Continued from here.
Chavez, Ortega, Back Gaddafi Oppression II
Tue, 2011-03-01 09:30
#1
Chavez, Ortega, Back Gaddafi Oppression II
Tue, 2011-03-01 09:38
#2
The people of Libya are proving themselves capable of defeating Gadaffi all on their own. They don't need no 'hep' from those bloody Amerikkan cowboys.
Tue, 2011-03-01 09:45
#3
Snert
"I'm not going to condemn him (Gadhafi)," he said. "I'd be a coward to condemn someone who has been my friend."
What a pathetic cop out.
Tue, 2011-03-01 10:04
#4
"The enemy of my enemy is my friend" foreign policy has worked so well for the US. 
What the hell is Chavez thinking?
Tue, 2011-03-01 10:47
#5
Chavez Proposes Talks For Libya
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/americas/2011/03/2011316273322512.html
Venezuelan president calls for mediation to end crisis while the US and other powers weigh military options.
"I hope we can create a commission that goes to Libya to talk with the government and opposition leaders,' he said in a live televised speech. We want a peaceful solution...We support peace in the Arab world and in the whole world. Chavez said it was better to seek 'a political solution instead of sending marines to Libya, and better to send a good will mission than for the killing to continue.
Chavez repeated his warning that the US wanted to invade Libya to get oil, a view that has been voiced by both Cuba and Nicaragua. He also wondered why doesn't the world condemn the masscres in Faluja, in Afghanistan and in Pakistan.."
Tue, 2011-03-01 10:57
#6
"The enemy of my enemy is my friend" foreign policy has worked so well for the US.
What the hell is Chavez thinking?
Perhaps he's thinking that he has learned, the hard way, how the U.S. and U.K. and other imperial powers operate.
Did you oppose the invasion of Afghanistan - or did you support the "mass uprising" against the Taliban government led by the Northern Alliance and others?
Speaking of which, do you support the Afghan insurgency right now, or the government of [s]Gaddafi[/s] Karzai which is using extreme violence and foreign troops to suppress the insurgency?
When you say "Canada out of Afghanistan!", is it necessary to add: "Of course, we Canadians oppose the Taliban and hope they never come to power again and will freeze their assets and never establish diplomatic relations and impose sanctions and no-fly zones!"
There's a thread here somewhere called "Imperial Hands Off Libya!" That's what I hear Chavez thinking, and saying. And Castro as well.
Tue, 2011-03-01 11:04
#7
Snert
There's a thread here somewhere called "Imperial Hands Off Libya!" That's what I hear Chavez thinking, and saying. And Castro as well.
So you don't believe it would be possible for a leader with some integrity to both condemn the POSSIBLE interference by the U.S./etc., and also condemn Gadaffi's actions, which are actually happening right now?
I think it's called a false dichotomy when you pretend you HAVE to choose just one. Chavez is too cowardly to criticize both. He's standing shoulder to shoulder with his "friend", as his friend turns the military loose on his own people.
Tue, 2011-03-01 11:34
#8
There's a thread here somewhere called "Imperial Hands Off Libya!" That's what I hear Chavez thinking, and saying. And Castro as well.
So you don't believe it would be possible for a leader with some integrity to both condemn the POSSIBLE interference by the U.S./etc., and also condemn Gadaffi's actions, which are actually happening right now?
I believe that for foreigners to take sides in a purely internal struggle for power in Libya should only happen in the most extreme and clear of circumstances - and with tremendous caution not to fall into the trap of those imperialist powers who have a whole list of countries where they would like to effect regime change.
I am particularly careful to treat with scorn and contempt those who condemn Gaddafi while remaining silent about Karzai, who has "invited" in the U.S., Canada, NATO, etc. to prop up his regime and devastate his country.
I am very cautious indeed when the same murdering thugs who are now calling for Gaddafi to be removed from power have tried to do likewise with Chavez, and the Honduran government (successfully), and the Cuban government, and countless others - always using the same pretext of defending the "human rights" of the people concerned.
If the Libyan people cannot, through their own struggle, overthrow Gaddafi, then it will not happen. I'm not entirely sure why Chavez, or Castro, or any other public figure on the assassination list of the U.S. should feel called upon to join the chorus, initiated by Obama and Clinton, for regime change, based solely on Twitter and CNN reports on what's happening in Libya.
I think it's called a false dichotomy when you pretend you HAVE to choose just one. Chavez is too cowardly to criticize both. He's standing shoulder to shoulder with his "friend", as his friend turns the military loose on his own people.
Chavez has the right to absolutely any opinion he wishes to hold. Our sacred obligation is to ensure that we stand shoulder to shoulder with Chavez - and every other leader and country - which is on the hit list of Obama, Harper, and other bloodthirsty profiteers.
I learned this lesson in my youth. I have never had reason to diverge from it. I will not condemn Hamas for being "anti-democratic", or Québec for being illiberal on language and religious issues, or Aboriginal people for enforcing hereditary criteria for membership and residency, or Afghan insurgents for not having affirmative action programs. I support all those fighting against imperial domination and subjugation and for their sovereignty, irrespective of whether their ideas and practices meet my approval.
Tue, 2011-03-01 11:36
#9
In the previous thread, I referred to 'planes that stafe and bomb unarmed demonstrators.' As much as Gadaffi still appears a brutal despot, there is a reminder that we can't trust the media, even Al Jazeera. But, then again, how much can we trust Russia's military chiefs.
The reports of Libya mobilizing its air force against its own people spread quickly around the world. However, Russia's military chiefs say they have been monitoring from space - and the pictures tell a different story.According to Al Jazeera and BBC, on February 22 Libyan government inflicted airstrikes on Benghazi - the country's largest city - and on the capital Tripoli. However, the Russian military, monitoring the unrest via satellite from the very beginning, says nothing of the sort was going on on the ground.
At this point, the Russian military is saying that, as far as they are concerned, the attacks some media were reporting have never occurred.
Tue, 2011-03-01 11:43
#10
Catchfire
From the earlier thread:
Perhaps you losers should pick some right wing targets? Or find another web site where you'd be more comfortable? Storm front maybe?
Beltov, you know that this is absolutely unacceptable. We don't call other babblers Nazis. Keep the blows above the belt.
Tue, 2011-03-01 11:48
#11
Northern Shoveler
Does anyone know if the US/NATO has supplied drones to the Gaddafi regime? I presume of course as in Egypt and Afghanistan and Iraq the munitions being fired at protesters is all NATO supplied. There was a CBC interview that was going well from a pro-western perspective until the interviewer asked one question to many. He asked a anti-Gaddafi protester if the west should intervene and his response was that is likely the only way the people would rally around Gaddafi. They hate him but seem to be far to sophisticated to want NATO troops stationed in their country to "guard" their oil.
Tue, 2011-03-01 13:32
#12
Bec.De.Corbin
"The enemy of my enemy is my friend" foreign policy has worked so well for the US.
What the hell is Chavez thinking?
Actually that strategy has worked for allot of people and nations throughout history: the good the bad and the ugly alike... I'd say it's nothing new and he is pretty much thinking likes everyone else.
Like I've said before I doubt he'll turn on his friend (and I can understand that). You also have machismo involved in this; hence the "I'd be a coward" remark. That would apply to Castro as well.
Tue, 2011-03-01 13:56
#13
Bec.De.Corbin
Does anyone know if the US/NATO has supplied drones to the Gaddafi regime? I presume of course as in Egypt and Afghanistan and Iraq the munitions being fired at protesters is all NATO supplied. There was a CBC interview that was going well from a pro-western perspective until the interviewer asked one question to many. He asked a anti-Gaddafi protester if the west should intervene and his response was that is likely the only way the people would rally around Gaddafi. They hate him but seem to be far to sophisticated to want NATO troops stationed in their country to "guard" their oil.
The Gaddafi regime is supplied with mostly Russian and European (small arms) weapons. Its air force is mostly Russian and I think Italian and French. Its tanks (which fought in those battles last night) are mostly all old Eastern bloc style T-55 and T-72 tanks, same with their other armor. That's not to say there isn't some US weapons there, they could be bought though third party arms dealers.
Russia had a contract to rebuild the T-72s... I don't think anybody sold them anything as sophisticated as drones.
Tue, 2011-03-01 14:06
#14
Northern Shoveler
So you don't believe it would be possible for a leader with some integrity to both condemn the POSSIBLE interference by the U.S./etc., and also condemn Gadaffi's actions, which are actually happening right now?
Can you name any leaders that are doing what you are holding up as the minimum for "some integrity"? So far Canada is certainly not. China's response seems the closest to what you suggest. No liberal democracy seems to be condemning the POSSIBLE interference by the oil cartel nations.
Tue, 2011-03-01 14:12
#15
Snert
Maybe they're actually going to wait until it happens instead of speculating. I was only suggesting that Chavez, seeing as he chose to speak up and is evidently very urgent about the whole U.S. possibility, could ALSO talk about what's actually happening too.
Flip it around to see how stupid Chavez looks. Imagine no violence, but a U.S. invasion because "Gadaffi [i]could[/i] turn violent at any time, and that's the real problem we should be thinking about".
I think we'd start by laughing.
Tue, 2011-03-01 16:45
#16
Le T
Maybe they're actually going to wait until it happens instead of speculating. I was only suggesting that Chavez, seeing as he chose to speak up and is evidently very urgent about the whole U.S. possibility, could ALSO talk about what's actually happening too.
You mean that the US military has encircled Libya and that Western states have started sanctions?
Tue, 2011-03-01 17:04
#17
Snert
I suppose other leaders could talk about the sanctions, but what should they say?
"In accordance with recommendations from the United Nations, the U.S. has frozen the assets of dictator/strongman Gadaffi and this is a terrible thing for some reason and makes it obvious that they're just after the oil".
Compare that with "He's sending the military to attack his own citizens".
For the record, I don't support an intervention in Libya unless it's painfully obvious to all that Gadaffi can't be controlled by the opposition -- right now it appears that he can be. I don't care, however, if Canada sends a military ship to help with evacuation. What else do you send to a war zone? Evacuating citizens shouldn't give Canada control of the oil, should it?
Tue, 2011-03-01 18:11
#18
N.Beltov
For the record, I don't support an intervention in Libya unless it's painfully obvious to all that Gadaffi can't be controlled by the opposition -- right now it appears that he can be.
With pro-imperialist views like this I don't see what you're doing on babble except to be a disruptive right wing element. Then again, there are also plenty of useful liberal idiots who share your views. Either way, this is basically supporting war crimes.
It's difficult to take anything you write here seriously, given such heinous views.
Tue, 2011-03-01 18:29
#19
Snert
Better, if it came to it, that he just crush the people under some tanks? We should all stand by as the people of Libya "work it out for themselves"?
To be clear: I'm not suggesting that an intervention should be anything other than the absolute last resort (short of just watching a bloodbath), nor that we should stay. But I don't see any sense in letting innocent citizens die on the grounds that interfering with Gadaffi is worse.
I'm talking like, when it's another East Timor type situation.
With pro-imperialist views like this I don't see what you're doing on babble except to be a disruptive right wing element. Then again, there are also plenty of useful liberal idiots who share your views. Either way, this is basically supporting war crimes.
Everyone should have a goal. Getting me turfed on the grounds of unrepentant evil may as well be yours. Godspeed.
Tue, 2011-03-01 18:38
#20
For the record, I don't support an intervention in Libya unless it's painfully obvious to all that Gadaffi can't be controlled by the opposition -- right now it appears that he can be.With pro-imperialist views like this I don't see what you're doing on babble except to be a disruptive right wing element. Then again, there are also plenty of useful liberal idiots who share your views. Either way, this is basically supporting war crimes.
It's difficult to take anything you write here seriously, given such heinous views.
The echo chamber is never hollow enough for some.
Tue, 2011-03-01 18:41
#21
N.Beltov
"If the US and Britain decide to intervene, that will be a gross violation of all international laws. This can be sanctioned only by the UN," Rogozin said
Rogozin is the Russian Ambassador to the NATO military axis/alliance. He was speaking in the context of claiming that NATO, as a military alliance, didn't intend to "intervene" (to use your, and Rogozin's, euphemism for mass slaughter of Libyans by the USA and the UK) but was cautioning against military attacks by US/UK.
So, you're in favour of what the Ambassador to NATO calls gross violations of international law. And this begs the question of what OTHER gross violations of international law you're in favour of.
Don't be bashful, now. Share.
NATO "does not plan intervention" says Russian Ambassador to NATO
Tue, 2011-03-01 18:51
#22
N.Beltov
More from Rogozin: "Some European countries within the block are categorically against any military action without an agreement from the UN Security Council."
RT also notes the activities of the US military and US and UK politicians in their war rhetoric.
The US Sixth Fleet has begun repositioning its ships in the Mediterranean, triggering speculation of a NATO invasion of Libya.It comes as Libya's long-time leader Colonel Gaddafi remains besieged in the capital Tripoli, with opposition forces nearby.
After the US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton stated that "nothing is off the table" when it came to Libya, the American Navy started to take tactical positions off the coast of that North African country. At this point, the possibility of any of the major forces in the region, like US military, NATO troops or even UN peacekeepers, setting their feet on Libyan shores should not be ruled out.
This was mirrored by comments of British Prime Minister David Cameron who has said that he would not exclude the use of the military there, and that there is a possibility that Britain could provide arms to the opposition forces.
Wait! There's more.
Western politicians are also playing a "weapons of mass destruction" card, saying the Libyan regime might have stockpiles of chemical weapons, despite the fact that Libya officially refused to continue the development of chemical weapons and signed international treaties accordingly.
Sound familliar? Does 1,000,000 dead Iraqis ring a bell, o clever humanitarian imperialists of babble?
Tue, 2011-03-01 19:19
#23
Yeah how come we're not mounting a NATO mission to rescue the Iraqi protesters being killed by their 'tyrannical' dictatorship? Oh yeah, I forgot - we helped install it. How soon Western liberals tire of and abandon yesterday's 'cause' du jour
Iraq: US Stays Mum
http://www.propublica.org/blog/item/us-stays-mum-as-iraqi-government-kil...
Op Silent Parner: Canada's Quiet Complicity in the Iraq War
http://coat.ncf.ca/P4C/65/65.htm
get my drift...?
Tue, 2011-03-01 20:13
#24
For the record, I don't support an intervention in Libya unless it's painfully obvious to all that Gadaffi can't be controlled by the opposition -- right now it appears that he can be.With pro-imperialist views like this I don't see what you're doing on babble except to be a disruptive right wing element. Then again, there are also plenty of useful liberal idiots who share your views. Either way, this is basically supporting war crimes.
It's difficult to take anything you write here seriously, given such heinous views.
You know, N. Beltov, I appreciate Snert's presence and views here, even though you and I are on the same side of this and most issues. Snert presents his own opinions - no one could doubt that - and in full sincerity. Where I have a problem is some leftists who get confused by every new situation and end up, with oh so left-sounding phrases, squarely in the camp of the White House murderers. Like not a small number of "leftists" after 9-11 and the invasion of Afghanistan, bemoaning how terrible the Taliban was. Or today - they've suddenly fucking discovered that Gaddafi is not a nice person and he must be overthrown. We need a more consistent and resilient anti-imperialist movement. And the obstacle to that is not Snert and his views - in my humble opinion.
Tue, 2011-03-01 21:54
#25
Excellent post, U.
I had to think about things for a whiiiile before I really came to my thoughts on this whole 'no-fly zone'. The simple fact is that Gadaffi has a very developed anti-air system, assisted by those noxious states that decided to profit on the backs of Gadaffi's brutal reign over his people - France, Russia/USSR, UK, etc. That is a major military challenge for even the high-tech Americans. Even with increased electronic warfare countermeasures, a sustained and severe bombing campaign will ensue. The simple fact is that the no-fly zone is not strictly necessary - the aged SU-22s and dilapidated Mirages of the Libyan air force can bomb civilians, but for how long? The institution of sanctions means that the fleet will be quickly cannibalized for parts to maintain a small force. That means that the Libyan air force, though it presents a threat to the people of the state, will quickly fall into total disrepair and be non-functioning.
Now, back to the Libyan SAM capability. That can't hurt the Americans, as I mentioned they're too advanced for 1970s surplus Soviet SAM systems. Even the most updated of these systems is quite obsolete. So, why the air campaign? It is, well, the doctrine. In the 80s the Americans bombed Libya with very little actual resistance. When the Americans rolled into Afghanistan in 2001, they bombed all of the SAM sites, despite the decripit nature of the Afghan airforce under the Taliban's misguided rule. They will do this to weaken any semblence of armed infrastructure in the nation should 'intervention' occur.
However, the destabilization that will occur should the Americans intervene will be palpable and spread throughout the region - particularly in Egypt where Western intervention is concerned. It will accompany further crackdowns in states like Egypt where the saviour institutions of the military have been thoroughly turned to a longer term agenda of the Western states. It is far more damaging for the world to respond in the standard model of bombings and intervention and 'guidance'. Although on paper Libya seems like an easy cake walk compared to Afghanistan or Iraq (sparsely populated, population of about 1/5 of either), it will not be.
As much as the humanitarian in me would like to see intervention and an end to the Gadaffi regime in Libya (when a ruler reigns absolutely for over 40 years, it is time for them to go - right wing or left wing) and to stop the one-sided blood shed that he has unleashed and will continue to force upon his people, I understand that this will be very damaging to the stability of the region and the aspirations of the people. Hands off Libya, let the people do to Gadaffi what the people do best.
Tue, 2011-03-01 22:02
#26
N.Beltov
(Written before Papal Bull wrote his remarks)
The "intervention" in Iraq by the US and allied states has cost around 1,000,000 Iraqi lives so far. A US "intervention" in Libya would undoubtedly carry a similarly enormous and predictable death toll. I don't see why supporting such atrocities should get a pass; anyone defending such prospective war crimes ought to be made to defend their views or STFU.
In fact, it's too bad that such remarks aren't treated with the same severity that homophobic or sexist or racist remarks are treated with on babble.
The President of Venezuela is denounced for giving a gift of a single sword to Gaddafi while the sale of millions of dollars of expensive western weapons, aircraft, etc. is passed over in silence. Meanwhile, these same western countries talk about arming the rebels.
Tue, 2011-03-01 22:49
#27
Chavez Proposes Talks For Libya
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/americas/2011/03/2011316273322512.html
Venezuelan president calls for mediation to end crisis while the US and other powers weigh military options.
"I hope we can create a commission that goes to Libya to talk with the government and opposition leaders,' he said in a live televised speech. We want a peaceful solution...We support peace in the Arab world and in the whole world. Chavez said it was better to seek 'a political solution instead of sending marines to Libya, and better to send a good will mission than for the killing to continue.
Chavez repeated his warning that the US wanted to invade Libya to get oil, a view that has been voiced by both Cuba and Nicaragua. He also wondered why doesn't the world condemn the masscres in Faluja, in Afghanistan and in Pakistan.."
I think peace negotiations are another bad idea.
Peace negotiations and the delay they will cause will benefit the U.S., E.U., NATO and the U.N. and the movement toward putting "boots on the ground" in Libya, which as many Libyans have said is the worst possible thing that could happen as foreign invasion and occupation would turn Libyans against the West and drive them into the arms of Gadhafi.
Peace negotiations and the delay they will cause will also benefit Gadhafi because they will offer him a way out of his "all or nothing" situation and will prolong his stay in power.
No, my friends. The current situation in Libya is like Germany in April 1945. Berlin was surrounded and Adolf Hitler was hunkered down in his bunker: Gadhafi's power only extends as far as the limits of Tripoli. Tripoli is surrounded. Gadhafi is hunkered down in his bunker. Like Hitler, Gadhafi is semi-delusional and suffering a disconnect from reality.
The best thing that could happen is for the Libyan people and their Libyan Army allies to siege and capture Tripoli as soon as possible. The most just and desirable solution is for the Libyan people to liberate Tripoli and themselves before any foreign forces arrive in Libya.
As for whether Gadhafi is a saint or a rogue: I say let either fate (suicide - death by his own hands) or the justice of the Libyan people decide.
Tue, 2011-03-01 23:05
#28
Does anyone know if the US/NATO has supplied drones to the Gaddafi regime? I presume of course as in Egypt and Afghanistan and Iraq the munitions being fired at protesters is all NATO supplied.
I haven't heard anything about the use of pilotless drones in Libya. The aircraft used and the aircraft that defected to Malta and the one ditched in the desert were Russian MiG-23s (fighter/attack planes.) The tanks, APCs (Armored Personnel Carriers), rifles (AK-47s), machineguns (13mm) and light automatic anti-aircraft guns I have seen in video and pictures are Russian weapons from the 1980s.
I have also read from a number of sources that since 2003, Mr. Gadhafi has gone on a shopping spree buying small arms (pistols, rifles, machineguns and light automatic anti-aircraft guns) from the U.S., Germany, U.K., France, Italy and Belgium mostly.
Tue, 2011-03-01 23:13
#29
N.Beltov
This proposal of Chavez mimicks, in some ways, what Brazil, Turkey, et al did in relation to Iran and the USA. The Americans were furious, of course, as they wanted a carte blanche to bomb another country and try out their latest overpriced weapon systems, but the "damage" had been done and the precedent set. I like the idea of searching for/ finding other means of resolving disputes even if, in this case, what frmrsldr remarks were may be the best result.
It's hard for Canadians, perhaps, to understand what it's like to be under Sauron's constant eye from Barad-dur/Washington and really understand where Latin American countries like Venezuela and Nicaragua are coming from. They know that the lidless eye never sleeps.
Tue, 2011-03-01 23:21
#30
I don't care, however, if Canada sends a military ship to help with evacuation. What else do you send to a war zone? Evacuating citizens shouldn't give Canada control of the oil, should it?
Sending a frigate to the Mediterranean is wholely unsuited to assisting with evacuation. If you want to evacuate people by sea, you send civilian passenger vessels to the shores of Libya.
Defense Minister Peter MacKay squawked about "Canada supporting its allies in the region" on CBC radio. The (subliminal) message being: "Remember when Canada used to support U.N. missions? Well Canada is doing that once again." What he doesn't state of course, is that "NATO is the new U.N."
Military vessels/hardware have one purpose and one purpose only: to be used in war/combat, either offensively or defensively. This begs the question: "What power has hostile navy vessels in the Mediterranean?" Gadhafi's navy? Someone else? If so, who?
Tue, 2011-03-01 23:34
#31
Where I have a problem is some leftists who get confused by every new situation and end up, with oh so left-sounding phrases, squarely in the camp of the White House murderers. Like not a small number of "leftists" after 9-11 and the invasion of Afghanistan, bemoaning how terrible the Taliban was. Or today - they've suddenly fucking discovered that Gaddafi is not a nice person and he must be overthrown.
9/11 was an inside job and so much "operation Himmler" aka the Gleiwitz incident, and bore similarities to the Gulf of Tonkin false flag incident, Pearl Harbor, Mukden incident etc s(see long list of false flags leading to profitable war and imperialist maneuvering)
Elvis bin Laden is dead a long time, and there is no such thing as al-Qa'eda. Grow up already.
The Talibanization of Pakistan and Afghanistan began in the late 1980s and continues today with the aid of billions of US taxpayer dollars.
We are not occupying Afghanistan militarily to defeat the Taliban.
Tue, 2011-03-01 23:55
#32
We are not occupying Afghanistan militarily to defeat the Taliban.
Um, yes we are. It is the primary military objective and required to ensure the stability of military installations in that nation so that investments can be made and resources exploited. Just because we are failing doesn't mean NATO isn't trying.
By your logic, invading Libya would have nothing to do with insuring consistency in the oil supply. It would just be a conspiratorial 'why the hell not?' multi-billion dollar mission.
Wed, 2011-03-02 00:02
#33
It is the primary military objective and required to ensure the stability of military installations in that nation [Afghanistan] so that investments can be made and resources exploited. Just because we are failing doesn't mean NATO isn't trying.
By your logic, invading Libya would have nothing to do with insuring consistency in the oil supply. It would just be a conspiratorial 'why the hell not?' multi-billion dollar mission.
The arms industry doesn't want anyone to win war. Winners mean the end of a war. When wars end, the arms industry's profits go down. Now that's something they certainly don't want to happen.
Wed, 2011-03-02 00:02
#34
RevolutionPlease
(Written before Papal Bull wrote his remarks)
The "intervention" in Iraq by the US and allied states has cost around 1,000,000 Iraqi lives so far. A US "intervention" in Libya would undoubtedly carry a similarly enormous and predictable death toll. I don't see why supporting such atrocities should get a pass; anyone defending such prospective war crimes ought to be made to defend their views or STFU.
In fact, it's too bad that such remarks aren't treated with the same severity that homophobic or sexist or racist remarks are treated with on babble.
The President of Venezuela is denounced for giving a gift of a single sword to Gaddafi while the sale of millions of dollars of expensive western weapons, aircraft, etc. is passed over in silence. Meanwhile, these same western countries talk about arming the rebels.
Thanks for your remarks N.Beltov. I wouldn't find them otherwise.
Wed, 2011-03-02 00:13
#35
It is the primary military objective and required to ensure the stability of military installations in that nation [Afghanistan] so that investments can be made and resources exploited. Just because we are failing doesn't mean NATO isn't trying.
By your logic, invading Libya would have nothing to do with insuring consistency in the oil supply. It would just be a conspiratorial 'why the hell not?' multi-billion dollar mission.
The arms industry doesn't want anyone to win war. Winners mean the end of a war. When wars end, the arms industry's profits go down. Now that's something they certainly don't want to happen.
Sure they do. Having a war end and a new one begin every couple of years gives you time to roll out the next wars' models and jack up the price. Roll outs of the newest machines are quite difficult under the conditions where you have a 10 year development cycle and your resources are tied up in the production of spares parts or the current model. If the occupation of Afghanistan doesn't stop...how will Boeing or Lockheed Martin find the innovative market place they need, the new enemy that they want? How will they put chemical lasers into the F-35 if the current conflict has no inter-theatre ballistic missiles or other air superiority and interdiction aircraft? If they stay in Afghanistan they'll have to focus on boring reconaissance or special mission drones and things like Humvees and protection for ground based forces - those aren't prestige or high profit ventures. Afghanistan is good for the bottom line, a high tech arms race is all in the black though.
Wed, 2011-03-02 00:15
#36
PB Fidel is of the opinion that the Taliban/Al Qaeda are run by the Americans, to provide a pretext for a phony war by which they can realize geostrategic aims and domination of the region. I rather tend to your obvious and straightforward view myself, but you will no doubt get the whole nine yards of it all, and more from our friend shortly, hopefully in the appropriate thread. The Afghan people thread has a good deal of his postings on it should you care to investigate further
Wed, 2011-03-02 02:53
#37
Here is my criteria of a leader.
Are you me? Are you trying to tell me what to do? Are you trying to appease the bourgeoisie and the working class at the same time?
Are you turning into a dictator? What makes you think you're so special? Did the working class have a revolution and you are just helping them create a Socialist economy and will be leaving power any day now?
Gaddafi, Chavez, Obama, Harper all these guys don't cut the mustard. They all stand in the way of the world running a Socialist economy. And hey, just in case you think I think Socialism is the final solution to all of our problems? I don't. It's just better then Capitalism.
Wed, 2011-03-02 03:59
#38
It is the primary military objective and required to ensure the stability of military installations in that nation [Afghanistan] so that investments can be made and resources exploited. Just because we are failing doesn't mean NATO isn't trying.
By your logic, invading Libya would have nothing to do with insuring consistency in the oil supply. It would just be a conspiratorial 'why the hell not?' multi-billion dollar mission.
The arms industry doesn't want anyone to win war. Winners mean the end of a war. When wars end, the arms industry's profits go down. Now that's something they certainly don't want to happen.
Sure they do. Having a war end and a new one begin every couple of years gives you time to roll out the next wars' models and jack up the price. Roll outs of the newest machines are quite difficult under the conditions where you have a 10 year development cycle and your resources are tied up in the production of spares parts or the current model. If the occupation of Afghanistan doesn't stop...how will Boeing or Lockheed Martin find the innovative market place they need, the new enemy that they want? How will they put chemical lasers into the F-35 if the current conflict has no inter-theatre ballistic missiles or other air superiority and interdiction aircraft? If they stay in Afghanistan they'll have to focus on boring reconaissance or special mission drones and things like Humvees and protection for ground based forces - those aren't prestige or high profit ventures. Afghanistan is good for the bottom line, a high tech arms race is all in the black though.
No problemo to that. Regarding the F-35 and the even better F-22, ever heard of China, its J-20 stealth fighter and what our friend Fidel calls the new Colder War? There's also Canada and Herr Harper that needs to defend Canada's north and provide jobs for Canada's Aerospace Industry with the F-35. The enemy I presume, is Russia. Canada needs stealth fighters to combat Russia's 1950s era prop driven lumbering recon. bombers. Oh, and of course Israel will also be given F-35s to combat test them against Gaza or the West Bank or Lebanon or Syria or Iran or Jordan or...
The arms industry wants wars to never end and wants as many wars to exist as possible because greed and profit have no limit.
Wed, 2011-03-02 06:18
#39
In the Libyan context, the absence of a reliable, business friendly strongman to prop up in Gaddafi's place necessitates the installation of a temporary proconsul arrangement, in the form of a US military General.
Wed, 2011-03-02 14:40
#40
M. Spector
Here is my criteria of a leader.
Are you me?
You could have just stopped there. From what I've seen of your posts you are so sectarian that nobody but yourself could ever be worthy of your critical support.
Wed, 2011-03-02 19:56
#41
I actually find myself sympathizing with trippie's posts more often than time to time, M.
Perhaps I am speaking too broadly, but when it comes to people dropping 'too sectarian' and 'worthy of critical support' that generally means that somebody is towing a rigid, ideological line. I far prefer towing a loop, but that may just be me. In my view, if there were one overarching solution to all the world's ills and it was simply an 'ism', well, then you'd have a plot twist worthy of M. Night Shyamalan.
Wed, 2011-03-02 23:44
#42
RevolutionPlease
Good words, Papal Bull. I read all stuff here in a bit of a vacuum. Or, at least, I try. I, too, sympathize with trippie and with M.Spector.
We live in interesting times.
Thu, 2011-03-03 00:15
#43
@ post 39
That's the whole point. I don't need someoen else representing me and my ideas. I can do a great job for myself. I just need to join up with other like minded people as team members.
If you need someone to lead you around, telling you whatto do, by all means go for it.
Thu, 2011-03-03 00:18
#44
RevolutionPlease
trippie, you and M.Spector actually have a lot in common that I appreciate. Ignore him at your own peril.
Sorry for the snipe, love your posts!
Thu, 2011-03-03 00:41
#45
Look, I don't know if you have been getting my point all this time. it's like this. I'm dogmatic, I push my ideas to the max, then I listen to what others say. Then I see if my ideas have been correct. If they are not, then I change them and become dogmatic in a new way.
That being said, I'm genuine. I genuinely want a better world were everyone can live the life of their dreams. And Im assuming most people here feel the same way.
I look around and see that so far it has never happened. So I ask myself why? And I have found the answer. The economic environment people live in dictates the frame of mind people will form.
So getting back to the NDP. Will the NDP bring about the necessary economic change to make this happen? So I look at their history and what do I find? A history of compromises. Opportunities that go flat.
So then I ask myself why? And it turns out, from the historical record, that they have an inferior take on the situation. Theirr ideas of collaboration just end up leaving the bourgeoisie in control or standing on the sidelines, resting up to gain back power.
So then I have to ask myself, what really needs to happen? Well I go back to Marx and he came to the conclusion that the Proletariat is a revolutionary class and that the Capitalists will give the proletariat the tools to overthrow their system.
So they I ask myself, what are the tools, and how does the proletariat get ready? the tools are the oppressive nature of their economic system. It will create a climate the forms the mind, were revolution is the only answer to solve the problem.
Then I ask myself, what happens after the revolution? A new system needs to take over. You can not have the same system in place because it will lead to the same end results, oppression and then revolution.
So in the end the proletariat just has to be ready with the proper economy and philosophy. To me the proper philosophy and economy is a Socialist one.
Now does the NDP, Chavez, Gadaffi, Harper, Obama, fill in blank with some other world leader, have this same conclusion? Who does, cause those are the people I need to work with.
Thu, 2011-03-03 00:53
#46
RevolutionPlease
That's why I love ya, trippie. You are getting through the BS. But Spector offers a lot of wisdom. You need to get through to the unconverted. I joined up long ago. It's difficult to reach some people but links and rants such as you and M.Spector leave me an uncanny ability to convince people. You folks do a great job of informing and arming me. :)
Solidarity.
Thu, 2011-03-03 01:47
#47
ov
I haven't posted here for awhile but the Libya thing has gotten my attention. I was in Tripoli Libya in 1969 when Gadhafi took over and although I didn't stay in the country long my brother was there for another 7 yrs and kept me posted as to what was happening. In general there was more housing and the people better off after Gadhafi took over; it was rare to encounter a Libyan at the beach or in the market that didn't have positive things to say about him. I was sad to see that he had to make concessions to international finance in 2003 or risk being Iraqed, and I feel that this is the source of the economic hardships that have occurred recently.
Early in this thread the question was asked about why the West would want to occupy the country when they were already getting favorable treatment. I think a big part of that answer is in the Reserve Bank. My understanding is that right now there are only five countries in the world that do not have a Reserve Bank: North Korea, Iran, Cuba, Venezula and Libya. I think until recently Iraq, Afghanistan and Czechoslovakia also used to be part of the no Reserve Bank club. Canada had to accept a Reserve Bank as condition for joining the G8 back with Trudeau, and that was when the national debt started to climb. When a Reserve Bank is involved debt becomes ownership. To the West any country that isn't in bondage to the Reserve Bank system is seen as being part of the axis of evil.
I hear that Gadhafi is shooting down his own people. I hear others say it isn't so. I would be inclined to believe that anything done by outside mercenaries would be more likely Western interests doing the false flag to justify the invasion and occupation of the country. I would like to see some confirmed body counts before I'll believe anything. Back in 1969 there were lots of stories about killing in Libya, but my sister's piano teacher was married to a doctor working for Gadhafi and said there were only about a half dozen casualties and those were accidents. After the revolution was over we never heard about any Libyans that had "disappeared". There was no "Shock Doctrine" in Libya like there was in half the other countries in the world since then.
Thu, 2011-03-03 02:11
#48
PB Fidel is of the opinion that the Taliban/Al Qaeda are run by the Americans, to provide a pretext for a phony war by which they can realize geostrategic aims and domination of the region.
Absolutely, yes. I am of the opinion that Taliban mullahs and Taliban commanders are still controlled by Pakistan's army intelligence agency as well as the CIA since the 1990s. OBL is/was Omar's brother in law. Taliban still enjoy widespread support among Pakistan's half million man army from top to bottom. USA with General Zia's help and financing from US taxpayers Saudi Arabia created the Taliban(as well as the US-backed muhahideen of the 1980s supported by the likes of Hamid Karzai, China, USA, Iran, Turks, Saudis etc etc.
And they created "al-Qaeda". US-CIA and Pakistani ISI support continues today according to various US whistleblowers. Successive US regimes since at least the Reaganauts were and continue to be corrupt to the core and have sold everything from stinger missiles to nuclear weapons technology to the Pakistani military, who in turn control the Taliban and "Qaeda" as well as dozens of splinter factions.
And, there is no such thing as al-Qaeda.
al-Qa'eda = al-CIA'da
ETA: Acshully, Qaeda = al-ISI-CIA'da as before only different. This business with Zardari is only a cosmetic leadership. Pakistan is still a US-backed military dictatorship. The cold war is now a colder war. And this other bizness with ISI accusing the CIA of collaborating with Taliban is all for public consumption. It's an illusion. The CIA and ISI have not fallen out of love for each other. Both still control the Taliban and "al-Qaeda" as before. And everything under the sun is the same only slightly different.
Thu, 2011-03-03 03:10
#49
Chavez and Gaddafi Demand Redefining of 'Terrorism'
http://www.tripolipost.com/articledetail.asp?c=1&i=3640
"...Call for an 'anti-imperialist' front across Africa and Latin America, Mr Gaddafi and Mr Chavez also proposed the establishment of a South Atlantic Treaty Organization to rival NATO"
grand plans of yesteryear
Thu, 2011-03-03 06:48
#50
My understanding is that right now there are only five countries in the world that do not have a Reserve Bank: North Korea, Iran, Cuba, Venezula and Libya.
Central Bank of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (doesn't appear to have its own website)
Central Bank of Libya (website down, not surprisingly)
Central Bank of the Islamic Republic of Iran
I would like to see some confirmed body counts before I'll believe anything. Back in 1969 there were lots of stories about killing in Libya, but my sister's piano teacher was married to a doctor working for Gadhafi and said there were only about a half dozen casualties and those were accidents. After the revolution was over we never heard about any Libyans that had "disappeared". There was no "Shock Doctrine" in Libya like there was in half the other countries in the world since then.
For one, these protests/uprising started over a demonstration by the families of some 1,200 prisoners who were killed at Abu Salim prison in 1996. Not to mention the numerous dissidents who were murdered abroad by Gaddafi's regime. The current round of abuses and killings have been covered in detail by a variety of news sources and NGO's.
Thu, 2011-03-03 07:20
#51
[url=http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=23481]Petroleum and Empire in North Africa. NATO Invasion of Libya Underway[/url] Muamar Gaddafi Accused of Genocide
The CIA has long wanted to eliminate and replace Muamar Gaddafi. President Reagan bombed Tripoli, killing Gaddafi's infant daughter: the United States bombing of Libya (code-named Operation El Dorado Canyon) comprised the joint USAF, Navy, and Marines air-strikes against Libya on April 15, 1986. The US CIA brought down the Lockerbie Pan Am 103 flight over Scotland in 1988 and blamed this on Gaddafi.
In recent years Gaddafi has played along with the western fiction of Al-Queda, though it seems likely that some of the true mercenaries in Libya today are 'Al-Queda' terrorists trained by the United States to serve US interests in places like Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen and now Libya. However, the CIA has always had their sites on Gaddafi.
[url=http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23927105-lse-head-express... £300,000 Libya cash or face action, students tell LSE[/color][/url]