The international community unfortunately did take sides in Libya, and we would never allow the Security Council to authorise anything similar to what happened in Libya.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
At a time of such hope and optimism in the Middle East, we cannot let the Libyan government violate every principle of international law and human rights with impunity.
We're not getting involved in terms of sending ground forces into Libya. Let's be clear about that. And indeed the UN Resolution forbids that. It says no foreign occupation of any part of Libya.
I was opposed to the U.S. involvement in Libya from the very start. President Obama has never made a compelling national security case on Libya.
You may agree or not with Gaddafi's political ideas, but no one has the right to question the existence of Libya as an independent state and member of the United Nations.
Had the United States not acted in Iraq, Libyan leader Muammar Qadhafi would likely not have declared his weapons programs, submitted to international inspections and voluntarily dismantled its programs.
Libyans have to work together for a new Libya. They should keep in place the sinews of security.
The question was never whether the United States, E.U., NATO, Arab League, U.N. Security Council, and African Union could together using economic sanctions, diplomatic pressure, and military attacks to bring Qaddafi down. The question was always how much time, how much blood, and what damage to NATO.
We saw there was no consensus in the U.N. Security Council. It was impossible, due to the threatened veto by some.
We've protected thousands of people in Libya; we have not seen a single U.S. casualty; there's no risks of additional escalation. This operation is limited in time and in scope.
The U.N. Security Council did not to condemn the Qana massacre, due to the U.S. veto.
No opposing quotes found.