NATO is violating the UNSC resolution 1973 in Libya

Thanks for accepting this challenge. I accept your rejoinder that we will limit ourselves to events which have taken place prior to my posting of the debate (or your acceptance). I may talk about decisions that had been taken and announced earlier - but not yet implemented.UNSC resolution 1973 was passed on 17th march 2011 against Libya Arab Jamahiriya (called Libya from here), 'to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack'[1].I will show that the subsequent armed interference by NATO forces (Led by US), flouts the words and spirit of the aforesaid resolution. Further, I will argue that the excesses are not by accident or mistake - rather the way the resolution was pushed indicates that there was no intention to obey it in first place.I will try to be brief with each argument - as I have lots of ground to cover.1. Unsound justification: The is justified on the basis of calls by African Union and Arab League. However African union had not given any call for military action[2]! The locus standi of Arab League to comment on Libya is suspect. Even then they had restricted themselves to a request for a 'no-fly zone'[3].2. Five member country abstained from resolution (Brazil, India, China, Russia and Germany)[1]. India mentioned its apprehension that the resolution was 'based on very little clear information' and insisted 'Political efforts must be the priority in resolving the situation'. As per Russia the resolution 'was not in keeping with Security Council practice'[1]. Former president Putin described the attacks as 'crusade'.3. South African and Nigerian hesitance: The two members from Africa voted for resolution. However later at BRICS summit (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa), the South African envoy acknowledged that they had done so under immense diplomatic pressure. Nigeria has decided to go along with South Africa[4]. Later president Jacob Zuma openly asked for halt to the air strike when he visited Tripoli.[5]4. Iran's opposition: Iran has been traditional rival of Qaddafi. However in this case, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, President of Iran commented[6]:“Whenever it is appropriate, the U.S. and its allies stand with despotic rulers and when necessary they sacrifice them to ensure their own interests,”4. Attack on Libya within few hours of the resolution[7]: NATO was ready for the attack even before the resolution was discussed. It was just waiting for rubber stamp to start bombing.5. Supporting armed rebels: The resolution asked everyone to 'protect civilians'[1]. Rather NATO forces have interpreted it to mean 'assist armed rebels'[8] . Had this been the intent of UNSC resolution, it would have talked about taking part in civil war rather than protecting civilians.6. No massacre by Libya: There have been no clear report of any massacre of civilians anywhere by Libyan armed forces. There were reports of violent suppression of protest - but that has been going on in several countries in the region. There were some reports [9] which can be seen as 'inspired' by anyone in the post-WMD era.7. Carnage by rebels: In a BBC report, there was news about 60 civilians from Chad being murdered in cold blood by the rebels.[10]8. Collateral Damage: There are several reports of several collateral damage due to attacks by NATO troops. As one unnamed diplomat wryly put it[11]:"Air strikes, bombing and cruise missiles are not aimed at protecting civilians but to destroy military targets, which inevitably leads to civilian deaths. As in Afghanistan and Iraq, the West will put civilian deaths under the category of collateral damage. This in effect means the right to kill citizens of the Third World in order to protect them"9. Drones: Obama has authorised the use of drones in Libya[12]. Drones are notorious for causing large number of civilian deaths[13].10. Regime change: Several NATO countries have insisted that they want a regime change in Libya[14]. Nothing like that has been mentioned in UNSC resolution. Former Russian President Putin termed it as 'an intervention in a sovereign state' [15] 12. Attack on palace of Qaddafi: Initially David Cameroon stated that killing Qaddafi is not the objective of the mission[16]. However a few days later attacks were launched on the official palace of Qaddafi in Tripoli[17].13. Rejection of peace efforts: Backed by NATO, it is the rebels who have rejected the peace efforts made by Hugo Chavez[18] and African union[19].14. Unease in Arab League and African Union: Once the attacks began, Arab League, Secretery General Amr Moussa[20] said"What has happened in Libya differs from the goal of imposing a no-fly zone and what we want is the protection of civilians and not bombing other civilians," The African Union has also condemned the invasion[21].The uprising in Libya started as a genuine people's movement. But unlike in other Arab countries - it turned quickly into an armed rebellion and then descended into a chaotic civil war. The NATO countries, led by enthusiastic England, France and USA - quickly manufactured a UNSC resolution to dive into it - probably eying future oil contracts.What is most remarkable is - ever since the NATO invasion - there has been no protests against Muammar Qaddafi!I look forward to my opponents arguments.[1] http://www.un.org...[2]http://www.au.int...[3] http://www.telegraph.co.uk...[4] http://www.hindu.com...[5] http://www.guardian.co.uk...[6] http://www.france24.com...[7] http://news.antiwar.com...[8] http://www.dailymail.co.uk...[9] http://today.msnbc.msn.com...[10] http://www.bbc.co.uk...[11] http://www.hinduonnet.com...;[12] http://www.globalnews.ca...[13] http://uniorb.com...[14] http://www.dailymail.co.uk...[15] http://english.pravda.ru...[16] http://www.bbc.co.uk...[17] http://www.timesnow.tv...[18] http://www.guardian.co.uk...[19] http://in.reuters.com...[20] http://www.france24.com...[21] http://www.telegraph.co.uk...