Libya: Obama warns of military action

2011-03-18 20:49

Washington - US President Barack Obama on Friday warned of military action if Muammar Gaddafi refused to honor a tough UN resolution, saying world powers are concerned the Libyan leader would commit atrocities.

"Left unchecked, we have every reason to believe that Gaddafi would commit atrocities against his people," Obama said.

"Many thousands could die. A humanitarian crisis would ensue."

The US leader said he would deploy US forces to support a no-fly zone against Libya, but left uncertain the full scope of American military involvement in any action.

He made clear, however, that no US ground troops would be deployed in Libya and that US action would be based on the need to protect civilians.

Obama said that if Gaddafi failed to honor the UN Security Council resolution passed on Thursday he would face "consequences".

"These terms are not subject to negotiation. If Gaddafi does not comply with the resolution, the international community will impose consequences. The resolution will be enforced through military action."

  • slg - 2011-03-18 20:53

    Thankfully the US has learnt from Ruwanda and is taking action now, and not doing it alone

      Hans-Erik Iken - 2011-03-18 21:54

      This time the EU took the lead on this, and rightly so. Lets hope Gadaffi shows more common snese now then he has ever done before. If not he will find out the hard way that once NATO steps in they do it in force. But I am afraid he will try to be smarter then the world once again and unneccesary loss of life will follow.

  • Blerri - 2011-03-18 21:38

    Does USA really beleive in the protection of civilian lives?? OR is this only applicable to its known enemies?? What about its friends that kill innocent civilians and bomb cities?? So I guess they use the VETO when their friends kill aliens?? Don't get me wrong , Gadaffi should be removed, but apply the rule to ALL.

      Hans-Erik Iken - 2011-03-18 21:56

      I see your point and cannot say you are totally wrong there. The USA does believe in human rights and the protection of innocent civilians, but they will only enforce it militarily on those that are not their buddies. That is fair criticism. Then again that goes for ALL nations, doesn't it? When last did China enforce human rights issues in North Korea or Zimbabwe?

  • Supporter1 - 2011-03-18 21:43

    Great for human rights. If there was no OIL though the US would'nt give a d@mn.

      Hans-Erik Iken - 2011-03-18 22:00

      Not true. This time the USA only folllowed the lead taken by the EU and specifically France on this one. And the majority of the oil from Libya goes to the EU and specifically Italy who have remained on the sideline here. Not everything is about oil. The EU could have turned away and let Gadaffi handle this. They would still get the oil they were getting before.

  • Heinz - 2011-03-18 22:01

    leave that whole issue about Oil out for a change.... at least the US is Go Obama.... you are my hero....

  • Justin - 2011-03-18 22:14

    I wouldn't be supprised if Saudi Arabia took the lead...

  • Blip - 2011-03-18 22:20

    I'd call Obama's bluff if I were Gaddafi. Obama's only a talker, not a doer.

      Hans-Erik Iken - 2011-03-18 22:56

      That would be a big mistake that I personally would love to see Gadaffi make. You seem to think Obama is the one that calls the shots here. He doesn't. The lead in this will lie with the EU part of the NATO forces, as will the lionshare of military material and personnel. Also I think you underestimate Obama's resolve, but that is another matter.

      Juan - 2011-03-19 16:58

      Well I think that would be a big mistake on Gidaffis part. The UN has already issued the orders. Obama doesn't have to do anything, but the armed forces will.

  • Blerri - 2011-03-18 22:27

    @ Heinz & Hans-Erik Iken Why can't OIL be an issue. With the curent oil price, the world economy is definitely affected. So whether oil come from Zim or Robben Island the price is still extremely high, and with the world economy being in a mess, the current OIL price makes it worse. So get Gadadafi out the oil price might get lower.

      Hans-Erik Iken - 2011-03-18 22:37

      It doesn't work like that. First of all as much oil as Libya produces it is a drop in the ocean compared to the worldproduction. Secondly Gadaffi doesn't set the prices, the world market does. If Gadaffi was overpricing he would not have sold any. OPEC combined can try to set prices but they haven't been able to agree on many things at all lately. Also the oilprice is actually not that high compared to two years ago. Shortly after the economic crisis hit the oilprice dropped like a stone and forced OPEC to reduce production to artificially increase the price to keep their income at a decent level. Check the prices for the last few years and you will see what I mean.

      Blerri - 2011-03-18 22:55

      Whatever happens in Labiya effects the oil price , so whether they are currently producing 10 or 1 million barrels a day the market will react. And the market will react mainly out of fear that the oil supply will be affected. There will be a less barrels of oil on the market

      Hans-Erik Iken - 2011-03-18 23:01

      So it would be in the interest of the EU and USA if this ended quickly and decisively is what you are saying. If that was the case then they should let Gadaffi do his thing, kill all the rebels and get the production back on track. That would be the fastes way to go back to the old status quo. So why on earth would they want to prolong the uncertainty if that was the issue? Because this resolution will not help to bring this to an end faster.

      Blerri - 2011-03-18 23:09

      Its a case of killing two birds with one stone. IE get rid of Gaddafi and stabilise the oil price. And this would as you say " end it quickly and decisively" in order to stabilise the price and ensure the flow of oil..

      Hans-Erik Iken - 2011-03-18 23:43

      That is the thing. This will NOT ensure that it ends quickly and decisively. This is going to be the start of a long process with uncertain outcome. TO get rid of Gadaffi is easy militarily. The hard part will be to deal with teh aftermath, the political solution for Libya. That will be up to the Libyans themselves and therefor uncertain. If anything this process will keep the markets uncertain about the way Libya will go. But at least it will be the choice of the libyan people and not that of the lunatic that kept them in chains all those years. And that is what this is all about. Idealist it may be, but unavoidable considering the things that have happened in the neighbouring countries. In the end democracy always had a friend in the west and the west always had a friend in democracy.

      Blerri - 2011-03-19 00:16

      I am with you on pro-democracy and anti-Gaddafi, but will they not create another Iraq by "invading?? Should the Libyan people not fight for their own freedom as has many other countries where there was oppression (incl South Africa) and no one "invaded?? As for the vacuum that will be created by Gaddafi's removal, I guess America will do as they did in Iraq,- Put a General in charge until such time that they decide the people are ready to "rule" OR should I say their puppet is ready to rule.. As for the west being a friend of democracy...I think it depends on who is voted into power by the people.Do you think that the west will accept a goverment in any of these middle eastern countries that is pro Iran?

  • Goldenk9 - 2011-03-18 22:30

    How about a no-arrest Zone in Zimbabwe....? Lol

  • Simon Botes - 2011-03-18 22:36

    This whole issue has nothing to do with protecting civilians. Libya last year produced 44.2 BILLION barrels of oil. The oil price is roughly $110 per barrel. Need I say any more?

      Hans-Erik Iken - 2011-03-18 22:53

      Please do enlighten us. All of that Libyan oil was sold to the EU and others at the worldmarketprice. That will not change because a regime change. The oil will still be sold on the worldmarket at the going rate. If anything this might have caused a slight increase in the price. So where do you think the advantage lies for the world?

  • Jakob - 2011-03-19 10:24

    can some nazi mofo just gunn down this obama... get ur own oil nigga

      catherine burrows - 2011-03-22 01:00

      jakob, turn upside down, there's a possibility that the bit of brain stuck in your ass might start working

  • maoba - 2011-03-19 13:56

    Shut your stinking unpopular mouth mr obama

  • catherine burrows - 2011-03-22 01:11

    seems to me that it is a requirement for every U.S. President to go to war. This is Obamas war.

  • nadia s - 2011-03-22 10:49

    The only reason the US is getting involved is because of the oil. They are a bunch of hypocrites. Im all for getting Gaddafi out but America doesnt get involved unless its in their own interests and their interest is in the oil. So please dont clap your hands just yet. Their are other countries in the world that are dying because of conflict and america does nothing. But let that country have oil then america is in like a shot. they make me sick.

  • pages:
  • 1