Libya IX

115 posts / 0 new
Last post
Catchfire Catchfire's picture
Libya IX

Continued from here.

Frmrsldr

O.K. gotcha Fallout.

The questions I raised in my last post (previous thread) were the same questions you had when you made your post.

We're on the "same page", then.

Right on!Cool

Fidel

I think they want to breakup Libya into East and West autonomous enclaves with their stooge in one-half and maybe Gadaffi ruling the other, or whomever succeeds him in case they do manage to murder him and his family this time with a laser guided "smart bomb". And then Qaeda will be airlifted to the scene of the crime and a militant Islamic base in Libya created in order to justify another US Military occupation.

I noticed that this was mentioned on CBC's Turning Point last night with various panelists. Panelists were asked why the western military alliance is bombing Libya and supporting rebs there and not in Bahrain etc where protests against oppressive US-backed imperialist rule are being crushed with the help of Saudi Arabia and support from the west. "al-Qaeda" and the war on terror was the answer apparently.

But the truth is that Moammar Gadhafi also agreed to help the west to fight this phony global war on terror same as King Al Khalifa. So that can't be the real reason. Canadian Janice Stein was the only panelist to disagree with the alliance's motives calling it blatant hypocrisy.

 

Fallout

Frmrsldr wrote:

O.K. gotcha Fallout.

The questions I raised in my last post (previous thread) were the same questions you had when you made your post.

We're on the "same page", then.

Right on!Cool

OK just to be super duper quadruple clear, you misread my posts, called me out, I had to explain myself, and now we're "cool"? Go fuck yourself. If your too lazy to read an entire post then your missing Babble in all it's glory.

But....in an effort to keep this from becoming about something other than was intended...http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=I-1UAAAAIBAJ&sjid=EJIDAAAAIBAJ&pg=7212,2376735&dq=libya&hl=en 

It never gets old.

Frmrsldr

Fallout wrote:

 

OK just to be super duper quadruple clear, you misread my posts, called me out, I had to explain myself, and now we're "cool"? Go fuck yourself. If your too lazy to read an entire post then your missing Babble in all it's glory.

But....in an effort to keep this from becoming about something other than was intended...http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=I-1UAAAAIBAJ&sjid=EJIDAAAAIBAJ&pg=7212,2376735&dq=libya&hl=en 

Chill, man

because the mantra "self-defense and the defense of one's allies" were/are used to justify the Afghan, Iraq and this current Libyan war. Such vague statements without further supporting arguments can be interpreted two ways. Just like the link you posted above.

Have you read my posts in these "Libya" threads?

NDPP

US Led No-Fly Zone On Libya To Cost $1B

http://www.presstv.ir/detail/171252.html

"The initial cost of a no-fly zone over Libya is likely to surpass $1bn if the US led military operations in the country persists for more than a few months, a report says. According to a new report by Zack Cooper, a senior analyst at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, the Western countries participating in the military operations in Libya would have to pay $30 M to $100 M per week to have the no-fly zone up and running, for the long term.

The first day of Operation Odyssey Dawn had a price tage of over $100 Million for the US in missiles alone, according to estimates..."

Oil Prices Surge on Libya, ME Unrest

http://www.presstv.ir/detail/171290.html

"Crude oil prices are on the rise as tensions in the ME and fighting between Gaddafi loyalists and revolutionary forces as well as a US led military intrusion rages on.."

British MPs Seeking Libya Exit Strategy

http://www.presstv.ir/detail/171270.html

"A majority of UK lawmakers are increasingly worried about the scale of Britain's involvement in the Libyan invasion despite overwhelmingly backing Britain's role. In Britain, reports had it that patrolling the no-fly zone is costing the taxpayer about 3.2 Million Pounds a day, before a weapon is fired. 'We have not declared war on Qaddafi, and we should not declare war on Qaddafi,' MP Rory Stewart said. 'Do not get sucked into Libya'"

Fallout

Frmrsldr wrote:

Fallout wrote:

 

OK just to be super duper quadruple clear, you misread my posts, called me out, I had to explain myself, and now we're "cool"? Go fuck yourself. If your too lazy to read an entire post then your missing Babble in all it's glory.

But....in an effort to keep this from becoming about something other than was intended...http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=I-1UAAAAIBAJ&sjid=EJIDAAAAIBAJ&pg=7212,2376735&dq=libya&hl=en 

Chill, man

because the mantra "self-defense and the defense of one's allies" were/are used to justify the Afghan, Iraq and this current Libyan war. Such vague statements without further supporting arguments can be interpreted two ways. Just like the link you posted above.

Have you read my posts in these "Libya" threads?

I don't see how anyone can logically argue self defence or allied defence in the case of iraq, afghanistan or for that matter any war since 1936. So anyone making such arguments can be brushed aside with simple logic, yes? Whatever, we're all on the same side I think sorry to have been abrupt.

NDPP

BP Set To Begin Oil Drilling Off Libya

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-10751128

"Oil giant BP has confirmed it will begin drilling off the Libyan coast in the next few weeks. The Libyan well is deeper than the well that ruptured uder the Deepwater Horizon rig in the Gulf off Mexico.."

US in Libya: Protecting Civilians? A Rebel Army? What?  - by Robert Dreyfuss

http://www.thenation.com/blog/159377/us-libya-protecting-civilians-rebel...

"Doesn't it mean that US military forces are, in effect, taking sides in a civil war?"

 

duncan cameron

I liked the historical background to the current war propaganda that this fine piece presents.

http://consortiumnews.com/2011/032211.html

NDPP

CNN: Libyan Civil War: An Opening For Al Qaeda? and Jihad?

http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/africa/03/23/libya.islamists

"At the peak of the Iraqi insurgency, more Jihadists per capita traveled to join al Qaeda in Iraq from Libya than from any other country...and there is a long history of Islamist radicalization in Libya, especially in the impoverished, restive eastern provinces.."

US MSM prepares the ground for possible game changes further on with respect to support for the 'rebel' cause?

Bec.De.Corbin Bec.De.Corbin's picture

Libyan forces pull back from western city

 

Quote:

A doctor in Misrata said the tanks fled shortly after the airstrikes began around midnight, giving the city a much-needed reprieve after more than a week of attacks and a punishing blockade. The city is inaccessible to human rights monitors or journalists.

"There were very loud explosions. It was hard to see the planes," the doctor said, speaking on condition of anonymity for fear of reprisals if Gadhafi's forces take the city. "Today for the first time in a week, the bakeries opened their doors."

He said the situation was better but still dangerous, with pro-Gadhafi snipers shooting at people from rooftops inside the city.

The airstrikes targeted the aviation academy and the lot outside the central hospital, which was under maintenance.

"Some of the tanks were hit and others fled," he said. "We fear the tanks that fled will return if the airstrikes stop."

 

The rebels need weapons... where's the international support for that? Solidarity proclamations on the internet don't stop tanks.

 

Quote:

Pro-Gadhafi troops who have besieged Ajdabiya - a city of 140,000 that is the gateway to the east - attacked a few hundred rebels gathered on the outskirts Wednesday. The rebels fired back with Katyusha rockets but have found themselves outgunned by the Libyan government's force.

Plumes of smoke rose over the skyline of the city, which is 95 miles (150 kilometers) south of the de-facto rebel capital of Benghazi.

"The weapons they have are heavy weapons and what we have are light weapons," said Fawzi Hamid, a 33-year-old who joined the Libyan military when he was younger but is now on the rebels' side. "The Gadhafi forces are more powerful than us so we are depending on airstrikes."

 

Fidel

Ya the Yanks and their proxy armies in Central America helped out Nicaragua's "rebels" and a couple hundred thousand of Guatemala's indigenous people with airstrikes in the 1980s and 90s. Always willing to help out the oppressed.

N.Beltov N.Beltov's picture

duncan cameron wrote:
I liked the historical background to the current war propaganda that this fine piece presents.

Not only are false and misleading narratives important to overturn and expose, the ugly truth about the US role in Chile by Obama's predecessors should be exposed to the light of day. And "deflecting criticism" about those horrific US (support for) atrocities means never having to say you're sorry for what your country has done. Fidel Castro Ruz in one of his "Reflections" had some interesting and pointed remarks about the US President and his public comments ...

Fidel Castro wrote:
Tomorrow Obama moves over to Chile. His arrival is preceded by an interview he gave to the newspaper El Mercurio that was printed today, on Sunday, in which he confesses that the "Debate in the Americas", as he calls it, is based on a "partnership of equals" with Latin America that practically leaves us breathless as we recall the Alliance for Progress that preceded the mercenary Bay of Pigs expedition.
Obama literally confesses that the US vision for the hemisphere [...] is based on the concept of a partnership of equals that he has pursued ever since becoming President of the United States.

Says Fidel: "We only have to ask Obama one question. Taking into account that one of his illustrious predecessors, Richard Nixon promoted the coup and the heroic death of Salvador Allende, the torture and murder of thousands of persons, would Mr. Obama be asking forgiveness of the Chilean people?"

No wonder the US President  needed to respond to the questions by "deflecting criticism".

Bec.De.Corbin Bec.De.Corbin's picture

 
Oh so now you're declaring the Libyan rebels a proxy army despite their origins... I guess it was only a matter of time.

N.Beltov N.Beltov's picture

The Angry Arab has already pointed out how the Muslim Brotherhood is simply a front for the Saudi princes. It's a fair question - and give past imperial lies used to justify previous bombing campaigns and invasions (killing babies in incubators by Saad'am Hussein's supporters and other despicable lies) it's wise to be very cautious about current claims used to justify current imperial atrocities.

Northern Shoveler Northern Shoveler's picture

Bec.De.Corbin wrote:
 

Oh so now you're declaring the Libyan rebels a proxy army despite their origins... I guess it was only a matter of time.

I thought this article was very informative. Proxy is not the right word. Seems though that these rebels would fit in really well with the Miami Cuban mob.

Quote:

The revolt started in Benghazi in eastern Libya. A very important point not mentioned anywhere in the international media is the fact that due to geographic location, being one of the closest point to Europe from the African continent, Benghazi has over the past 15 years or so become the epicenter of African migration to Europe. At one point over a thousand African migrants a day were pouring into Libya in hopes of arranging transport to Europe.

The human trafficking industry, one of the most evil, inhumane businesses on the planet, grew into a billion dollar a year industry in Benghazi. A large, viscous underworld mafia set down deep roots in Benghazi, employing thousands in various capacities and corrupting Libyan police and government officials. It has only been in the past year or so that the Libyan government, with help from Italy, has finally brought this cancer under control. With their livelihood destroyed and many of their leaders in prison, the human trafficking mafia have been at the forefront in funding and supporting the Libyan rebellion. Many of the human trafficking gangs and other lumpen elements in Benghazi are known for racist pogroms against African guest workers where over the past decade they regularly robbed and murdered Africans in Benghazi and its surrounding neighborhoods. Since the rebellion in Benghazi broke out several hundred Sudanese, Somali, Ethiopian and Eritrean guest workers have been robbed and murdered by racist rebel militias, a fact well hidden by the international media.

Benghazi has also long been a well known center of religious extremism. Libyan fanatics who spent time in Afghanistan are concentrated there and a number of terrorist cells have been carrying out bombings and assassinations of government officials in Benghazi over the past two decades. One cell, calling itself the Fighting Islamic Group, declared itself an Al Queda affiliate back in 2007. These cells were the first to take up arms against the Libyan government.


http://www.countercurrents.org/mountain220311.htm

Bec.De.Corbin Bec.De.Corbin's picture

 

I see, so that article is basically saying the rebels are (or at least started out as) lazy discontented youth, high on alcohol and drugs, supported by a loose coalition of terrorist cells, brigands and human trafficking gangs who broke the rebellion leadership out of prison all the while Bengasi is the Sodom and Gomorra of the Middle East.

An opinionated but interesting read for sure; still, I suspect the rebellion has morphed past that now the rebels are fighting way too hard for just being lawless riff raff and punks on dope. It also doesn't justify what's going on in Misrata; if you believe that's even happening.   

 

 

MegB

Fallout wrote:

OK just to be super duper quadruple clear, you misread my posts, called me out, I had to explain myself, and now we're "cool"? Go fuck yourself. If your too lazy to read an entire post then your missing Babble in all it's glory.

But....in an effort to keep this from becoming about something other than was intended...http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=I-1UAAAAIBAJ&sjid=EJIDAAAAIBAJ&pg=7212,2376735&dq=libya&hl=en 

It never gets old.

Fallout, here at babble such personal insults and attacks are unacceptible.  Your teeny tiny apology that's basically lost in a more recent post, lacks sincerity.  I'd like to see something more believably apologetic from you.

Edited to add: I just read another of your lovely posts in the police brutality thread. Even more offensive than this instance - one more similar post and you can consider your new relationship with babble ended before it barely began.

Northern Shoveler Northern Shoveler's picture

I suspect that neither you nor I have a fucking clue what the people of Libya want but I am damn sure it is not for any of their fellow citizens to be bombed by 100's of cruise missiles.  There is no clear justification for this immoral attack.  The article points out that it is not the disgruntled youth behind the main fighting and the call for a No Fly Zone it is groups that I certainly would not want to be ruled by.  it all comes back to the fact it is none of our business who the Libyan people decide should rule them.  Brutal dictatorships fall from their own corruption and people suffer until that happens but by arming and supporting one group or another we ensure that the main influence on policy will not come from the "people" and real people power will get postponed, maybe for decades.

al-Qa'bong

Is it significant that the various Libya threads are distinguished through the use of Roman numerals? 

Tripoli delenda est

Libya intervention threatens the Arab spring

 

Quote:

 

Ironically, one of the reasons many people supported the call for a no-fly zone was the fear that if Gaddafi managed to crush the Libyan people's uprising and remain in power, it would send a devastating message to other Arab dictators: Use enough military force and you will keep your job.

Instead, it turns out that just the opposite may be the result: It was after the UN passed its no-fly zone and use-of-force resolution, and just as US, British, French and other warplanes and warships launched their attacks against Libya, that other Arab regimes escalated their crack-down on their own democratic movements.
 
In Yemen, 52 unarmed protesters were killed and more than 200 wounded on Friday by forces of the US-backed and US-armed government of Ali Abdullah Saleh. It was the bloodiest day of the month-long Yemeni uprising.

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

Quote:

[url=http://www.focusweb.org/content/end-us-led-armed-intervention-libya]Focus on the Global South[/url] supports the democratic opposition in Libya that seeks to end the 43-year-old dictatorship of Muammar Gaddafi.   Focus shares the Libyan people's desire to be free of a corrupt and repressive ruler who does not hesitate to employ massive force against his own people to hang on to power.

Focus cannot, however, support the massive armed intervention launched by the United States, France, and Britain on Sunday, March 20.

A "No Fly Zone" to protect civilians is one thing.  An armed assault aimed at regime change is another thing altogether.  The latter is the intent of the US/UK/French-led intervention, which, although displaying the figleaf of a United Nations Security Council resolution, goes far beyond the defensive aims of a no-fly zone to cross over into aggression against Libya.

NDPP

US Escalates Military Operations Against Libya  - by Patrick Martin

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2011/mar2011/liby-m23.shtml

"...As the capabilities of the coalition grow,' Locklear explained, 'we'll be able to provide more support, more missions to what you would call ground forces [and] what I would call time-sensitive targeting, where we're looking at the battle space as it changes, looking at the disposition of Gaddafi's forces that are not complying with the UN Security Council resolutions, and we'll be able to have more of an affect...That's how I would characterize the coming hours and days.'

These remarks strongly suggest that the focus of the bombing campaign by the US, Britain, France and other powers [Canada], will shift from largely air defense systems and command and control facilities to the annihilation of large numbers of ground troops loyal to the Gaddafi regime.

The reference to 'time sensitive targeting' is particularly revealing, since it inevitably requires the closest collaboration with forces on the ground, either rebel troops, with the US and allied warplanes used for tactical support, or US, British and French [Canadian?] special ops and intelligence agents sent into the country to serve as spotters.

spokesman for the rebel military, Khaled El-Sayeh, asserted that rebel officers had been providing the allies with coordination for their air strikes. 'We give them the coordinates and we give them the location that needs to be bombed,' Sayeh told the Times.

In what amounts to a public service announcement, summoning Western mercenaries to Benghazi, Engel reported that the rebels, who control a significant portion of Libya's oil resources, were willing to 'pay commercial rates' for the services of private military experts.

While escalating the violence in Libya, the imperialist powers are engaged in an increasingly bitter struggle among themselves over control and direction of the anti-Gaddafi campaign.

The UN Security Council rejected a request from Libya for an emergency meeting on the military aggression by the US-led coalition.

 

Canada Joins Imperialist Assault on Libya  - by Keith Jones

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2011/mar2011/clib-m22.shtml

"Once the Obama administration decided to for war, fashioning a UN resolution that in fact authorized military action far beyond a simply no-fly zone, Harper lost no time in flying his war colors..

Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon  went on record last Friday as saying that Canada is 'open to all options' for pacifying Libya, including 'boots on the ground'..."

 

al-Qa'bong

Separated at birth?

        

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

[url=http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/economy/economy-lab/da... vultures already picking at Libya's carcass[/url]

Eric Reguly of the Globe's Report on Business wrote:

Even as the Libyan war just gets underway, the economic war over Libya's treasures has already begun.

Italy, Libya's biggest European investor, is at the centre of the economic war. On Monday Italian foreign minister Franco Frattini threatened to deny the allied forces access to Italian airbases unless command of the operation were shifted to NATO. At the moment, the French, British and Americans are calling the shots (Italy's bases are closed to Libyan operations; the Canadian CF-18 fighter-bomber pilots are flying from Sicily).

Why does Italy cherish a NATO takeover? Because the Italians do not want the Libyan rebels seeing the air war as largely an Anglo-French effort. Italy fears that, should the rebels succeed in overthrowing Moammar Gadhafi's regime, they will repay the British and the French by giving them the most valued reconstruction and oil projects. If NATO takes control, Britain and France's influence over rebel loyalties would be diluted, putting Italy on a more equal footing for the post-war reconstruction spoils, whenever that may come.

 

NDPP

RT: Allies Shifting Operation Leadership in Libya (and vid)

http://rt.com/news/operation-libya-us-nato/

"There can be no talk about any humanitarian mission in Libya, says Borah Mikail, an expert on the Middle East. 'The coalition just uses it as a pretext to interfere in the Libyan crisis. But the confusion inside the coalition itself is so great that it is yet too early to estimate the operation as successful. Much depends on who will gain control over the events.'

'Even though we talk more and more about NATO, we should not forget that the essential struggle from the diplomatic and military point of view is whether the United States or France will be able to take the lead.' Despite Washington's rhetoric of reducing the US presence , Mikail does not believe that the US's role in the operation will diminish.

'NATO has found itself in a tight place over the Libyan crisis,' says Russia's Permanent Representative to NATO, Dmitry Rogozin. 'Everybody realizes that it will be quite impossible to bring Gaddafi down without a mssion on the ground.' This is a stalemate situation, from NATO's point of view,' Rogozin says.

The international community is quckly growing diverse in the estimates of the 'Odyssey Dawn' operation's results. In contrast to US and France's positive comments, Turkey has said the airstrikes in Libya have already gone beyond what had been sanctioned by the UN Security Council. Russia and China are calling for an immediate ceasefire in the country, by all the forces involved in the conflict..."

Mike Stirner

frmrsldr

Try as you and others might the is-ought gap has never been briged, if you want to model a world in your favour you have to be frank that might will predicate right, our christian epoch as demonized this basic notion of might makes right but it's really not so bad, its a matter of being descriptive with what you want and letting things flow, power is always invevitable and if you usher in a certain kind, say of the state variety it will act of its own accord, you can't condemn it for simply being internally consistant, what you can do is replace it with something else less alienating and more on a human scale.

As for laws, they protect you about as much as an american ghost dance protects you, they're just words that reflect an intersubjective consensus of a particular day, but these things are hardly concrete. As for war whatever problem you have with it should be channeled into a power play not a morality posture which does nothing in the grand scheme of things, I don't think war is going away for the forseable future, perhaps what might be practical at this point is to level it down to more contextual levels of human scale. What bothers me about the libya thing is how certain forms of might have been concentrated, if you look at maknho's libertarian forces nearly a century ago who were the equivelant of the rebels in libya today, they were able to wipe out whole armies due to the fact that technological weaponry was not as alienated and concentrated back then as it is now, again I would point out scale matters. I would hope that some future libya would reflect this, hell beghazi from what I hear has a quasi councilist thing going anyway.

A_J

Marc Lynch wrote:

President Obama's decision to join an international military intervention in Libya has met with a largely negative response in the United States across the political spectrum . . .

. . .

This emerging consensus misses some extremely important context, however. Libya matters to the United States not for its oil or intrinsic importance, but because it has been a key part of the rapidly evolving transformation of the Arab world.  For Arab protestors and regimes alike, Gaddafi's bloody response to the emerging Libyan protest movement had become a litmus test for the future of the Arab revolution.  If Gaddafi succeeded in snuffing out the challenge by force without a meaningful response from the United States, Europe and the international community then that would have been interpreted as a green light for all other leaders to employ similar tactics. The strong international response, first with the tough targeted sanctions package brokered by the United States at the United Nations and now with the military intervention, has the potential to restrain those regimes from unleashing the hounds of war and to encourage the energized citizenry of the region to redouble their efforts to bring about change. This regional context may not be enough to justify the Libya intervention, but I believe it is essential for understanding the logic and stakes of the intervention by the U.S. and its allies.

Libya's degeneration from protest movement into civil war has been at the center of the Arab public sphere for the last month. It is not an invention of the Obama administration, David Cameron or Nicholas Sarkozy.  Al-Jazeera has been covering events in Libya extremely closely, even before it tragically lost one of its veteran cameramen to Qaddafi's forces, and has placed it at the center of the evolving narrative of Arab uprisings.  Over the last month I have heard personally or read comments from an enormous number of Arab activists and protest organizers and intellectuals from across the region that events in Libya would directly affect their own willingness to challenge their regimes. The centrality of Libya to the Arab transformation undermines arguments  that Libya is not particularly important to the U.S. (it is, because it affects the entire region) or that Libya doesn't matter more than, say, Cote D'Ivoire (which is also horrible but lacks the broader regional impact).

. . .

Libya in its Arab Context

NDPP

Obama's Imperial Twist: 'Humanitarian' Regime Change in Libya

http://blackagendareport.com/content/obama%E2%80%99s-imperial-twist-%E2%...

"Rudyard Kipling must have been roused from his grave by the sights and sounds of the Euro American Co-Imperial Sphere lifting high the White Man's Burden, then smashing it down with thunderous force on Muammar Kadafi's Libya. In Benghazi, the opposition stronghold, young men of unknown political and religious persuasion cheered the foreign warplanes as they incinerated fellow young Libyans in armored columns that had been poised to enter the city.

'One, two, three - Thank You Sarkozy!' they chanted, in praise of the French president whose countrymen killed one million Algerian Arabs three generations agao, and who won the top job in France on the strength of White France's resentment of French North Africans. France has 'decided to assume its role before history,' said Nicolas Sarkozy, apparently oblivious to the monstrous implications of his threat..

President Obama demanded regime change in Libya more than 3 weeks ago, but now acts as if that's not his policy. He will use the assault on Moammar Khadafi's forces to introduce so-called 'humanitarian intervention' as an anchor of the Obama Doctrine. Regime change will remain a basic tool, while the 'humanitarian' ruse expand's Imperial option. Obama may well opt to turn Libya into a kind of protectorate, as Haiti has become.

Meanwhile, France interprets the UN mandate in Libya as allowing the Euro Americans to act as air support for the rebel armed forces, as the French did at Benghazi..'"

NDPP

Canadian Bombers Pound Libya Ammo Depot

http://www.canada.com/news/Canadian+bombers+pound+Libyan+ammo+depot/4491...

"Canadian fighter jets took out a Libyan ammunition depot during the first of two successful missions conducted over the past 24 hours. Military officials confirmed Wednesday that the bombing occured Tuesday night in the Misurata region in northern Libya. 'The mission involved 4 CF-18s in total.' said Maj-Gen. Tom Lawson, assistant chief of air staff. A second air-interdiction mission was conducted by Canadian CF 18s on Wednesday morning but officials had few details about the results.."

predictably a sidebar of this story is 'Libya shows why Canada needs Jets' - more correctly, it shows why Canada shouldn't have jets..

NDPP

Libya's 'Operation Odyssey Dawn': Kosovo Revisited  - by William Bowles

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=23880

"No doubt much self-flagellation is currently taking place amongst the Western 'left', or at least it should be given their atrocious reading of the Libyan 'revolution': Right from the very beginning of 'Operation Odyssey Dawn' something just didn't smell right about the Libyan 'revolution'. From the outset there was no peaceful, civilian insurrection such as those taking place elsewhere in the region. In other words it started life as a civil war heavily disguised - with Western help - as 'peoples' revolution' but one armed and dangerous...

All the while many on the Western 'left' were waxing lyrical about the Libyan 'revolution' it was at the same time joining the imperial chorus calling for Western military intervention on 'humanitarian' grounds and all the while the Empire was plotting to get rid of another 'troublesome' puppet, partition Libya right down the middle, West and East, with the East (where most of the oil is located) led by the 'revolutionaries', mostly ex-Gaddafi hacks and CIA 'assets'.

So much for the Western 'left's' understanding of the workings of the Empire.."

 

Muammar Al-Quadhafi: To the UN on the UN

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=23897

"...The Preamble of the Charter states that armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest. That is the Preamble that we agreed to and signed, and we joined the United Nations because we wanted the Charter to reflect that. It says that armed force shall only be used in the common interest of all nations, but what has happened then?

Fidel

And the same 22% of voting age Canadians will vote for one of two very pro-USA, pro-Israel, pro-Colombia, pro Saudi, pro whatever Uncle Sam says is fine with them parties when electing our own cosmetic stoogeaucracy to the halls of powerlessness in Ottawa. Nothing ever changes in our Northern Puerto Rico. Nothing. The stoogeaucracy in Ottawa is about twice as old as the former USSR and more than three times as old as the revolution against colonial rule in Libya. It's high time for a Canadian pro democracy movement.

Frmrsldr

Fallout wrote:

I don't see how anyone can logically argue self defence or allied defence in the case of iraq, afghanistan or for that matter any war since 1936. So anyone making such arguments can be brushed aside with simple logic, yes? Whatever, we're all on the same side I think sorry to have been abrupt.

Cool dude!

But the U.S.A. waged a war of aggression in the Pacific Theater because of the "Japanese attack" at Pearl Harbor and waged a war of aggression in the European theater because Hitler declared war on the U.S.A.

"We are defending ourselves against future terrorist attacks from Afghanistan. Afghanistan must not once again be allowed to become a breeding ground for terrorists."

One of the excuses for Canadian (and the other NATO countries) for its/their waging the war of aggression in Afghanistan is, according to the NATO Charter, "An attack against one member is an attack against all members."

That is why even though 9/11 was a criminal terrorist act (not an act of war) that affected only the U.S.A., all the other NATO countries were dragged into the Afghan war - because, according to this argument this is a war of "collective defense."

"The next cloud we will see looming over the horizon will be in the form of a mushroom cloud."

Saddam Hussein had Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs.)

This is according to the Bush Strike First (pre-emptive war) Doctrine.

By waging a pre-emptive war against Iraq, the U.S.A. was defending itself from (possible) potential threats of terrorist attacks from Iraq.

So far the excuses given for our war on Libya:

1. We are defending civilians and civilian areas from attack (except our own, of course.)

2. We are defending the fragile democratic gains in the countries in the region (ignoring Bahrain and Yemen, of course.)

3. We are defending the European countries in the Mediterranean as Gadhafi has threatened attacks throughout the Mediterranean region in response to our war of aggression on Libya.

Fidel

...and #4. al-Qaeda. On CBCs Turning Point it was mentioned that Bahrain and Yemen are important partners in the phony global war on terror against the US Government's own creation, al-Qaeda, whereas Gadhafi is just a despicable dictator.  But this is a lie, because Gadhafi also agreed to fight against the invisible army of darkness which never existed except in the minds of cold warriors prosecuting operation Cyclon in Central Asia and beyond.

Frmrsldr

NDPP wrote:

Canada Joins Imperialist Assault on Libya  - by Keith Jones

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2011/mar2011/clib-m22.shtml

"Once the Obama administration decided to for war, fashioning a UN resolution that in fact authorized military action far beyond a simply no-fly zone, Harper lost no time in flying his war colors..

Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon  went on record last Friday as saying that Canada is 'open to all options' for pacifying Libya, including 'boots on the ground'..."

Oh, yeah.

When it comes to war, Ol' Herr Harper baby - he just LOVES it!

Frmrsldr

A_J wrote:

Marc Lynch wrote:

President Obama's decision to join an international military intervention in Libya has met with a largely negative response in the United States across the political spectrum . . .

. . .

 

This emerging consensus misses some extremely important context, however. Libya matters to the United States not for its oil or intrinsic importance, but because it has been a key part of the rapidly evolving transformation of the Arab world.  For Arab protestors and regimes alike, Gaddafi's bloody response to the emerging Libyan protest movement had become a litmus test for the future of the Arab revolution.  If Gaddafi succeeded in snuffing out the challenge by force without a meaningful response from the United States, Europe and the international community then that would have been interpreted as a green light for all other leaders to employ similar tactics. The strong international response, first with the tough targeted sanctions package brokered by the United States at the United Nations and now with the military intervention, has the potential to restrain those regimes from unleashing the hounds of war and to encourage the energized citizenry of the region to redouble their efforts to bring about change. This regional context may not be enough to justify the Libya intervention, but I believe it is essential for understanding the logic and stakes of the intervention by the U.S. and its allies.

Libya's degeneration from protest movement into civil war has been at the center of the Arab public sphere for the last month. It is not an invention of the Obama administration, David Cameron or Nicholas Sarkozy.  Al-Jazeera has been covering events in Libya extremely closely, even before it tragically lost one of its veteran cameramen to Qaddafi's forces, and has placed it at the center of the evolving narrative of Arab uprisings.  Over the last month I have heard personally or read comments from an enormous number of Arab activists and protest organizers and intellectuals from across the region that events in Libya would directly affect their own willingness to challenge their regimes. The centrality of Libya to the Arab transformation undermines arguments  that Libya is not particularly important to the U.S. (it is, because it affects the entire region) or that Libya doesn't matter more than, say, Cote D'Ivoire (which is also horrible but lacks the broader regional impact).

. . .

Libya in its Arab Context

 

Yes, but unfortunately this doesn't explain the U.S. government's relative silence concerning Saudi Arabia's assistence in attempting to crush the Bahrain protests and the U.S.A.'s military support of the Yemen government against its people.

Frmrsldr

Mike Stirner wrote:

... its a matter of being descriptive with what you want and letting things flow, power is always invevitable and if you usher in a certain kind, say of the state variety it will act of its own accord, you can't condemn it for simply being internally consistant, what you can do is replace it with something else less alienating and more on a human scale.

For the sake of argument, let's accept that "Might makes right."

I should think that this would be a justification for not militarily interfering in Libya:

If Gadhafi's forces win, then might was on their side and it was right that they won.

Had the Libertarias won (without Western governments military interference) then might would have been on their side and that would have been equally acceptable.

Unless there's an ulterior motive: "What is our oil doing under their sand?", for example.

Which under the principle of "Might makes right" is perfectly acceptable.

In that case, leaders of powerful countries would all be Nicolo Machiavellis, Benito Mussolinis, Adolf Hitlers, Hiro Hitos and Josef Stalins, etc., and this world would perpetually be at war. Even if the warfare were kept at a "human level" by excluding atomic, biological and depleted uranium weapons, a state of global perpetual war would still lead to the extinction of humanity. This is a contradiction.

Thus "Might makes right" is not consistent and cannot be made a universal moral or legal imperative or principle.

Is a law outlawing war or the moral value of peace a contradiction (i.e., inconsistent) or just an "intersubjective consensus of a particular day"?

Let's see if we can "will" (make) it a universal law and moral principle.

Imagine a world at peace and with no war and military intervention.

War kills and harms people.

Peace does not.

Unlike war and intervention,

Peace does not kill and harm people.

During peace, yes people are still killed and harmed, but that is caused by other things, not by peace itself.

So universal morality and law like those that seek to create peace and protect people are not contradictions and inconsistent.

They are consistent and can be made into universal laws.

Countries and state leaders that disregard the law are outlaws and we see the harm they (have) cause(d).

This is what is meant by "American Exceptionalism."

This is the way Benito Mussolini, Hiro Hito, Adolf Hitler and Josef Stalin acted, to mention but a few recent examples.

NDPP

Libya: African Leaders Condemn Airstrikes

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/839...

"African leaders including South Africa's President Jacob Zuma have condemned the UN airstrikes in Libya, with Zimbabwe's Robert Mugabe denouncing the West as 'vampires' in search of oil.."

Evening Buzz: Gadhafi's Inner Circle Reaches Out to US

http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2011/03/23/evening-buzz-gadhafis-inner-circle...

"Members of Moammar Gadhafi's inner circle are reaching out to the US and Arab states, senior US officials said. This includes Gadhafi's close confidant and brother-in-law Adullah Sanussi, who they said has been calling the US State Department almost daily.."

don't know whether there's anything to this MSM story by CIA newsman Anderson Cooper, - who knows? Could be they're still trying to arrange that ceasefire they agreed to way back..

NDPP

How We Missed You, Humanitarian Intervention

http://www.maxajl.com/?p=5088

"Air campaigns don't dislodge dictators. What they do is turn children into corpses.."

Mike Stirner

fmrsldr

Well in the case of attacking Gadhafi it's to a large degree geopolitical preference and who says the game of might has to be enclosed, gadhafi will perhaps now be overwhelmed by something more powerfull then what he posseses, I find the result preferable personally and I don't see how anyone who has a basic like of freedom should complain, imperialism shimperialism, I don't think most people on the ground care about that.

Let me however define what I see as might makes right, I'm repeating the argument Max Stirner made in the ego and his own, its a great book and the points he makes are more or less irrifutable, if you actually comprehend it you realize it is the only road to anything just or equal there is. We live in an era of mass society and ideology where morality has muddied the waters and let me remind you that all those leaders you rolled off are primarily products of belief and homogenous thought patterns developed over a long tragic period of time going back to stupid band members who took their big man a little too seriously(their wars also reflected such things), that is in essence the root of the problem we must pursue and might and non moral rhetoric play a huge part of making this happen, now what would a post war but non peacefull human individual oriented scaled culture look like, my guess is war would be replaced by species level strife akain to what we see in the greater non-human actions, its not perfect but then nothing ever is is it.

And universality is a bad idea and overall product of the same over generalized top down thought patterns that have us in this mess to begin with, there's also no such thing as peace(it's a concept of providencial space and messianic time, things that do not exist), with concepts like peace and its offshoot means of sovereignty you are creating conceptual enclosures that do really exist and have no practicality when in this case a sovereign interior is made up of unwanted psychopathy, enclosures have never helped humanity.

Frmrsldr

Mike Stirner wrote:

Let me however define what I see as might makes right, I'm repeating the argument Max Stirner made in the ego and his own, its a great book and the points he makes are more or less irrifutable, if you actually comprehend it you realize it is the only road to anything just or equal there is. We live in an era of mass society and ideology where morality has muddied the waters and let me remind you that all those leaders you rolled off are primarily products of belief and homogenous thought patterns developed over a long tragic period of time going back to stupid band members who took their big man a little too seriously(their wars also reflected such things), that is in essence the root of the problem we must pursue and might and non moral rhetoric play a huge part of making this happen, now what would a post war but non peacefull human individual oriented scaled culture look like, my guess is war would be replaced by species level strife akain to what we see in the greater non-human actions, its not perfect but then nothing ever is is it.

Life is a struggle for survival.

Survival of the fittest or strongest.

Those who survive and thrive under such conditions are the Ubermensch those who are weak the Untermensch must, of necessity be vanquished, dominated, subjugated and eliminated. This is necessary for the health of humanity.

The truth of these statements can be verified by empirical study of non-human communities; the natural world.

This is social Darwinist, (neo) nazi bullshit.

Fidel

Yep, the corporate sponsored Nazis should have pulled themselves up by their bootstraps and taken what belonged to them in Russia. Hitler's plan was to extend an autobahn highway into the heart of Ukraine and Russia. Wealthy Nazis would visit the colonies from time to time and lord it over them who were left alive to do free labour for the corporatocracy. It's what they say of the best made plans of mice and goosestepping fascists.

Mike Stirner

frmr

you really don't understand the natural world and if you only knew how laughable your darwinist charge to me is(I won't even dignify the nazi comment). There is no strong and weak in organic existence only adaptable, what about the not so civilized human communities, are you going to throw me the nasty brutish and short bullshit like many before you.

Mike Stirner

Where do I start with that above peace, first of all the reason why insurrections fall to armies is because armies in the post world war 2 era are pretty damn powerfull if there isn't a total frag job(as seen in hungary in 56) combinded with the right guy in charge who will kill with impunity, this isn't the early 20th century where individuals like the bonnot gang or small unit peasants like the makhnovshina could take out an early modern army, mass technology has far surpassed individual and dencentral scale when you take into account the fact that not everyone wants to die you have the conditions for a guy like daffi to stick around, in terms of his support we're not taking big numbers here and while the whole area will probably not be united most people don't like gadhafi.

As for asking for western help, the kronstadt sailors asked for help in their last days, do you think losing is fun? especially with big odds, its an understandable desperation in that context, most of those rebels probably are not in an ideological mood to talk about that non existent force called imperialism anyway seeing as their immediate goal is beating their enemy by any means nessasary.

And lastly on this notion of empire, empires don't exist anymore, we live in an era of economic exploitation, that should be you're focal point of analysis, not who is percieved to be holding the cards, capital at the end of the day has no preference for any particular state, what ever statist side wins will be capital's win and that is what you're focus should be on, it doesn't matter who controls the fucking oil what should concern you is what we can gather is a large enough preference for how people want to be ruled, in this case there are enough people that want gadhafi gone to the point of asking for some military help and this was a general enough cry, all you're solidarity means fuck all if you prioritize your silly anti-imperialism over such calls, one is based in concrete reality the other came out of the backside of marxism.

Frmrsldr

Mike Stirner wrote:

Where do I star with that above peace, first of all the reason why insurrections fall to armies is because armies in the post world war 2 era are pretty damn powerfull if there's isn't a total frag job(as seen in hugary in 56) combinded with the right guy in charge who will kill with impunity, this isn't the early 20th century where individuals like the bonnot gang or small unit peasants like the makhnovshina could take out an early modern army, mass technology has far surpassed individual and dencentral scale when you take into account the fact that not everyone wants to die you have the conditions for a guy like daffi to stick around, in terms of his support we're not taking big numbers here and while the whole area will probably not be united most people don't like gadhafi.

As for asking for western help, the kronstadt sailors asked for help in their last days, do you think loosing is fun? especially with big odds, its understandable desperation in that context, most of those rebels probably are not in an ideological mood to talk about that non existent force called imperialism anyway seeing as their immediate goal is beating their enemy by any means nessasary.

And lastly on this notion of empire, empires don't exist anymore, we live in an era of economic exploitation that should be you're focal point, not who is percieved to be holding the cards, capital at the end of the day has no preference for any particular state, what ever statist side wins will be capital's win and that is what you're focus should be on, it doesn't matter who controls the fucking oil what should concern you is what we can gather is a large enought preferene for how people want to be ruled, in this case there enough people that want gadhafi gone to the point of asking for some military help and this was a general enough cry, all you're solidarity means fuck all if you prioritize your silly anti-imperialism over such calls, one is based in concrete reality the other came out of the backside of marxism.

The U.S.A. nor any other state has the pre-existing right to militarily interfere in Libya.

The Libyan Libertarias can be aided by other means.

The way I have pointed out is by local arms dealers selling arms to the Libertarias and People from other countries assisting the People of Libya by joining International Brigades (like in the days of the Spanish Civil War.)

With relatively inexpensive, easy to use shoulder-launched anti-air and anti-armor weapons that can destroy the most expensive and technologically advanced aircraft, helicopters and tanks, the battlefield is levelled this way in favor of Libertaria soldiers.

The fact that the U.S. government's budget has an over $1 trillion deficit and the government is over $14 trillion in debt is the result of these wars and its military budget that is ballooning out of control.

Frmrsldr

Mike Stirner wrote:

you really don't understand the natural world and if you only knew how laughable your darwinist charge to me is(I won't even dignify the nazi comment).

There are also examples of what we would call "compassion", "humanitarianism", "cooperation" and "altruism" in the "natural world."

So you would agree, then, with Mussolini that war "Brings out the best qualities and puts the stamp of nobility on those who fight in them."

As I said before, the "Is to ought" argument is a fallacy.

Just because, according to some, the world is a certain way - it doesn't follow that's the way it ought to be.

NDPP

Intervention in Libya: Human Rights, War or Resource Grab - by Paul Wolf

http://dissidentvoice.org/2011/03/libyan-intervention-human-rights-war-o...

"It must be said that most of the Libyan population lives in the western part of the country, and most of the oil in the east. Oil and gas account for 97 percent of Libya's export earnings and 90 percent of government revenues, according to the IMF. American and British media are already referring to eastern Libya as 'disputed terrritory'.

However, three is no legal dispute over this territory and no legal argument for the partition of the Libyan people from their oil. The UN's mandate is to prevent 'violations of the territorial integrity of states,' not to facilitate them. The partition of Libya would create yet another place in the world destined for permanent war..."

'Libya Intervention New Bay of Pigs'  - by Webster G Tarpley

http://www.presstv.ir/detail/171430.html

"People need to see this is the new 'Bay of Pigs'. It is Obama's Bay of Pigs. What you have fighting in Benghazi and Tobruk is essentially a CIA secret army. It is assembled of some Islamists in Benghazi - characters like Mustafa Jalil and Yumis, two former Libyan ministers are the leaders of that group. You've got Senussi - a mystical cult that fought the Italians in the 20s and 30s and you have military officers that we've just learned were linked to with the French DGSE (France's external intelligence agency)...

So yes, there are voices in Congress talking about warcrimes, talking about the violation of the Constitution. I'd like to see them bring a Bill of Impeachment against Obama right away...he is a warmonger, he is a Wall Street puppet, he is a union buster and its time for political action in that regard. Empire is bad for the US.."

NDPP

Stop The Attack On Libya Now! Emergency Protests!

http://www.iacenter.org/anti-war/stop_the_attack_on_libya_now_emergency_...

"the real motivation for the US and its allies in both Bahrain and Libya, and indeed the whole region is to control the OIL! It is Washington's main strategic interest and a primary financial interest for US big business..."

US Out of Arab and African Lands!

Frmrsldr

NDPP wrote:

So yes, there are voices in Congress talking about warcrimes, talking about the violation of the Constitution. I'd like to see them bring a Bill of Impeachment against Obama right away...he is a warmonger, he is a Wall Street puppet, he is a union buster and its time for political action in that regard. Empire is bad for the US.."

Indeed, there is talk of impeaching Barack Obama:

http://original.antiwar.com/john-v-walsh/2011/03/23/impeach-barack-obama/

Bec.De.Corbin Bec.De.Corbin's picture

 

French strike deep in Libya, targeting arms flow

 

Quote:

French airstrikes hit an air base deep inside Libya in an effort to stop possible traffic of arms or the flow of mercenaries into Libya, a military official said Thursday.

Gadaffi forces negotiating withdrawal from the east?...

Quote:

In a key eastern city, Ajdabiya, talks between Moammar Gadhafi's forces and between tribal sheiks over their possible withdrawal stalled over a demand that the troops leave their heavy weaponry behind, rebels said Thursday.

Gadaffi's troops around Ajdabiya are cut off from their western supply source (Tripoli) and realize their supply line is cut meaning it's only a matter of time before they run out of ammo and other supplies. They also probably have very little contact with Tripoli as well since Gadaffi's command and control ability has been seriously reduced.

Misrata is still under sporadic attack from Gadaffi tanks and snipers.

Quote:

 Government troops also continued barraging the western city of Misrata on Thursday but were forced to roll back their tanks periodically amid coalition airstrikes.

A 42-year-old doctor in the city said shelling had damaged a mosque and a hotel near the hospital.

"When the allies' planes were seen flying in the sky, the shelling stopped and the tanks fled," he said. "We still have to deal with snipers in the main street in Misrata and try to warn people to stay away from it."

To relieve Misrata the rebels will have to be organized into a real army and have the ability to supply it from the east.

 

 

NDPP

NATO Is The Enemy Of The Peoples Of The World

http://www.blogfrommiddleeast.com/?xstart=b&new=76158

"...The uprisings in Libya have turned into a civil war. The fact that on one side is the Gaddafi dictatorship should not be used to hide the fact that the other side is backed by imperialist countries. Peace proponents must not allow this...

NATO is the enemy of the peoples of the world and peace..."

but not in Canada:

http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/SciTech/20040530/ndp_nato_040529

 

Libya Civilian Deaths Vex Russia, China

http://www.presstv.ir/detail/171464.html

"Russia and China have voiced concerns over reports of civilian deaths in crisis-hit Libya, in a UN Security Council meeting.."

NDPP

Diana Johnstone: Why Are They Making War on Libya?

http://www.counterpunch.org/johnstone03242011.html

"Reason Number One: Regime change.

This was announced as the real objective the moment French president Nicolas Sarkozy took the extraordinary step of recognizing the rebels in Benghazi as 'the only legitimate representatives of the Libyan people.' This recognition was an extraordinary violation of all diplomatic practice and principles. It meant non-recognition of the existing Libyan government and its institutions, which, contrary to the magical notions surrounding the word 'dictator', cannot be reduced to the personality of one strongman.

A major European nation, France, swept aside all those institutions to proclaim that an obscure group of rebels in a traditionally rebellious part of Libya constituted the North African nation's legitimate government. Since factually this was clearly not true, it could only be the proclamation of an objective to be reached by war. The French announcement was equivalent to a declaration of war against Libya, a war to defeat Qaddafi and put the mysterious rebels in power in his place.

False Pretext Number One: 'to protect civilians..."

 

Pages

Topic locked