NATO is violating the UNSC resolution 1973 in Libya

Thanks for your rebuttal.I had stated in introduction that in this debate - both the sides share burden of proof. I had expected my opponent to show how NATO forces are supporting the resolution. How their main focus is on upholding what the resolution asks them to do. However my opponent has not presented his own arguments at all. So all that the voters have to decide now is whether I win - or it is a tie. No one should vote for my opponent in any case.==Rebuttals of rebuttals ==RR1) Unsound Justification: RR1.1) My point was that African Union had not asked for military action in Libya. This is important because the UNSC resolution assumes their support.RR1.2) It is interesting to note that my opponent has not provided a ling to the article by Fareed Zakaria. Perhaps because in the article the author has freely discussed what kind of excuses USA should look for before interfering in other countries and extend US domination.RR1.3) In the first round I had promised to show that (1) NATO has violated letter and spirit of resolution and (2)there was no intention to follow them in the first place. To understand this, we need to know the basis on which the resolution was passed. The background of the resolution is valid to this debate.RR2) Abstaining countries and their reservations: Extend the earlier points. Also consider RR1.3RR3) Nigerian + South African Hesitance: Extend the earlier points. Also consider RR1.3There are two point #4. I acknowledge and apologise for the mistake.RR4) Iran's opposition: My opponent has not addressed this argument. Extend the arguments.RR5) Supporting armed rebels:RR5.1) I never said that NATO has armed the rebels with weapons. However they are assisting the armed rebels in their fight through their bombing campaigns over Libyan forces. This is direct involvement in the civil war.RR5.2) The invasion is going on under NATO banner. They are responsible for what the member countries do.RR5.3) First UK has already supplied the body armors[1]. Second, body armor will be used by rebels to fight against Qaddafi. It is not used to protect civilians. Moreover Britain is already having a team in Libya which is being expanded. Thus it is a violation of the resolution. And last - I had mentioned I am free to talk about decisions taken before the debate started - even if they have not been implemented yet.R6) No massacre by Libya: You have to explain as to what is so special about Qaddafi's actions compared tp what is going on in other countries like Bahrain or Syria. Moreover - America itself has been earlier guilty of killing large number of civilians[2]. The NATO never bothers with Israel and its actions.R7) Carnage by rebels: Are you trying to defend a massacre. An eye witness said:"We had 70-80 people from Chad working for our company. They were cut dead with pruning shears and axes, attackers saying: 'You are providing troops for Gaddafi.' The Sudanese were also massacred. We saw it for ourselves."They killed these people in cold blood because several people from their country are fighting for Qaddafi! I am not accusing NATO of killing these people. (NATO does not uses crude techniques like shears and axes. It uses fancy aeorplanes with bunker-buster bombs). However the NATO is supposed to protect civilians in Libya. So why is it helping rebels rather than enforcing a cease-fire.RR8) Collateral Damage: There have been several charges of collateral damage by Libya (of course denied by NATO). We are not in a position to verify it yet. However, given the NATO record, I think that collateral damage is quite likely to be high.Also I think collateral damage in a mission to protect civilians is quite relevant.RR9) Drones:RR9.1) Drones are already being used[3].R9.2 + R9.3) Your attempt to defend drones as accurate sounds silly. We had Hamid Karzai, Afghan President and American stooge, publicly wept on meeting victims of drone attacks[4]. Amnesty International considers use of drones as unlawful.RR9.4) The link you provided about accuracy of drone talks about some device (locally known as pathri) which NATO supplies to their moles to plant in the houses where drone attack has to take place. An intelligence officer reports:"People are sleeping outside the houses, in case somebody has thrown this pathri inside. It's created fear in the area."RR10) Regime change: Obama, Sarkozy and Cameroon issued a joint statement. A report said:"Gaddafi must ‘go and go for good’ before rebuilding of the country could begin", they said, rejecting calls for an immediate ceasefire.If these gentlemen are dedicated to protecting civilians - why did they reject ceasefire? They are not trying to change regime so as to protect civilians. They are trying to change regime by endangering civilians.RR11) No #11. It was my mistake in numbering. I apologise.RR12) Qadaffi palace attack: Assuming Qadaffi had heavy weapons and troops in his compound - was it endangering civilians? Liam Fox has insisted that assassination of Qadaffi is 'potentially a possibility'.RR13) Rebel rejection of peace offer: Understood that rebels don't want Qadaffi. However if they do accept Qadaffi - we will have peace. Question is why are NATO countries not putting pressure on rebels to negotiate? Is killing Qadaffi the only acceptable way to peace for NATO? Is it mentioned anywhere in UNSC resolution?RR14) Unease: While curbing revolutions in their own countries - Arab states do not have much locus standi to comment on Libya. I notice that you have conceded the point about African Union.The oil import: You are correct that Libya does not export oils to America. This does not mean they are not having oil. It is having the largest oil reserve in Africa[6]I look forward to further respose from my bluesteel.[1]http://www.hindu.com...[2]http://www.timesonline.co.uk...[3]http://www.thisdaylive.com...[4]http://www.nytimes.com...[5]http://www.eutimes.net...[6]http://en.wikipedia.org...