forces, and there are no significant allied ground forces anywhere in the area anyway. Unless you think a bunch of French, American and British sailors plan on swimming ashore to invade.

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jaxx]

5. Thank you for bringing the facts to our attention.

K & R

[Joe the Revelator]

6. K/r

[MH1]

7. Shhh. why do you want to bring in facts (of all things!) and spoil a perfectly good bash?

thanks for posting.

[vaberella]

9. Ahh so the NFZ is not an act of war.

It's a response to the actions in war. Understood. Thanks Prosense. I appreciate this clarity. DU seemed a bit confused on a lot of points.

[Raine1967]

11. I would like VERY much to kick a HUGE KICK

This is critical for people to understand.


It is indeed for different from Iraq. I hope I am not wrong, but I believe this will be a far shorter offensive than the first Gulf War.

[FrenchieCat]

14. People who don't understand and are commenting

don't want to understand. It would run counter
to being able to criticize for the sake of criticizing,
one way or the other.
That's what they do, and facts would only interrupt
them.....and they can't have that.

[14thColony]

13. Yes! And another thing while we're at it:

Here's what I've heard for the last 20 year:

Saddam vs the Kurds: "why couldn't we have done something to help those poor people being gassed by their own leader?"
Saddam vs the Shia: "how could we just stand by and let him crush them when they finally stood up to him?"
Serbs in Srebrenica: "how could the world stand by and permit a massacre of civilians in this day and age, and in Europe no less?"
Hutus in Rwanada: "why did we just stand by and allow a genocide more horrific in its speed than even the Holocaust? Why didn't anyone do anything?"

And the same thing about Cambodia and Tibet and Burma and on and on and on...

Well guess what folks? THE WORLD IS FUCKING DOING SOMETHING BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE FOR ONCE!!!! We've collectively decided to not wait till the last civilian is dead then engage in the perfunctory hand-wringing routine, we've decided to learn a fucking lesson and try to head it off before Crazy Ass gets to Benghazi and does what he swore to do, which is basically to exterminate anyone who fought against him.

So what's the response from many here? "Another war to feed the MIC" "unilateral aggression by (name the country here)" "another war for oil" "(name country here) being a bully".

FOR THE LOVE OF FUCK. You who are engaging in this would, were the world to sit by and watch the rebels be massacred, be the first ones hand-wringing and lamenting that we had callously sat by YET AGAIN and allowed people fighting for their freedom against a dictator to be massacred. I can hear it now: "you know we refused to help them to get in good with Gadhaffi" "Britain/France have too many business interests there to upset Gadhaffi -- looks like his oil money bought their inaction" "those poor rebels were slaughtered and once again we did nothing".

There are two choices here:
a) learn from the past and fucking DO SOMETHING this time, or
b) buy more hand cream so we don't chafe too badly in the next round of hand-wringing.

There is no Choice C.

[HR_Pufnstuf]

15. Is that why there are now over 1 million dead Iraqis?

We sure saved them aye.

[14thColony]

17. Way to miss the point genius. nt

[Igel]

16. It doesn't rule out ground troops.

It rules out a "foreign occupation force of any form." Was the US occupying Iraq in 2009? Yes and no. It was occupying Iraq, many would say, because it had its troops on Iraqi territory. No, because they were there by the explicit request, as recognized by the UN, of the recognized government--the US was occupying Iraq, as far as international law is concerned, to the same extent the US is occupying Germany.

The text of the English version:

"Authorizes Member States that have notified the Secretary-General, acting nationally or through regional organizations or arrangements, and acting in cooperation with the Secretary-General, to take all necessary measures, notwithstanding paragraph 9 of resolution 1970 (2011), to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, including Benghazi, while excluding a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory, and requests the Member States concerned to inform the Secretary-General immediately of the measures they take pursuant to the authorization conferred by this paragraph which shall be immediately reported to the Security Council;"

[ProSense]

18. "It rules out a 'foreign occupation force of any form.'"

It rules out ground troops.

"Was the US occupying Iraq in 2009? Yes and no."

No, the answer is yes: the U.S. was and is still an occupying force. No need to change the definition to dimiss the fact that the current U.N. resolutions rules out ground troops.

[SpartanDem]

19. +1000

Of course, it won't stop them from comparing this to Bush and Iraq

[SnakeEyes]

20. Ok, so they aren't identical...

Most situations aren't. It's still another war (call it a military conflict if you like) that we are involved in. It sucks. War sucks. Innocents are going to die because of our actions. I oppose this and so should you.

[Bodhi BloodWave]

21. and if the UN and the US were to ignore the matter

are you saying that most of DU wouldn't have been asking/talking about how people should do something to stop him from killing so many innocents?

Its a "screwed if you do, screwed if you don't" situation, if he does follow the un resolution like he is, he is accused of the whole war for oil, MIC getting fed and all that jazz. If he were to have stayed out of it, people here would have been complaining about how heartless Obama is and how the us government should be doing something to help all those people

[14thColony]

25. Bingo

If you're in a lose-lose situation, at least choose the route that saves the most lives. The "you can't make me happy no matter what crowd" is just that.

[SnakeEyes]

28. No.

Well some would but we cannot be the worlds police. If this is the justification then there are 50 other places we "should" be right now.

[Critters2]

22. Don't forget Poland!

:eyes:

[ProSense]

23. Even

rolling eyes can't help that make sense.

[Name removed]

29. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Keith Bee]

24. K & FUCKING R!

[Canuckistanian]

26. I don't recall seeing anybody who says it was

If anyone was paying attention, they'd see it was a UN operation all the way.

In fact, the US was reluctant to join, from what I saw. A refreshing change.

[amandabeech]

30. Unfortunately, it has come out this am in the talk shows via Adm. Mullen

that the U.S. is now leading the operation. There may be a hand-off later to a "coalition" leadership, but no definite date and not idea of who will be the military lead in any "coalition."

There have been B-2 (stealth bomber) strikes in Libya, in addition to the cruise missles. Eleven warships around.

The French have struck, unclear about the Brits, I don't know if you folks are operational yet.

The arabs are distancing themselves from this as fast as their big Mercedes can take them.

If you can access NBC on the net, I suggest that you take in the discussion on "Meet the Press." Pls. note the comments of Richard Haas (former national security advisor) and Jim Michaeszevski (totally misspelled due to laziness), long-time NBC foreign and Pentagon reporter.

[Canuckistanian]

31. French planes led the bombing

Sarkozy Puts France at Vanguard of West’s War Effort

PARIS — President Nicolas Sarkozy may be in down in the opinion polls, but he has put France boldly in the forefront of an allied effort to prevent the decimation of the opposition to Libya’s leader, Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi.

=snip

And more allied airplanes were converging on air bases in Italy. While Italy itself decided on Friday, after the Security Council vote, to cooperate fully in the coalition against Libya, not only providing bases and freezing Libyan assets, but also taking part with eight jet fighters of its own, said Maurizio Massari, the Foreign Ministry spokesman.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/21/world/europe/21france.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

Sure sounds like an international coalition to me.