US sending more warships to Mediterranean

A US CH-43 helicopter lands on the USS Bataan
© AFP/File Patrick Baz

AFP

WASHINGTON (AFP) - The United States is deploying additional warships to the Mediterranean to support possible United Nations-approved military action in Libya, the US Navy said Friday.

The USS Bataan, a helicopter-carrying amphibious assault ship, and two other vessels were deployed ahead of schedule, the navy said after the UN Security Council approved action to stop Libyan leader Moamer Kadhafi's offensive against rebels.

The Bataan will relieve the amphibious assault ship USS Kearsarge and the transport docking ship USS Ponce, which have been in the Mediterranean for several weeks.
The Bataan has a fleet of helicopters and medical facilities that can be used to treat injured military forces or for humanitarian missions. The ship has six operating rooms and hospital facilities for up to 600 patients.

It is scheduled to depart from the state of Virginia on Wednesday along with the Mesa Verde, a transport dock ship, and the USS Whidbey Island, a dock landing ship.

The ships will carry hundreds of US Marines, a team of surgeons and a helicopter sea combat squadron, the Navy said.

The UN Security Council on Thursday voted to permit "all necessary measures" to establish a no-fly zone, protect civilian areas and impose a ceasefire on Kadhafi's military.

The US also has the USS Barry and the USS Stout, both destroyers with missile-launching capabilities, in the Mediterranean.

The aircraft carrier USS Enterprise, with its 80 jets and helicopters, had been in the Red Sea with its escort ships in recent days, but is now in the Arabian Sea, a US defense official told AFP.

On Friday, US President Barack Obama warned of military action if Kadhafi refused to honor the UN resolution, saying world powers are concerned the Libyan leader would commit atrocities.

Obama 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.

© AFP -- Published at Activist Post with license

Related Articles:

Can The Law Treat A Blogger Differently Than A Print ...

US lawmaker probing Islam is new 'McCarthy': groups

Cables show China used debt holdings to press US

Large Hadron Collider could be world’s first time machine

UK public sector workers could see their 'gold-plated' ...

LinkWithin

Enter your email address to subscribe to our newsletter:


Delivered by FeedBurner

US Makes War on Another Muslim Country With Oil

Carlos Latuff/Deviant Art

Lew Rockwell

Following the US-lobbied UN authorization of military murder in Libya, the death-dealing regime of Colonel Gaddafi said immediately that it would stop all killing. That put Obama’s war on hold, for a little while. The crazy Colonel has learned a thing or two about American foreign policy. If you pretend to favor the stated goals of the empire and comply with its stated dictates, you can otherwise do what every government in the world is structured to do: stay in power at all costs.

Gaddafi learned this lesson about a decade ago, when, with much fanfare, he announced that he would stop his nuclear weapons program and join the war on terror. The US then decided to rank him and his regime among the world’s good guys, and proceeded to hold him up as an example of wise statesmanship. Then he proceeded to dig in more deeply and tighten his despotic control over his citizens, all with the implied blessing of the US.

But this time it may not work. For weeks, American officials have been decrying Gaddafi’s bloody attacks on his people, but does the US really have a problem with dictatorship of his sort? This fact is unknown to Americans, but in the Middle East, and in Arab nations in particular, American commercial interests are regarded as a force for liberation but not the US government. The US has been the key to the power of Middle East dictatorships for decades, among which are Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Yemen. I leave aside the killing of hundreds of thousands of Iaqi civilians to liberate them.

Read Full Article

RELATED ARTICLE:

Obama Threatens Kadhafi with Military Action

RELATED VIDEO:

Ron Paul: Libya No-Fly Zone is an Act of War

Enter your email address to subscribe to our newsletter:


Delivered by FeedBurner

Obama warns of military action against Kadhafi

© AFP Mandel Ngan

AFP

WASHINGTON (AFP) - President Barack Obama Friday threatened Moamer Kadhafi with military action unless he met specific, "non-negotiable" demands for a ceasefire, a halt to attacks on civilians and a retreat from rebel strongholds.

Obama said the world could not stand by because, if left unchecked, Kadhafi would commit atrocities in which thousands could die, adding that the Libyan strongman had been given "ample warning" to change his behavior.

But Obama left unclear the exact role that Washington would play in military action against Libya, beyond enabling its European and Arab partners to "effectively" mount a no-fly zone to protect civilians.
He made clear, however, that there would be no US ground troops deployed to Libya, and repeatedly stressed that Washington would not act alone.

"The United States is prepared to act as part of an international coalition. American leadership is essential, but that does not mean acting alone.

"It means shaping the conditions for the international community to act together."


"Our goal is focused, our cause is just, and our coalition is strong."

Obama said that if Kadhafi failed to honor the UN Security Council resolution passed Thursday, demanding a complete ceasefire among other requirements, he would face "consequences."

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

"Left unchecked, we have every reason to believe that Kadhafi would commit atrocities against his people," Obama said. "Many thousands could die. A humanitarian crisis would ensue."

Obama also laid down new and specific, conditions for Kadhafi, saying he must pull immediately halt his advance on the key rebel town of Benghazi and pull back from three other rebel contested cities, or face military action.

"That means all attacks against civilians must stop," Obama said.

"Kadhafi must stop his troops from advancing on Benghazi, pull them back from Ajdabiya, Misrata and Zawiyah and establish water, electricity and gas supplies to all areas," Obama said.

Additionally, Obama said Kadhafi must allow humanitarian aid to reach the country's people.

He said that he would also send Secretary of State Hillary Clinton back to Europe to attend a major summit in Paris on Libya on Saturday, which includes the leaders of France, Britain and Germany as well as Arab allies.

© AFP -- Published at Activist Post with license

Related Articles:

US examining 'full range of options' on Libya

Obama steers clear of 'doctrine' as Arab tumult rages

Libya no-fly zone would require bombing raids: US

US planners mull military options in Libya: report

Is Obama Even Worse Than Bush?

LinkWithin

Enter your email address to subscribe to our newsletter:


Delivered by FeedBurner

Another Illegal War Of Slaughter Couched In “Humanitarian” Doublespeak

International Community Responds to Fukushima Crisis – By Bombing Libya

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet

Those who were asking what the “international community” planned to do in response to the escalating global crisis surrounding the nuclear plant in Fukushima now have their answer – bomb Libya. As if the world wasn’t experiencing enough turmoil and devastation, another illegal war of aggression has been launched in a volatile region, couched in the retching Orwellian doublespeak of ‘no fly zones’ and ‘humanitarian’ rhetoric.



Colonel Gaddafi’s announcement of a cease fire today will probably do little to abate the clear plan of military conquest for which Libya has been targeted by the globalists.

What’s particularly odious about the whole disgusting spectacle is the sight of the neo-liberal left, the same people who vigorously opposed the occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq, acting as cheerleaders for a war sold on the justification of Gaddafi’s actions over the course of the last month, completely oblivious to the fact that the US military-industrial complex has been trying to oust Gaddafi for the best part of three decades.

Read Full Article

RELATED VIDEO:
Ron Paul: Libya No-Fly Zone is An Act of War

Enter your email address to subscribe to our newsletter:


Delivered by FeedBurner

Ron Paul: Libya No-Fly Zone is Act of War (Video)

Youtube

Enter your email address to subscribe to our newsletter:


Delivered by FeedBurner

Ron Paul: Stop the Illegal, Immoral, Unconstitutional Afghan War (Video)

Youtube

Enter your email address to subscribe to our newsletter:


Delivered by FeedBurner

Is Obama Even Worse Than Bush?

David Swanson

When I advocated the impeachment of George W. Bush, I did so despite, not because of, all the animosity it fueled among impeachment supporters. I didn't want retribution. I wanted to deter the continuation and repetition of Bush's crimes and abuses. Specifically, and by far most importantly -- and I said this thousands of times -- I wanted to deny all future presidents the powers Bush had grabbed. One-time abuses can be catastrophic, but establishing the power to repeat them can multiply the damage many fold, especially when one of the powers claimed is the power to create new powers.

There's a common tendency to confuse politics with reality television shows or to imagine that politicians are, even more than fictional heroes, your own personal friends. This tendency is only compounded by the partisan framework in which we are instructed to imagine half the politicians as purely evil and the other half as essentially good. So, let's be clear. There's very little question that Barack Obama speaks more eloquently than Bush, and that Obama at times (and more so as a candidate than as a president) expresses far kinder and wiser sentiments than Bush. It seems quite likely to me that had Obama been made president in 2000 he would have done far less damage than Bush by 2008. Obama is probably a fun guy to play basketball with, while Bush might be expected to throw elbows, kick opponents, and pull your shorts down. But I'm interested in something more important than the spectacle of personality here. I think Obama would make a wonderful powerless figurehead, and I dearly wish that were what he was. I think Americans clearly need one.

Three rough ways of looking at a president might be as follows. First, in the unimaginable circumstance in which a president encountered a homeless person on the street, would he invite him to live in the White House, or help him find a home, be nice and give him $1, ignore him, shout at him to get a job, kick him in the guts, or help him into a van and take him off to be tortured? I don't care about that way of looking at presidents. Second, do the policies the president pursues lead to massive numbers of people becoming homeless or worse? Third, do the policies the president pursues empower all future presidents to make unfathomable numbers of people suffer horribly? My contention is that Obama has not yet done as much damage as Bush in the second view but has, in a certain sense, done worse in the third view.

Read Full Article

RELATED:
Obama: Torturer-in-Chief


Enter your email address to subscribe to our newsletter:


Delivered by FeedBurner