My thoughts on Libya 2

108 posts / 0 new
Last post
CMOT Dibbler
My thoughts on Libya 2

"Okay I think I see where you are coming from:

- Gadaffi bad.

- Franco-Brit-CIA-Egyptian backed rebs and al-CIA'da good.

- Oil plus-good.

Have I missed anything?

It's pretty grey, isn't it. It still doesn't give them the right to violate their own UNSC resolutions for no-fly and aiding and abetting Qaeda like this. The NATO Gang Inc. are in violation of Nuremberg code all over again."

You know, it would probably be better if the Americans let the colonel massacre the rebels, that way it remains a domestic Libyan issue. The current uprising would fail, but the forces who oppose Moammar Gadhafi would try again and again to overthrow his regime and eventually they would succeed in murdering the bastard who has ruled them with an iron fist for four decades now, and any government that arose out of the Libyan revolution would not be haunted by the specter of Western intervention.
Oh well…

It's really interesting…

Everybody's up in arms about how racist and drug addled the Libyan opposition is.
But has anyone stopped to consider that every group that has sought to change undemocratic governments through violent means (and let's face it, many groups that have sought to change undemocratic governments through peaceful means,) have had a certain number of sociopaths and coke heads in their ranks. Some of the people who joined Vlad Lenin in the early days of the Russian Revolution were terribly prejudiced against Jews and Roma. In fact, I'm certain that were, Joseph Stalin was a very important Bolshevik after all.
I'm certain that the same can be said of some of the socialists who battled Franco during the Spanish Civil War. We have this idea that Leftist revolutionaries are all fine, upstanding individuals, mainly because they fight against people who are in many cases more bigoted and cruel then they are, that was certainly true of the Czar, and of Francisco Franco.

Prejudice is not just a right wing malady.

PS how can we be so sure that the Libyan people don't want an Islamist government in Libya, I'm not inferring that every rebel sleeps with a picture of Osama bin Laden under his or her pillow, but the fact is that Libya is not Syria or Egypt or Bahrain. A lot of people might want clerics in control.

I couldn't begin to guess at what they actually want. North Africa is very far away from Vancouver.

CMOT Dibbler

Can't edit! Fuck!

Fidel

Is it just me, or are we being propagandized again?

Frmrsldr

CMOT Dibbler wrote:

You know, it would probably be better if the Americans let the colonel massacre the rebels,...

1. What international law exists that gives us the right to wage a "War of Aggression" or to (attempt) to commit regime change against the governments of other nations? None that I know.

2. In the speech that Obama gave to explain to Americans why he entered the U.S.A. into the war on Libya, he claimed that a massacre of the people of Benghazi was imminent. When one reads through the speech Moammar Gadhafi made that Obama referenced, what Gadhafi said was his forces were going to fight those who had taken up arms against his government - not the people of Benghazi. He also promised a pardon and would allow those rebels to return to their homes in peace if they laid down their arms. He also said his forces would leave a corridor open to the Egyptian border so the rebels could escape and seek sanctuary in Egypt.

Over four weeks of fighting have been going on in Libya since the first U.S., U.K., French and Canadian bombs have been dropped on Libya. If Gadhafi intends to stay in power through intimidation by committing genocide, then tell me where have you heard of such incidents taking place?

CMOT Dibbler wrote:

... that way it remains a domestic Libyan issue.

That's what it is.

We have no right to militarily interfere in the internal affairs of other countries.

What goes on in Libya is nobody's business but the Libyans.

Fidel

CMOT Dibbler wrote:
PS how can we be so sure that the Libyan people don't want an Islamist government in Libya...

Former Canadian diplomat [url=http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=23947]Peter Dale Scott[/url] says it's not so much what Libyans want for Libya as what:

  • Warshington, 
  • Saudi royals,
  • Egypt's shadow gov,
  • Britannia,
  • Gaul, and
  • our "new" best friends forever, al-CIA'da

want for Libyans who happen to be living in an oil-rich country and with [url=http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=24479]$150 billion[/url] in sovereign wealth fund and other assets ready to be stolen by a western world organized crime syndicate. Apparently Gadhafi was frittering the oil money away in all those hopelessly needy,  but at the same time, democratic capitalist African countries. It's perfectly good oil money that rightfully belongs to superrich people who've lobbied hard for this excellent pirates' excursion into Libya. Libyans only believed that the oil and national sovereignty was their birth right.

So to summarize, it's people with money who wouldn't give you the snot from their noses wanting regime change in Libya. As in, they are psychotic people who wouldn't spit on the average African in general if they were on fire.That Neonazis are carrying out these military attacks, illegal since Nuremberg,  on yet another sovereign oil-rich country is actually a modern day re-colonization of Africa. NATO Gang Inc is a very racist organization of criminal countries led by megalomaniacal psychopaths who fancy themselves modern day crusaders. Everything they've done thus far is anti-Islamic and anti-African and designed to reward their own special interests not your's or mine or even those of the average Libyan.

CMOT Dibbler wrote:
I'm certain that the same can be said of some of the socialists who battled Franco during the Spanish Civil War.

Absolutely. Republican fighters weren't all socialists. But they united to fight the fascists, which at least one al-CIA'da leader has suggested they should do if only for appearance sake while his best friends forever in Washington try to distance themselves somewhat from their cold war era creations, al-Qaeda. 

And Franco's fascists called in air strikes from Goering's Luftwaffe similarly. The Nazis were more than happy to comply. GM, Ford, Studebaker, Hitler and Mussolini all did their bit to help fascists overthrow the government in Spain similarly. They even tried to blame the Luftwaffe's handiwork on Basque socialists.

Snert Snert's picture

Quote:

We have no right to militarily interfere in the internal affairs of other countries.

What goes on in Libya is nobody's business but the Libyans.

 

Would it be OK if Amnesty International were to stick its nose in occasionally? Maybe just for the very worst of the torture and oppression?

 

I'm not specifically endorsing an air war or a ground war or what have you, but somehow this "it's none of our business" business reminds me of the way polite people would overlook a woman's black eye forty years ago. "It's up to them to work it out for themselves".

N.Beltov N.Beltov's picture

lol. Last I heard, Amnesty International doesn't carry out bombings using depleted uranium and get direct hits on civilian populations, maternity wards, and residential neighbourhoods.

The alternative to the structure of international law with respect for the sovereignty of states is the kind of brigandage and piracy and the naked use of force that the US, and countries like it, is so well known for. There doesn't seem to be a position "half way" between these views.

Hoodeet

I agree with "Fidel". 

A Spanish website, rebelion.org, used to call the USA "The Fourth Reich".  They're not that far off, especially in the unholy NATO alliance of which we Canadians are good doggies (to quote another thread) even if we are largely invisible in the foreign MSM. (When are Canadian raids or even spokespersons ever mentioned?)

As for the experts in military matters who have been (on another thread) saying that DU is not this or that, or not being used in Libya (because there has been no proof offered yet), they really are engaged in a foul sort of casuistry aimed at distracting us from the real concerns.  They might as well be arguing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, while shifting the subject from the very very grave matters of foreign intervention in domestic affairs and the violations of international law and attacks on civilians...

We have so much meretricious crap/one-sided reporting to put up with -- even Democracy Now! seems to be indulging in it. 

 

 

 

 

Fidel

Snert wrote:
I'm not specifically endorsing an air war or a ground war or what have you, but somehow this "it's none of our business" business reminds me of the way polite people would overlook a woman's black eye forty years ago. "It's up to them to work it out for themselves".
 

It's been illegal since Nuremberg to attack and invade sovereign countries unless the country in question threatens peace and security of other countries. Hitler said the invasion of Poland was for humanitarian reasons. But that was a lie, too.

Blitzkriegs over Afghanistan, Iraq and other countries were illegal as well. The USA was never threatened by any country on or since 9/11/01. In fact, they've been aiding and abetting al-Qaeda in Libya and other countries before and since 9/11/

Snert Snert's picture

I'm not saying we should march in there with big guns.  But the idea that no matter what might be going on, we should just mind our knitting seems a bit, well, unprogressive somehow.  If Gadaffi is brutalizing his people, who is supposed to help them?  Their government?  Their God?  I guess it's not clear to me why, if Libya were attacking Kuwait, it might be OK to intervene to help the Kuwaitis, but if Libya is attacking Libyans, "it's a personal matter".

 

Quote:
 Hitler said the invasion of Poland was for humanitarian reasons.

 

Did any other nations join him in this? It might have been a bit more plausible if the international community agreed.

CMOT Dibbler

Former Canadian diplomat Peter Dale Scott says it's not so much what Libyans want for Libya as what:

Alright, but the question I'm asking is, if the Libyans were left to themselves would they create an Islamic government like the one developed in Somalia, a government which was subsequently destroyed by the American backed ethiopian army.

Fidel

Snert wrote:

I'm not saying we should march in there with big guns.  But the idea that no matter what might be going on, we should just mind our knitting seems a bit, well, unprogressive somehow.  If Gadaffi is brutalizing his people, who is supposed to help them?  Their government?  Their God?  I guess it's not clear to me why, if Libya were attacking Kuwait, it might be OK to intervene to help the Kuwaitis, but if Libya is attacking Libyans, "it's a personal matter".

The Yanks, Brits and Saudis, and probably the US-backed military dictatorship in Egypt, have been aiding and abetting al-Qaeda in Libya as well as Gadhafi's political opposition, which is also illegal. They would never allow foreign government to fund political opposition at home and consider such maneuvering an act of war. It's a recipe for what they pulled in the former Yugoslavia before launching blitzkriegs and invasions there.

Snert wrote:
Quote:
 Hitler said the invasion of Poland was for humanitarian reasons.

Did any other nations join him in this? It might have been a bit more plausible if the international community agreed.

It all started with the SS pulling a false flag attack against themselves at Gleiwitz. Other western nations weren't prepared to do anything about it anyway and basically abandoned Poland to its own devices except for a token declaration of war against Germany. But without a trial at Nuremberg the world would never have known what really happened."

Quote:
"I will provide a propagandistic casus belli. Its credibility doesn't matter. The victor will not be asked whether he told the truth." - August, 1939

CMOT Dibbler

1. What international law exists that gives us the right to wage a "War of Aggression" or to (attempt) to commit regime change against the governments of other nations? None that I know.

Your right.

Beltov, Can we honestly say who the Libyan opposition is? Do we have a clear picture of who they are?

Fidel, please do not respond until after Beltov posts.

CMOT Dibbler

In the speech that Obama gave to explain to Americans why he entered the U.S.A. into the war on Libya, he claimed that a massacre of the people of Benghazi was imminent. When one reads through the speech Moammar Gadhafi made that Obama referenced, what Gadhafi said was his forces were going to fight those who had taken up arms against his government - not the people of Benghazi. He also promised a pardon and would allow those rebels to return to their homes in peace if they laid down their arms. He also said his forces would leave a corridor open to the Egyptian border so the rebels could escape and seek sanctuary in Egypt.
 Overfour weeks of fighting have been going on in Libya since the first U.S., U.K., French and Canadian bombs have been dropped on Libya. If Gadhafi intends to stay in power through intimidation by committing genocide, then tell me where have you heard of such incidents taking place?


Are you sure your information is accurate.  Could you give me your source?

Fidel

It's Uncle Sam who owes it to the rest of the world to provide sources and evidence. He has refused to do this every time he and his Gladio allies launch illegal blitzkriegs against sovereign nation they attack, invade and plunder. The onus of proof does not lie with the country being attacked - it lies with the aggressor nations. 

The reason the military dictatorship in Warshington and friends in London and Paris and Cairo want to murder Gadhafi, like was done with Milosveic and Saddam, is that they they know a fair trial in the World Court would produce evidence against them. The mafia always makes an effort to sidestep or avoid a fair trial if possible. They might be blood-thirsty pirates, but they still maintain some high-minded ideals of themselves as noble crusaders while plundering the world's resources.

Frmrsldr

Frmrsldr wrote:

We have no right to militarily interfere in the internal affairs of other countries.

What goes on in Libya is nobody's business but the Libyans.

Snert wrote:

Would it be OK if Amnesty International were to stick its nose in occasionally? Maybe just for the very worst of the torture and oppression?

Absolutely. Unless that constitutes your idea of "military interference."

Snert wrote:

I'm not specifically endorsing an air war or a ground war or what have you, but somehow this "it's none of our business" business reminds me of the way polite people would overlook a woman's black eye forty years ago. "It's up to them to work it out for themselves".

Violence should not be the means of first resort. In the case of the abused woman, you don't call the nearest army base and have them blow up the man's (and woman's/family's) house.

There are other ways the Libya situation could have been dealt with: Moral and Political criticism, persuasion, treating Libya like a social outcast, boycotting and economic sanctions, etc., like apartheid South Africa and BDS toward Israel.

There is also the possibility that this Libyan "revolution" is a Pentagon black flag gladio operation, the result of Pentagon interfering and meddling in Libya's internal affairs.

Frmrsldr

Snert wrote:

If Gadaffi is brutalizing his people, who is supposed to help them? Their government? Their God?

What about the Libyan people defending themselves?

They seem to be doing a pretty good job so far.

There has been five weeks of war since Obama made his speech to the nation where he justified the U.S.A's war on Libya because a massacre was imminent. What happened to these massacres?

Frmrsldr

CMOT Dibbler wrote:

Alright, but the question I'm asking is, if the Libyans were left to themselves would they create an Islamic government like the one developed in Somalia, a government which was subsequently destroyed by the American backed ethiopian army.

What the Libyans do is entirely up to them. It's called sovereignty and the right to national self-determination. We have no right to wage a war of aggression with the intent of effecting regime change upon them.

The U.S.A. is waging wars of aggression against Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Somalia, Yemen, and is playing brinksmanship (along with its proxy South Korea) against North Korea.

None of these countries attacked the U.S.A.

Frmrsldr

CMOT Dibbler wrote:

In the speech that Obama gave to explain to Americans why he entered the U.S.A. into the war on Libya, he claimed that a massacre of the people of Benghazi was imminent. When one reads through the speech Moammar Gadhafi made that Obama referenced, what Gadhafi said was his forces were going to fight those who had taken up arms against his government - not the people of Benghazi. He also promised a pardon and would allow those rebels to return to their homes in peace if they laid down their arms. He also said his forces would leave a corridor open to the Egyptian border so the rebels could escape and seek sanctuary in Egypt.
 Overfour weeks of fighting have been going on in Libya since the first U.S., U.K., French and Canadian bombs have been dropped on Libya. If Gadhafi intends to stay in power through intimidation by committing genocide, then tell me where have you heard of such incidents taking place?

Are you sure your information is accurate.  Could you give me your source?

A number of authors have written this. I connected to articles from http://antiwar.com/

The best thing to do is to google for the original English language version of the Gadhafi speech or the youtube video of it.

Snert Snert's picture

Quote:

There are other ways the Libya situation could have been dealt with: Moral and Political criticism, persuasion, treating Libya like a social outcast, boycotting and economic sanctions, etc., like apartheid South Africa and BDS toward Israel.

 

It would have been fascinating to see the African Union show a little leadership in this regard. Instead, Zimbabwe sent troops to help Gadaffi.

 

So who would be doing this Moral and Political criticism?? Evidently not anyone with their own power to shore up.

 

And then for added fun, world leaders like Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez, pretty much sending Gadaffi a fruit basket and their best regards. Very helpful... for Gadaffi, anyway.

Northern Shoveler Northern Shoveler's picture

Snert wrote:

And then for added fun, world leaders like Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez, pretty much sending Gadaffi a fruit basket and their best regards. Very helpful... for Gadaffi, anyway.

The truth is that they both immediately called for mediation between the two sides.  You and NATO said no talks with abusers burn down the house to rid humanity of this pestilence.  

There is no doubt this civli war will cause more pain and suffering for the people of Libya than any compromises that would have been made to ease up on Gaddafi's dictatorial rule and move peacefully towards democratic rule.  I do not believe for a minute the people of Libya want to see NATO planes and drones destroying the infrastructure of their country with DU munitions.  This is not about the Libyan peoples' desires.  They may have wanted Gaddafi gone but they sure as hell would not have voted for death, destruction and chaos as an alternative.

Snert Snert's picture

Quote:
The truth is that they both immediately called for mediation between the two sides.  

 

Of course they did. Heck, didn't Chavez even offer his totally, completely unbiased services as a mediator? Between the Libyan turncoats and his good friend Moammar?

 

Quote:
 You and NATO said no talks with abusers burn down the house to rid humanity of this pestilence.  

 

I can't speak for NATO, but I said no such thing for myself. It's just my understanding that the Libyan rebels have no interest in a "solution" that leaves Gadaffi in power. I don't expect my own say, and I don't care what NATO wants, but if the Libyans really don't care for a compromise then I really can't see why one should be forced on them.

 

I hope everyone is as keen on this bloodless compromise if our own Glorious People's Revolution ever happens. Do you suppose Chavez will offer his services to help ensure that the existing government doesn't get run out of town on a rail? (I'm joking of course... everyone knows Chavez and Harper aren't old buddies!)

 

Anyway, I can see it: "What do we want?" -- "CHANGE" -- "When do we want it?" -- "SOMETIME IN THE NEXT TWO TO THREE YEARS WOULD BE A REASONABLE ROADMAP TO BEGIN PHASING IN SOCIALISM SLOWLY!!!"

 

 

Northern Shoveler Northern Shoveler's picture

Chavez and Harper. Harper is the equivalent of the right wing assholes that form the coalition in Venezuela that opposes the left wing coalition of Chavez.  

Your posts some days are less insightful than Fidel's gladio rants. Just because two political leaders are both hated by you does not mean they have anything in common politically. Definitely one of your more tortured comparisons.

Snert Snert's picture

You got it wrong.  To whatever degree I was comparing, it was Harper and Gadaffi.  Evidently, Chavez was willing to offer his services to ensure a smooth, slow transition out of power for Gadaffi.  I doubt he'd be at all interested in doing the same for anyone else.

Which is another way of saying that I think he was only offering to "help" the Libyan people so he could help his good friend.

Anyway, why are we talking about solutions proposed by some South American guy, instead of the solutions proposed by the Libyans themselves?  That's kind of funny, don't you think, that we're supposed to give traction to what Hugo Chavez thought would be a good idea, but not what the Libyans think would be a good idea?

Fidel

That's okay, I haven't been able to glean a lot of insight from the shoveler's rants either.

Northern Shoveler Northern Shoveler's picture

No I was not talking about solutions I was debunking your misinformation above.  Comparing Harper a leader of a democracy and Chavez a leader of a democracy to Gaddafi is comparing apples and oranges and thus nonsensical.  

What Chavez and Gaddafi have in common is not the way they have gained and held power but the fact that they have kept their countries outside of the IMF/hedge fund managers control.  I applaud both leaders for standing up to the imperialists.  The majority of the people of Ireland, Greece, Portugal and Spain have been stripped of their entitlements by the gang of thieves that is in the process of stealing the wealth of the sovereign nation of Libya.  The European left needs a leader like Chavez to coalesce behind and sweep the neo-cons out of office and control.  

We need to give traction to Libyan leaders' thoughts who haven't lived in America for the last couple of decades.  Have you not read or watched any of the stories in links provided?  Do you really have no questions about the legitimacy of some of the "rebels" and their claims to speak on behalf the "people."  How blinding is your ideology anyways?

CMOT Dibbler

"I hope everyone is as keen on this bloodless compromise if our own Glorious People's Revolution ever happens. Do you suppose Chavez will offer his services to help ensure that the existing government doesn't get run out of town on a rail? (I'm joking of course... everyone knows Chavez and Harper aren't old buddies!)"

It must be noted that many Third World leaders may support the Colonel, not because they have any love for him or his policies, but simply because he gives them money and fuel.
I'm sorry, there is a chunk of my brain that is still reluctant to see Hugo Chavez as a supporter of tyrannical oppression.
I realize that probably sounds quite naïve.

Fidel

So has anyone been able to confirm that Gadhafi "bombed his own people" with air strikes? Apparently this was the original reason for invoking UN resolution 1973.

[url=http://tv.globalresearch.ca/2011/04/nato-war-based-lies-tripoli-was-neve... War Based on Lies, Tripoli Was Never Bombed[/url] grtv

NATO has to stop its aggression if they are lacking proof. Journalists not doing their jobs. Pro NATO Contras feeding western opinion on Libya.

Hoodeet

CMOT et al.:  Chávez knows that this attack on Ghaddafi is also an attack on OPEC, at least on the independent players in the oil cartel.  Once Libya is in the hands of a western-friendly gov't, Venezuela is even more isolated.  (And I suspect the US wants to take Iran for the same reason. Not just to get their oil but mainly to break the independent group within OPEC.)

And Chávez has his back against the wall, with Santos (whose name should be diablos) of Colombia pressuring him to hand over Colombian refugees. (He's even handed over a journalist who was visiting Venezuela but who had been granted asylum in Spain!)

Why?  I strongly suspect that the Libyan model may be in the offing for Venezuela (and possibly Bolivia).  The states bordering on Colombia have anti-Chavez governors who routinely let Colombian paramilitaries through and encourage seditious talk.  There has been encouragement in the media to overthrow Chávez for 10 years.  The US has bases in Colombia and now in Panama, and can probably count on the European bases in Venezuela's other neighbours, from which attacks can easily be launched in "support" of "freedom fighters", should any of those anti-Chavez people decide to follow the Libyan model. (NATO could thus strike in our hemisphere and Canada will surely be in the thick of it.  They have already participated in exercises in the Caribbean.)

So I wish there weren't such silly, glib postings --even as light-hearted jest-- about Chávez this and Castro that, without a proper analysis of the very serious historical juncture Latin America is facing. 

 

Frmrsldr

Frmrsldr wrote:

There are other ways the Libya situation could have been dealt with: Moral and Political criticism, persuasion, treating Libya like a social outcast, boycotting and economic sanctions, etc., like apartheid South Africa and BDS toward Israel.

Snert wrote:

So who would be doing this Moral and Political criticism??

As there aren't any restrictions on it, anybody.

The same people and others like them who boycotted apartheid South Africa and who are involved in the BDS of Israel. You, me and thousands or tens of thousands of good folks like us.

Snert Snert's picture

Fair enough.  I guess I should have asked who'd be doing the Moral and Political criticism effectively.

My guess is that censure coming from the former colonial oppressors, or folk who look like them, probably isn't going to sway the good Colonel.

Which is why I think the African Union should have stepped up.  They seem to - reasonably - resent foreign influence in Africa, but what exactly have they done here?  And was it done for the people, or for Gadaffi?  Kind of looks like asking the AU to intervene in a situation like this is a bit like asking the RCMP to investigate the RCMP.

A_J

Fidel wrote:

So has anyone been able to confirm that Gadhafi "bombed his own people" with air strikes? Apparently this was the original reason for invoking UN resolution 1973.

[url=http://tv.globalresearch.ca/2011/04/nato-war-based-lies-tripoli-was-neve... War Based on Lies, Tripoli Was Never Bombed[/url] grtv

Um, I don't believe anybody ever claimed that the Libyan air force had bombed Tripoli - why the hell would it want to bomb the capital when it was firmly in the hands of pro-Gadhafi forces?

I don't even know how to respond to the idiocy of the article you've linked.

Northern Shoveler Northern Shoveler's picture

I have hope the African Union will have a positive effect.  it seems to be the proper international forum for this discussion.  They have proposed a road map to peace and change.  The Libyans have agreed but the rebels have said no talks till the regime is gone. The rebels seem to be pretty emboldened by NATO bombing their country so the appear to not be willing to even bargain in good faith.  It would really be nice to know whether the Libyan people prefer civil war to a peaceful transition to some different government. I fundamentally believe that war mongers are not to be trusted and peace makers should be supported in all their efforts to end the killing today.

Quote:

Talks at the AU headquarters in Addis Ababa seeking a negotiated settlement to the Libyan conflict began on Monday and wound up late Tuesday, with AU officials meeting with a team sent by Kadhafi and a rebel delegation. The sides did not, however, meet for direct talks.

The AU has put forward suggestions for a way out of the conflict. Kadhafi's side has said it would abide by the proposals but the rebels say they can only accept the AU's offer once Kadhafi and his sons leave power.

The African body said it wanted to speed up consultations with a view to starting "negotiations on a ceasefire and the other aspects of the Libyan crisis." These talks will be led by the AU and will also involve the Arab League, the European Union and the UN.

It urged the Libyan parties to cooperate in the talks and said there should be "no preconditions" for them to start.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5iy_OaLHN1TJNM6o8YSn5H...

Snert Snert's picture

Quote:
The rebels seem to be pretty emboldened by NATO bombing their country so the appear to not be willing to even bargain in good faith.

 

Ya, if Gadaffi were the only one raining bombs down I bet they wouldn't be so cocky about it.

 

Quote:
It would really be nice to know whether the Libyan people prefer civil war to a peaceful transition to some different government.

 

So they want a revolution, not an evolution?

 

How does the left feel, generally, about revolutions? Should they involve lots of compromise? Should the Soviets, back at the start of the last century, had some talks with the Tsar? Maybe agree to some power-sharing in the short term? Coulda saved some lives, maybe, and isn't that more important than ending the oppression? Somewhat less oppression would have still been a "win" for them, wouldn't it??

 

I find it really hard to criticize the Libyans for not wanting any kind of "peace" that sees Gadaffi or his sons in power. And I'm finding it really funny, on a progressive board, to see that "peace" is more important than liberation and self determination. "Go along to get along" or whatever.

 

Northern Shoveler Northern Shoveler's picture

Wow, a person who argues for super majorities in Canada to tinker with our electoral system thinks that other countries should sink into chaos and bloodshed to get constitutional change.  My view of history is violence begets violence.  Thank you for pointing out that this "revolution" in Libya is living up to the greatest traditions of the Reign of Terror in France or the Bolshevik Revolution (by the way it translates as Minority Party) or the Iranian Revolution where the West sent them an expat theocrat to help in the peoples revolt.  They are some of the examples of why I say that when the guns come out the last men standing are the most ruthless.  Not my idea of a way to start a democracy and that after all is the point isn't it?

Violence breeds violence and in civil wars neighbours kill neighbours. I am proud to be a man of peace.

You seem to be oscillating between the democracy of ballots and the legitimacy of bullets as preferred methods of regime change.  You are conflating the men with guns in one province with the people of Libya.  Do you think a super majority should be required to change Libya's constitution or should one side in a civli war just rip it up and say it doesn't exist?  

The other thing I understand is that when Gaddafi came to power he had the same legitimacy of the gun barrel as his current opponents.  He also had the consent of the majority for part of his rule but being a man of the gun he is not willing to change.  I do not believe another man with a gun is the change needed.

I would really like the people to be able to stop ducking bullets and cruise missiles so they can begin a peaceful dialogue.  It is my firm believe that the war hawks calling for a fight to the death are not the majority in Libya.  I also believe that the majority want a change in the type of government.  NATO interference strengthens the hand of the men with guns and does nothing to promote the peace and prosperity that I am sure most Libyans, like most humans, strive for.

Fidel

A_J wrote:

Fidel wrote:

So has anyone been able to confirm that Gadhafi "bombed his own people" with air strikes? Apparently this was the original reason for invoking UN resolution 1973.

[url=http://tv.globalresearch.ca/2011/04/nato-war-based-lies-tripoli-was-neve... War Based on Lies, Tripoli Was Never Bombed[/url] grtv

Um, I don't believe anybody ever claimed that the Libyan air force had bombed Tripoli - why the hell would it want to bomb the capital when it was firmly in the hands of pro-Gadhafi forces?

I don't even know how to respond to the idiocy of the article you've linked.

 

You do realize they are accusing Gadhafi of [url=http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/02/21/us-libya-protests-jets-idUSTRE... aerial attacks on residents of Tripoli?[/url] Or have you just not been paying attention to the actual thread topic of discussion?

[url=Residents">http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/02/21/us-libya-warplanes-idUSTRE71K5... give conflicting reports of Tripoli attacks[/url]

And here is the original justification for Murder Inc. attacking yet another sovereign oil-rich country.

[url=http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2011/sc10200.doc.htm]Resolution 1973(2011)[/url]

The first thing Luftwaffe Generals did was violate their own "no-fly" zone.

Snert Snert's picture

Quote:
Wow, a person who argues for super majorities in Canada to tinker with our electoral system thinks that other countries should sink into chaos and bloodshed to get constitutional change

 

All I think is that they should be allowed to make that choice for themselves. Jeebus... who am I -- or you -- to tell the people of Libya that they should sit down to a compromise with the dictator who's ruled them for the past four decades?

 

I'm pretty sure I'd get censured if I were to boldly suggest that the people of Palestine should stop the rock throwing and do the same. Srsly.

Fidel

Northern Shoveler wrote:

Wow, a person who argues for super majorities in Canada to tinker with our electoral system thinks that other countries should sink into chaos and bloodshed to get constitutional change.

And then there is this controversy with supporting US-backed terrorists in attacking sovereign countries as well.

[url=http://quitenormal.wordpress.com/2011/04/20/u-s-providing-25-million-in-.... providing $25 million in aid to Libya's al-Qaeda-backed rebels[/url]

Democracy is not a strength of argument for some.

 

Northern Shoveler Northern Shoveler's picture

Snert wrote:

All I think is that they should be allowed to make that choice for themselves. 

I agree wholeheartedly and that is why I decry the fact of NATO interference. The bombing, the supplying of equipment, arms and intelligence to one side in a civli war means that civli society in Libya has no voice speaking for it.  Which group of Libyans chose who NATO is sending all this help to?  If the rebels in Benghazi with their expat leaders are the legitimate voice of the majority of the people of Libya why does the government still have control of cities like Tripoli?  I believe the answer to that is that what is going on in Libya is a civil war. They are always nasty and bloody affairs and other countries should not interfere.

Canada should help with the logistics of housing and feeding innocent refugees when they steam across borders to get away from the angry men with guns on both sides. When the fighting over who has the biggest dick ends the people should be helped by us to relocate back home.  Help the civilians get back to rebuild after the chaos caused by people on both sides who would rather kill innocents than sit down and compromise.

Snert Snert's picture

The only people who seem to want "compromise" seem to be those who kinda have a bit of a soft spot for ol' Moammar.  Or otherwise, I'm confused.  The left doesn't generally suggest collaborating with dictators.

Should the people of Haiti sit down for a long talk and a hug with Doc Duvalier?  Should the people of East Timor have laid down their arms and gone, cap in hand, to see what rights they might be able to negotiate?  What about the Tamils... all that fighting, when all they really need to do is sit down with their oppressors and compromise!

I guess I can't really buy into a lot of this "compromise" business because as far as I can see, Gadaffi has no real legitimacy.  Why should what he wants be taken into account?  Why should the same Libyans who've been living under his rule for 40+ years now have to go beg him for whatever scraps he's willing to "compromise" on?  That just doesn't make sense.  To me, anyway.

I could suggest one other possibility that the Libyans could consider, and that in my humble, non-Libyan opinion seems reasonable:

1.  Gadaffi immediately steps down
2.  The people of Libya organize themselves and form a provisional government on their own
3.  The Provisional Government of Libya holds free and fair elections
4.  Gadaffi runs for office

If the people decide Mo' wasn't that bad, they can vote him right back into office.  And if they don't, they don't.

That seem fair to you?

Northern Shoveler Northern Shoveler's picture

Excuse me Snert but I have entered into a good faith discussion with you on a serious subject.  Exactly why have you now chosen to engage me in straw men arguments.  I would never suggest the ridiculous things you propose as alternatives.  You have now taken to playing with your self and personally I don't see a role for me.

Northern Shoveler Northern Shoveler's picture

As thread drift though I find it highly amusing for you to be telling the world what "the left" thinks about anything. 

Snert Snert's picture

To say that the left doesn't generally suggest collaborating with dicators is an observation.  Similar to noting that the right doesn't generally endorse higher personal taxes.  Neither is an attempt to read any minds.

Northern Shoveler Northern Shoveler's picture

Snert wrote:

The only people who seem to want "compromise" seem to be those who kinda have a bit of a soft spot for ol' Moammar.  Or otherwise, I'm confused.  The left doesn't generally suggest collaborating with dictators.

The problem I have is that the left contains many divergent viewpoints.  My peace and anti-war believes are left wing and supposedly so are Blair's "bomb the brown people into democracy" theories and Dion's liberal environmentalism.  The left does not stop at Blairites and personally I see too many nuances in political ideology to use such broad brush terms as the "left."

I am a person who wants to compromise and avoid bloodshed. Your words accuse me of having a soft spot for Gaddafi. If you were reading my posts to engage in a discussion and not a pissing match you would know I am not a supporter of Gaddafi.  You then suggest that a peace activist is not only not left wing but is also a collaborator with dictators.  

Go awa and come back when you can discuss an issue with respect. You are not confused you are argumentative and frankly it seems you are deliberately trying to bait me into an argument or flame war.  I have observed that seems to be your style with most posters to the left of Tony the UK Bomber.

N.Beltov N.Beltov's picture

clap clap

Frmrsldr

Snert wrote:

Fair enough.  I guess I should have asked who'd be doing the Moral and Political criticism effectively.

You don't think the "Moral and Political criticism" (i.e., boycotting) of apartheid South Africa was effective?

Snert wrote:

... They seem to - reasonably - resent foreign influence in Africa, but what exactly have they done here?  And was it done for the people, or for Gadaffi?  Kind of looks like asking the AU to intervene in a situation like this is a bit like asking the RCMP to investigate the RCMP.

Delegates/representatives of the AU did go to Benghazi port to offer the rebels and Benghazians their offer for a ceasefire between the rebels and Gadhafi('s forces.) The rebels rejected this offer. The delegates did not even leave the ship for fear the (hostile) crowd in Benghazi would harm them.

Hoodeet

More applause.

Snert's generalizations about the left sound like generalizations about the putative "middle class".

Frmrsldr

Snert wrote:

All I think is that they should be allowed to make that choice for themselves. Jeebus... who am I -- or you -- to tell the people of Libya that they should sit down to a compromise with the dictator who's ruled them for the past four decades?

Good point, (aside from the fact that you are now contradicting what you wrote earlier on this thread) Snert!

Indeed, what right do you or I or the U.S.A. or the U.K., or France, or Canada, or Italy, or anyone have to tell (with war and bombs, i.e. force and killing) the Libyans to do anything?

Absolutely none. Right?

Frmrsldr

Snert wrote:

I find it really hard to criticize the Libyans for not wanting any kind of "peace" that sees Gadaffi or his sons in power.

In the negotiated peace settlements and transitions of governmet offered by the AU and Turkey, the prospect of Gadhafi and his sons being excluded from government were in both plans.

Fidel

Snert wrote:
Should the people of Haiti sit down for a long talk and a hug with Doc Duvalier?  

Both Duvaliers were backed by the CIA and US Military. The Yanks intervened dozens of times to put down rebellions against brutal US-backed dictators there whenever the dictatorship and right wing death squads were threatened by the people. 

And then their first democratically elected president was abducted by the CIA in 2004. Poor comparison.

Democracy is the right's most hated institution and always will be.

Hoodeet

I agree with Frmrsldr & Fidel, that any government that is formed as a result of this foreign intervention will be the fruit of the poisoned tree, to cite a legal term.  Just like Pres. Lobo of Honduras, who won an election that had been scheduled and was legal only in that regard, but that was held after the coup and accompanied by massive repression.

As for Libya (and Syria - see Fisk's article today in the Independent), any election will probably also be literally over the dead bodies of thousands of non-combatants, including religious minorities and members of tribes that supported the old regime, who are being killed and will be killed to pave the way for the rebels we are supporting.

 Probably not much different from Iraq or Afghanistan.  Or Haiti.

Pages

Topic locked