World leaders slam West war in Libya
rebel1916: Leaders of the BRICS group, the world's five major emerging powers, have criticized the West for waging a war on Libya, which has caused civilian casualties in the North African state.
In their summit meeting in southern China, the leaders of Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa unanimously condemned the Libya bombings, AFP reported Thursday.
The group rejected the use of force in the Middle East and North Africa in a draft statement.
"We share the principle that the use of force should be avoided. We maintain that the independence, sovereignty, unity and territorial integrity of each nation should be respected," the countries which represent more than 40 percent of the world's population said in the statement.
They also expressed concern that the NATO-led campaign on crisis-hit Libya is causing civilian casualties.
The leaders of BRICS nations said their joint presence on the UN Security Council in 2011 offered an opportunity to work together on Libya.
"We are of the view that all the parties should resolve their differences through peaceful means and dialogue in which the UN and regional organizations should as appropriate play their role," the statement read.
Chinese President Hu Jintao chaired the morning talks in the southern China resort city of Sanya with South Africa's Jacob Zuma, Brazil's Dilma Rouseff, Russia's Dmitry Medvedev, and Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh.
Western warplanes began their air assaults on Libya last month. Thousands of civilians have been killed in the NATO-led campaign.
South Africa was one of the countries that voted in favor of the UN Security Council resolution authorizing the airstrikes.
However, after visiting Tripoli on Sunday, South African President Jacob Zuma called on NATO to stop the attacks which have claimed the lives of hundreds of civilians in the past weeks.
Animal Lover: It's not these countries who are liable to get the influx of immigrants from Libya, is it? Easier to hop over the Med than cross the Atlantic Ocean!
FogofWar: "Leaders of the BRICS group, the world's five major emerging powers, have criticized the West for waging a war on Libya, which has caused civilian casualties in the North African state."
BRIC stands for Brazil, Russia, India, and China.
Russia has been sending military aircraft and naval forces into Canadian airspace and northern land rich in resources in an attempt to annex them.
Just a few months ago; CF18s from CFB Baggotville in Quebec, Canada; were scrambled to intercept Russian Tupolev bombers over Canada.
India has been exposed killing civilians due to religious and cultural differences.
China shoots civilians for using drugs; having children, and pretty much anything else that the "People's" government does not approve of the people doing.
This is really who you use to show opposition to the West's presence in enforcing a no fly zone in a nation that has deployed their Air Force to bomb civilians for opposing them??? Wow!
"Leaders of the BRICS group, the world's five major emerging powers, have criticized the West for waging a war on Libya, which has caused civilian casualties in the North African state."
And there sure wasn't civilian casualties in Libya while Gaddafi was shooting to death civilians; and dropping bombs on them huh?
"The group rejected the use of force in the Middle East and North Africa in a draft statement."
Which may also have included their desire to invest in the oil in the Middle East that the US hasn't already; as China is losing several investments elsewhere; and could not get a bid in the Canadian tarsands like they so desperately tried.
"We share the principle that the use of force should be avoided."
Which is why we are there imposing a no fly zone that ended the use of force on civilians by Gaddafi's forces.
"We maintain that the independence, sovereignty, unity and territorial integrity of each nation should be respected,"
Yet the territorial integrity is being bombed by a militant leader that opposes the public of the sovereign, which is dependent on those who have the means of dealing with a military.
How can this be respected by allowing civilians to be bombed by their government?
"They also expressed concern that the NATO-led campaign on crisis-hit Libya is causing civilian casualties."
As many of the fighters involved are in fact civilian; this is no wonder. If we take away a military forces advantage over the public that wants to remove them; they will probably clash hey?
"The leaders of BRICS nations said their joint presence on the UN Security Council in 2011 offered an opportunity to work together on Libya."
…so long as we did what was best for them and not for the people of Libya.
""We are of the view that all the parties should resolve their differences through peaceful means and dialogue in which the UN and regional organizations should as appropriate play their role," the statement read."
Just like the UN appropriately played their role in Rwanda? This is what we want to repeat???
If they are of the view that ALL parties should resolve their differences through peaceful means; then why are they asking us to allow Gaddafi forces to continue mass murdering civilians?
FogofWar: I guess the Iranian press didn't have any further comments for Rebel to repeat. Here I was hoping for an actual intelligent response. I guess that is my fault.
Your family must have been the members of the IRA that Iran was trying to fund hey Rebel?
FogofWar: Yes; because the Iranian government's media source sure won't up play it.
And of course Russia and China are just looking out for the best interest of the civilians...that's why they want NATO to not save their lives.
Comrade_: oh the war was to save civilians? ah darn...somewhere along the way I missed that.
A great leap of pride is before a fall..was that the proper saying?
FogofWar: What war? We imposed a no fly zone to prevent a militant dictator for using his air force to bomb civilians. Our (Canada) navy was deployed there long before the no fly zone that the UN mandated (of which both China and Russia hold permanent seats on the council.....hmmm) to rescue Canadian oilworkers who were caught in towns under fire. The objective was in fact; to save the lives of civilians.
Oppose for the sake of opposing caveman; it doesn't justify slamming the world for taking action. What have you done for the people of Libya?
Comrade_: You're not aware of the War?
I'll hold my tongue. But tell me how do you plan to save the civilians? (using YOU, since you insinuated that 'I' do nothing for the people of Libya, it's fitting to say YOU do something for them).
FogofWar: No, I am not aware of a war in Libya; not from our perspective. I have been in the field until a few days ago training for deployment.
Funny; there is no mention anywhere of a formal declaration of war from us; and that would mean that it is NOT a war. Please provide evidence of such a formal declaration; as there is no mention of it on the official military's website for Canada. Guess we aren't in an actual war; just a UN resolution 1973; no fly zone.
Unfortunately; I cannot save civilians in Libya; as too many crybabies are calling our government's bloodthirsty oil seeking murderers to let us do our job.
How would you plan on stopping a murderous tyrant like Gaddafi from murdering his public by sitting back and not doing anything? Are you seriously that naive? You would even ask such a question?
The Canadian Forces webpage on Canada's current military involvement in Libya.
Comrade_: Fog one thing I've learned from wire, and it's to leave the ignorant in their state of ignorance so stay there and await attention...maybe you'll find it soon?
xanderiley: Important fashion and discussion tip Caveman; arrogance doesn't look good on anybody, and it's the wrong way to engage people.
Comrade_: I'm not being arrogant, if I was arrogant I'd go off to list a full set of youtube videos or point out to Fog that maybe they're having a Tea party and not a war. No, instead I just bite my tongue and walk away. Why should I go down into an e-battle? Everyone knows that there is a war...atleast I thought so.
FogofWar: You obviously thought wrong. It is a civil war among rebel forces in Libya; it is not a war for us. It is a UN resolution; no fly zone; that falls under Operations Other Than War (OOTW); just like Afghanistan. In order for us to be in a war; there must be a formal declaration of war by the president/prime minister of said nation. So please provide a link to the footage of any NATO leader declaring war.
The War Powers Act ends today. Any further combat by US forces must be approved for funding by the Congress.
Comrade_: Don't be a p%^@^ call it what it is. A 'no fly zone' means war, it is a military action. You think that a 'no fly zone' will be all to it? ah that's the trouble with running head first into something. Are you aware that the US president was suppose to get permission of a declaration of war? That what you're seeking & using as some debate is really the present issue? or didn't Canada get that memo? Maybe you're comfortable playing blind to it all. But settle down you'll see things clearer eventually.
FogofWar: War is an openly declared act of conflict.
"A 'no fly zone' means war"
Does a no fly zone require troops on the ground? How can it be a war without infantry units? You want to call it a war; then go ahead; you're dead wrong.
"it is a military action"
Yes, and filling sandbags in Manitoba like many of my fellow troops are at the moment, to divert floodwater is also military action; yet this is hardly an act of war now is it?
"Are you aware that the US president was suppose to get permission of a declaration of war?"
You are aware that the last time such a declaration was made was WWII right?
So to reiterate, a No Fly Zone is just that; a zone in which no military aerial vehicles are permitted by a specified force. Just like a demilitarized zone on the ground prevents troops from entering; a No Fly Zone prevents military aircraft from entering.
A Naval blockade is just that; blocking a passage with a naval force.
Neither a No Fly Zone, nor a Naval blockade is an act of war (formally declared conflict); but rather an act of warfare.
It is not classified as a war until time in which such a formal declaration is made. Until then; it is a military action classified as "Operations Other Than War".
So now that we have clarified this is not a war; but a military intervention using the form of warfare; are you trying to say that we should not stop Gaddafi's forces from dropping bombs on civilians?
Are you trying to imply that it would be more humane and "just" for us to allow him to fly in these zones and kill?
A blockade is defined by the Encyclopedia Britannica as "an act of war” by which a belligerent prevents access to or departure from a defined part of the enemy’s coasts."
Source: Britannica Encyclopedia
There are also references that a "blockade of airspace" is one and the same as a maritime blockade. They both have the same effect and both are considered an act of war.
FogofWar: War is legally defined as a "formally declared" military conflict. Regardless of what Britannica says; it does not change the legal definition of war. Call it an act of war all you want; it doesn't make it war.
So...The Korean War was not a war...The Viet Nam War was not a war...The 1948, 1967, and 1973 Israeli / Arab Wars were not wars either. Come on...you're splitting hairs.
war - armed fighting between groups: a period of hostile relations between countries, states, or factions that leads to fighting between armed forces, especially in land, air, or sea battles
Encarta World English Dictionary
The word declaration does not appear here.