NATO is violating the UNSC resolution 1973 in Libya

Thanks Baggins ==Rebuttal== R1) Unsound justification 1. The African Union asked for intervention in the Ivory Coast, not Libya. My opponent must just be confused here. 2. According to Fareed Zakaria, it is impressive that the Arab League, a group known mostly for championing the Palestinian cause, would ask for Western intervention at all. 3. The motives for creating the resolution are irrelevant when the debate is about whether the letter of the resolution was violated. R2) Five Member Countries Abstained Again, this is irrelevant to the question of whether the UN resolution has been violated. If we were debating about whether the President violated House Resolution 1786, it wouldn't matter that some Congressmen abstained from voting for it. How the resolution passed is irrelevant. R3) Nigerian hesitance Again, irrelevant. We don't care how the resolution passed for this debate, just whether it has been violated. R4) Ready before it passed Again, irrelevant. Had the resolution not passed, the order would have been given for those forces to stand down. R5) Supporting armed rebels 1. No evidence is provided that NATO has given arms to rebel groups. It is being debated in some countries, but has not yet been implemented. My opponent has agreed he must prove that the UN Resolution has already been violated. 2. NATO is also the political alliance itself, with its own command structure. If France does end up providing weapons to Libyan rebels, it's not NATO doing this. The United Nations did not attack Iraq, even though the US and UK are member countries. In the same way, individual sovereign action is not NATO action. 3. The source provided here specifically says the UK WILL provide body armor. Firstly, body armor is not a weapon, it is protective gear. Second, the UK hasn't done it yet. R6) No massacre by Libya This is pretty silly; there's overwhelming evidence that Gaddafi attacked civilians. Even though they are banned by international law, Gaddafi used cluster bombs against civilian populations. [1] In Misrata, civilians report that they were sleeping quietly in their homes when the bombings started. This goes beyond shooting protesters; there is a clear difference between bullets and cluster bombs. In one incident, when rebel forces were routed in Misrata, Gaddafi forces entered the city and started firing on civilians, using heavy machinery like tanks, and even destroyed three ambulances that tried to save the wounded. [2] This is the main justification for arming rebels – that when Gaddafi forces break through, they murder civilians. It's also the main justification for destroying tanks and heavy weapons – because these have been used repeatedly against civilian populations. R7) Carnage by rebels The article actually says that 60 people from Chad were murdered by local villagers because Chad mercenaries were being hired by Gaddafi and used to murder local villagers. It's hard to say who is right in a situation like that, but if Chad stops supplying Gaddafi with troops, the article concludes that the hatred of the Libyan people will disappear. Since no arms have been supplied to this group of villagers, this doesn't prove that NATO did anything bad in this case. R8) Collateral Damage 1. The quote is theoretical; it doesn't prove there was collateral damage. 2. Even if there is collateral damage, Gaddafi has shown a willingness to use his heavy weapons to murder civilians. Destroying his capacity to do so should be a top priority. 3. Collateral damage is not a violation of a UN Resolution. If the UN authorized us to stop a genocide in Rwanda and we accidentally dropped a bomb on a civilian, that doesn't mean that the entire operation is suddenly violating the UN resolution. R9) Drones 1. We have not used drones yet, so again, my opponent is trying to debate the future, not the past as we both agreed. 2. Drones have better precision missiles than regular aircraft. There's no reason not to use them. 3. His article sites some lone reports in Iraq of civilian deaths; it hardly proves that drones are systematically bad. 4. Sources in Pakistan say that drones have become extremely accurate by using better on-the-ground informants. [3] Since we have so many assets on the ground (Libyan rebels), we will get accurate intelligence on precise locations to strike. We kill civilians in drone strikes only when we are not informed that there are civilians in a particular building where we are trying to kill a high value target. R10) Regime change 1. Obama saying that he would like Gaddafi to step down is NOT the same as NATO suddenly pursuing regime change. NATO has not put troops on the ground or tried to assassinate Gaddafi. However, given that Gaddafi is murdering his civilian population, protecting civilians does require applying extreme pressure on Gaddafi to call off his military campaign. 2. There's a difference between pushing something politically – asking for regime change and Libyan officials to resign in protest – versus doing so militarily. R11) My opponent had no #11 R12) Attack on Gaddafi palace My opponent's own source here says that Gaddafi was stationing heavy weapons and troops in his compound. If he doesn't want his compound bombed, he shouldn't make it into a military target. His actual palace was at the other end of the compound from where the bomb was dropped. R13) Reject Peace Offer You have to realize; although they are called "rebels," the people of Libya want the same thing as the people of Tunisian and Egypt. They want an end to an oppressive, autocratic regime. All the "peace offers" would entail Gaddafi remaining in power for the rest of his lifetime. The UN supports the Libyan's right to protest their government without having cluster bombs dropped on their heads. The rebels did not fire first – Gaddafi did, which is why the term rebel is a misnomer. R14) Unease The Arab League is still flying sorties along with NATO, so they can't be all that uneasy. And this doesn't prove the Resolution was violated. R-Conclusion) 1. Remember, the protests started peaceful. Gaddafi fired first. [4] 2. We only stepped in when Gaddafi started using air and cluster bomb strikes on his civilian population. 3. We have no oil interest in Libya. Libya does not even make the list of the top 15 countries we import from. [5] Negated [1] http://tinyurl.com... [2] http://tinyurl.com... [3] http://tinyurl.com... [4] http://tinyurl.com... [5] http://tinyurl.com...