France admits arming Libyan Rebels

[hypocritexposer]

Nato reviews Libya campaign after France admits arming rebels

French defence chiefs admit providing weapons for push on Tripoli in apparent defiance of UN mandate


Nato is reviewing the conduct of its military campaign in Libya after France admitted arming rebel fighters in apparent defiance of the UN mandate.

The revelation surprised officials in Nato's headquarters in Brussels and raised awkward questions about whether the French had broken international law – UN resolution 1973 specifically allows Nato nations to protect civilians in Libya, but appears to stop short of permitting the provision of weapons.

Nato has consistently said it would not arm rebel commanders, saying it was beyond its remit. But military chiefs in Paris confirmed that French planes had dropped consignments of machine guns, rocket-propelled grenades, and anti-tank missiles to rebels in the western Nafusa mountains. A report in Le Figaro newspaper said the French parachuted "large amounts" of munitions to help the rebel push on Tripoli earlier this month.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jun/29/nato-review-libya-france-arming-rebels

 

[hypocritexposer]

I bet a few on Ranchers said the same.....:roll:

Part of that failure was a lack of consideration of the makeup of the Libyan population, said University of Texas political scientist Alan J. Kuperman, author of "The Limits of Humanitarian Intervention."

"The fundamental error by the White House and NATO was to imagine that the Libyan people were united in opposition to Gadhafi," he said.

"In reality, Libya is divided along lines of clan and tribe, some of whom benefit greatly from Gadhafi, and therefore defend him fiercely," he said. "Any expert on ethnic conflict and intervention could have told the White House that ahead of time."

http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/africa/06/29/analysis.libya.war/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

 

[lightninboy]

Doesn't that prove there is more going on behind the scenes than we are led to believe?

 

[Larrry]

I bet a few on Ranchers said the same.....:roll:

Part of that failure was a lack of consideration of the makeup of the Libyan population, said University of Texas political scientist Alan J. Kuperman, author of "The Limits of Humanitarian Intervention."

"The fundamental error by the White House and NATO was to imagine that the Libyan people were united in opposition to Gadhafi," he said.

"In reality, Libya is divided along lines of clan and tribe, some of whom benefit greatly from Gadhafi, and therefore defend him fiercely," he said. "Any expert on ethnic conflict and intervention could have told the White House that ahead of time."

http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/africa/06/29/analysis.libya.war/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

 

[hypocritexposer]

I bet a few on Ranchers said the same.....:roll:

Part of that failure was a lack of consideration of the makeup of the Libyan population, said University of Texas political scientist Alan J. Kuperman, author of "The Limits of Humanitarian Intervention."

"The fundamental error by the White House and NATO was to imagine that the Libyan people were united in opposition to Gadhafi," he said.

"In reality, Libya is divided along lines of clan and tribe, some of whom benefit greatly from Gadhafi, and therefore defend him fiercely," he said. "Any expert on ethnic conflict and intervention could have told the White House that ahead of time."

http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/africa/06/29/analysis.libya.war/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

I thought the same, Larry. :lol:

 

[Steve]

Doesn't that prove there is more going on behind the scenes than we are led to believe?

it could prove Obama doesn't understand foreign policy or the muslims he so often defends and promotes in his speeches

beyond that it is probably about killing Gaddaffy and siding with the factions that will control the exported oil..