Tuesday, March 22, 2011
Protecting civilians
In Libya, a U.S. jet crashed. To save the pilots, the U.S. bombed one group of people on the ground (casualties unknown), and shot six more (who, by the way, were "rebels," the people the U.S. is supposedly protecting).
Meanwhile, massive bombing continues in Tripoli, including at Gaddafi's headquarters and in the port. Considering that this mission is supposedly about "protecting civilians" who are in the eastern part of the country, and establishing a "no-fly" zone to prevent harm to them, why is bombing needed in Tripoli? Was Gaddafi planning to bomb Tripoli so that the U.S. needs to establish a no-fly zone over that city? Do anti-aircraft guns in Tripoli reach as far as Benghazi? (Yes, these are rhetorical questions).
Meanwhile, eight more civilians were killed by another government, civilians who don't have the protection of a no-fly zone, or U.N. Security Council resolutions, or ICC indictments being issued against the perpetrators of their murders. Of course these eight were Palestinians in Gaza.
By the way, another question about Libya. For years we've been hearing from right-wingers about how the U.S. is surrendering its sovereignty to the "one-world government" of the U.N. Now the U.S. has gone to war, not in response to a Congressional declaration, but in response to a U.N. Security Council resolution. With the exception of a tiny handful of people (e.g., Rand Paul), where are all the right-wingers ranting about the U.N. now? (By the way, I don't really think the U.S. surrendered its sovereignty to the U.N. on this issue, it's actually the other way around as it has been for decades - the U.N. Security Council is actually a tool of the interests of the U.S. and its allies).
