The Libya Thread (III)
Fri, 2011-03-11 12:32
#1
Bec.De.Corbin
The Libya Thread (III)
Fri, 2011-03-11 12:49
#2
Bec.De.Corbin
Gadhafi forces shell oil port to dislodge rebels
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110311/ap_on_re_af/af_libya
The standoff in Ras Lanouf was an attempt by the rebels' ragtag force to halt a dramatic shift in the momentum of Libya's upheaval, which is shaping into a potential civil war. Last week, opposition forces that hold the entire eastern half of the country came charging along the Mediterranean coast westward, trying to push toward the capital Tripoli, Gadhafi's strongest bastion.But the regime struck back with an overwhelming force, backed by warplanes, artillery, rockets and tanks, that over the past few days pushed the rebels back to Ras Lanouf, 380 miles, 615 kilometers, southeast of Tripoli. On Thursday, pro-Gadhafi forces barraged the port for hours, reportedly adding warships shelling from off shore to their arsenal, in an assault that stunned the once-confident rebels and sent hundreds of their volunteer fighters fleeing in an unorganized retreat.
Pictures from Fridays prayers in Benghazi, eastern Libya... For some reason they are writing allot of their sighs in English, I wonder why?
Fri, 2011-03-11 13:06
#3
5 Reasons to Oppose 'No-Fly Zones' in Libya - by Dr. J
http://yourheartsontheleft.blogspot.com/2011/03/5-reasons-to-oppose-no-f...
"There's a growing chorus demanding 'no fly zones' in Libya under the pretext of stopping the Libyan dictator from killing civilians. While some are motivated by humanitarian concern or desperation, the actual practice of enforcing a 'no fly zone' wjould create further disaster while undermining the Libyan people's own capacity to shape their future. Here are 5 reasons to oppose 'no fly zones'.."
Kicking the Intervention Habit - by Richard Falk
http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/03/201138143448786661....
"Should talk of intervention in Libya turn into action, it would be illegal, immoral and hypocritical. With respect to Libya, we need to take account of the fact that the Gaddafi government, however distasteful on humanitarian grounds, remains the lawful diplomatic representative of a sovereign state, and any international use of force, even by the UN, much less a state or group of states, would constitute an unlawful intervention in the internal affairs of a sovereign state, prohibited by Article 2 (7) of the UN Charter, unless expressly authorized by the Security Council as essential for the sake of international peace and security...
Beyond this, there is no assurance that an intervention, if undertaken, would lessen the suffering of the Libyan people or bring to power a regime more respectful of human rights and dedicated to democratic participation.."
Fri, 2011-03-11 13:35
#4
Bec.De.Corbin
I do not support a "No Fly Zone " operation; giving the rebels some of the newer shoulder fired SAMs to defend themselves with would be as far as I'd go.
Where's Pappy Boynton and the Flying Tigers when you need them... LOL
Fri, 2011-03-11 23:45
#5
But the regime struck back with an overwhelming force, backed by warplanes, artillery, rockets and tanks, that over the past few days pushed the rebels back to Ras Lanouf, 380 miles, 615 kilometers, southeast of Tripoli. On Thursday, pro-Gadhafi forces barraged the port for hours, reportedly adding warships shelling from off shore to their arsenal, in an assault that stunned the once-confident rebels and sent hundreds of their volunteer fighters fleeing in an unorganized retreat. [Bolding added]
There is a naval blockade of Libya. U.S. warships are in the Mediterranean.
Doing nothing in this case resulted in (tacitly) supporting the Gadhafi regime.
Yes I know, it's a hell of a dilemma.
It begs the question: What if U.S. warships had attempted to prevent the movement of Gadhafi's vessels and they fired on the U.S. vessels?
Most likely, the U.S. ships would fire back in self defense and the U.S.A. would find itself in a [de facto] war, siding with the Libyan people.
It's a "slippery slope" problem that started with the decision to blockade Libya.
Two questions come to mind:
1. Will the Libyan people (i.e., the Libyan freedom fighters) be able to hold out long enough until Gadhafi's forces wear out (thus rendering unserviceable) their military equipment and expend their ammunition?
2. Are the Libyan people (freedom fighters) receiving enough weapons and ammunition from Algeria, Tunisia, Egypt, possibly Niger, Chad and (who knows, even) the Sudan to enable them to hold out and when Gadhafi's forces wear down, retake the initiative, drive once again and eventually capture Tripoli?
This is my hope.
Godspeed to the people of Libya!
The people of Libya are the hope and inspiration of all freedom loving people everywhere!
Fri, 2011-03-11 23:52
#6
Where's Pappy Boynton and the Flying Tigers when you need them... LOL
The claim that the Flying Tigers were an American Voluteer Group (AVG) - privateers or mercenaries who were either paid by the Chinese Nationalist government and/or wealthy philanthropists who were concerned about the plight of China was propaganda Roosevelt used to fool the American public that he "would not send American boys overseas to fight and die in foreign wars."
Truth was, the Flying Tigers were United States Air Force pilots in the pay of the U.S. government.
Fri, 2011-03-11 23:52
#7
we need to recognize the rebels as the government
France has become the first country to recognise the Libyan rebel leadership, the National Libyan Council (NLC), as the country's legitimate government.
Sat, 2011-03-12 00:41
#8
Libya In the Cross-Hairs of a 'Humanitarian War' : Interview with Darius Nazemroaya
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=23642
"Let me be clear, the US and its EU partners are in agreement behind the scenes. What they are analyzing right now is the most effective means to pursue their objectives in Libya...This is why the US and NATO want to fuel the civil war in Libya, first to fracture the country into mulitple sides. Libya can be called a geo-political linchpin.."
Sat, 2011-03-12 15:26
#9
Arab league asks UN for no-fly zone
Thousands of Libyan women ask for no-fly zone
Worth pointing out that the countries which have asked for a no-fly zone now include Egypt, Tunisia and Iraq. Should we wait for Gaddafi's consent too?
Sat, 2011-03-12 16:13
#10
Right-wing Israelis are expected to move into a room in an East Jerusalem Palestinian family's home on Monday, after a court sided with their claim.
The Hamdallah family and American millionaire and settler patron Irving Moskowitz have been fighting an 11-year court battle over the home. Now, authorities are expected to force the Hamdallahs to evacuate a room and their yard to make way for Israelis, who are likely to encumber their neighbors' day-to-day routine.
Sat, 2011-03-12 16:53
#11
Right-wing Israelis are expected to move into a room in an East Jerusalem Palestinian family's home on Monday, after a court sided with their claim.
The Hamdallah family and American millionaire and settler patron Irving Moskowitz have been fighting an 11-year court battle over the home. Now, authorities are expected to force the Hamdallahs to evacuate a room and their yard to make way for Israelis, who are likely to encumber their neighbors' day-to-day routine.
Not that that isn't appalling, but that's probably for another thread.
Sat, 2011-03-12 17:03
#12
No, there's a connexion.
Sat, 2011-03-12 17:26
#13
It's just part of the game. Get used to it.
I blame the NDP!!
Sat, 2011-03-12 17:34
#14
No, there's a connexion.
No, there isn't. Not a direct enough one to warrant it's own thread.
Sat, 2011-03-12 17:44
#15
A Pep Rally for Libya? - by Mary Lynn Cramer
http://dissidentvoice.org/2011/03/a-pep-rally-for-libya/
"Waiting for the left..."
Malta: EU Priority Should Be Ceasefire, Not Gadddafi Exit
http://www.monstersandcritics.com/news/europe/news/article_1625545.php/M...
"Stopping the violence, rather than forcing Libyan leader Moammer Gaddafi to leave office immediately, should be the priority for the European Union, Malta's Foreign Minister Tonio Borg said Saturday. 'I personally have called for a ceasefire...stop the fighting and then we shall see what happens,' Borg said. Borg said his idea of a ceasefire ' should lead to a regime change,' rather than be preceded by it."
Sat, 2011-03-12 19:24
#16
Communist Party of Canada Central Committee Statement on Libya
http://redquixote.wordpress.com/2011/03/10/communist-party-of-canada-cen...
"The uprising against the Qaddafi-led regime and the resulting armed conflict in Libya is growing more intense, and the danger of foreign military intervention by the major imperialist powers including Canada looms larger with each passing day. The turmoil and resulting loss of life in Libya is horrendous and deeply regrettable; however this crisis must be resolved by the Libyan people themselves, not through foreign interference. The Communist Party of Canada is categorically opposed to imperialist intervention in any form, or under any pretense..."
NDP Statement on the Ongoing Protests in Libya..
http://www.ndp.ca/press/new-democrat-statement-on-ongoing-protests-in-li...
"In Libya, authorities have been engaged in atrocities against the country's civilian population and New Democrats strongly condemn the Libyan regime's use of deadly force - including military aircraft - against civilians...Canada should also be working with its international partners to bring the issue to the UN Security Council and work to establish a no-fly zone in Libya's airspace.."
Sat, 2011-03-12 19:36
#17
N.Beltov
Not a surprise. The humanitarian imperialism (see Jean Bricmont for more detail of HI) of the NDP is on the left wing of the pro-capitalist parties. Of course there are minority elements in the NDP that probably agree with the Communists.
It might be worthwhile to remind babblers that the cold war accusation of "exporting revolution" attributed to genuine revolutionaries and/or Communists is precisely what the western imperialist countries now advocate wrt Libya. And, that's with the military no-fly zone and all the rest of that. Voilating sovereignty is something extremely significant and ought not to be trivialized, no matter how many times the imperialist countries do it, by people who call themselves progressive/left. The only really obvious example that comes to mind is the Vietnamese role in Kampuchea in fighting the Khymer Rouge. The latter were able to rely upon US support I might add, to prolong Vietnamese difficulties.
Sat, 2011-03-12 21:47
#18
The west advocates peace talks between mainly peaceful protesters, political opposition, and Mubarak's thugs still in government.
But then Washington, London and Ottawa seem to be supporting armed insurrection in Libya. They aren't very consistent.
Sat, 2011-03-12 22:02
#19
TNN: Would Libya No-Fly Zone Be Legitimate? (and vid)
http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&I...
Prof. Hamid Dabashi: People should give unconditional support to the Libyan people's revolution, but oppose any foreign intervention"
Sat, 2011-03-12 22:05
#20
1) Libya is a much different situation than Egypt. Egypt was bad, yes, but forces there tended to resort to beatings and not shootings. In Libya Gaddafi forces have killed between 1000 and 10,000 people. Considering the language Gaddafi has used, calling his own people rats and cochroaches, I doubt he's willing to accept any cease-fire that doesn't leave him in power. I also doubt that any solution that leaves Gaddafi in power won't result in rebels being left in grave danger.
2) THE ARAB LEAGUE ITSELF HAS CALLED FOR A NO FLY ZONE. The only two countries opposed to this measure during the vote were Algeria (which has an interest in not being the only North African country to avoid regime change) and Syria (who occupied Lebanon just 6 years ago). Revolutionary-led Tunisia, revolutionary-led Egypt, Lebanon (who has plenty of experience getting bombed by Western ordinence) and Iraq (ditto)
What the fuck else do you need? Libyans want it. Arabs want it. The US has been politely waiting on the sidelines, and were on the verge of seeing a Security council resolution pass for it. Instead you're all durp, durr, hurrrrr, Amerikkka is planning to steal oil.
You're not even grounded in reality.
Sat, 2011-03-12 22:32
#21
Borg said his idea of a ceasefire ' should lead to a regime change,' rather than be preceded by it."
That is why Gadhafi will never agree to it.
That is why it will never work.
That is why Gadhafi's forces are counter-attacking against the people.
It's a case of "Use it (for Gadhafi to use his military assets) or lose it."
If Gadhafi had simply remained hunkered-down in his bunker in the capital Tripoli, then it would have been a matter of time before the liberated people sieged and captured the city. Gadhafi's military assets would have been wasted through his failure to use them.
With his counteroffensive, Gadhafi is creating some "breathing space" and buying time for himself.
However, he is racing against the clock: Will he be able to recapture enough territory held by the Libyan people to achieve "victory" or will his military assets (aircraft, tanks and artillery) wear out, become unserviceable, be destroyed, captured or run out of ammunition before he achieves his objectives?
If the latter, his defeat will be more decisive and immediate.
Sat, 2011-03-12 22:35
#22
1) Libya is a much different situation than Egypt.
Yes, as was described [url=http://www.shoah.org.uk/2011/03/03/world-cheers-as-the-cia-plunges-libya..., Libya is not a poverty stricken country the same as Egypt or Saudi Arabia. Libya has the highest HDI among all African countries.
2) THE ARAB LEAGUE ITSELF HAS CALLED FOR A NO FLY ZONE.
And who are they but a bunch of dictators and despots? Kings and queens have no place in a modern democracy either, and especially not those countries that are still funding militant Islam in Central Asia along with the CIA with American taxpayers footing the bills for an expanding madrassa system.
What the fuck else do you need? Libyans want it. Arabs want it. The US has been politely waiting on the sidelines, and were on the verge of seeing a Security council resolution pass for it. Instead you're all durp, durr, hurrrrr, Amerikkka is planning to steal oil.You're not even grounded in reality.
I'm afraid it really is about oil. Notice the pattern since 1953 Iran? Sure Exxon-Mobil and BP are there siphoning off the oil since Gadaffi caved on sanctions, but only after he went along with [url=http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=6786]the west's frame-up of Libya for the Lockerbie bombing[/url]. The west spent far more money on Lockerbie investigations and court trials than for a legit 9/11 investigation involving several times the number of passenger planes and the worst building collapses in history in that mass murder of 3000 people. But it really is about the oil.
BP and Exxon workers exited from Libya weeks in advance of the protests. They want to get China's state oil company out of Libya and control Libyan oil themselves. And Libya has lots of oil. Blood for oil hounds again I'm afraid. Libyan oil is really cheap to extract at about $1 dollar a barrel. What's the per bbl price of oil today? Subtract one dollar and that's clear profit. Warfiteering for oil and whatever other booty these modern day pirates are able to steal is what's on.
Sat, 2011-03-12 22:35
#23
It might be worthwhile to remind babblers that the cold war accusation of "exporting revolution" attributed to genuine revolutionaries and/or Communists is precisely what the western imperialist countries now advocate wrt Libya.
The Libyan revolution is not "imported" from anywhere.
The Libyan revolution is "homegrown."
It is the (Libyan) "People's Revolution."
Sat, 2011-03-12 22:42
#24
1) Libya is a much different situation than Egypt. Egypt was bad, yes, but forces there tended to resort to beatings and not shootings. In Libya Gaddafi forces have killed between 1000 and 10,000 people. Considering the language Gaddafi has used, calling his own people rats and cochroaches, I doubt he's willing to accept any cease-fire that doesn't leave him in power. I also doubt that any solution that leaves Gaddafi in power won't result in rebels being left in grave danger.
2) THE ARAB LEAGUE ITSELF HAS CALLED FOR A NO FLY ZONE. The only two countries opposed to this measure during the vote were Algeria (which has an interest in not being the only North African country to avoid regime change) and Syria (who occupied Lebanon just 6 years ago). Revolutionary-led Tunisia, revolutionary-led Egypt, Lebanon (who has plenty of experience getting bombed by Western ordinence) and Iraq (ditto)
What the fuck else do you need? Libyans want it. Arabs want it. The US has been politely waiting on the sidelines, and were on the verge of seeing a Security council resolution pass for it. Instead you're all durp, durr, hurrrrr, Amerikkka is planning to steal oil.
You're not even grounded in reality.
http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/03/201138143448786661....
Sat, 2011-03-12 22:50
#25
[url=http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/china/2011-03/12/c_13773865.htm]China urges int'l community to fulfill 1970 resolution[/url] WRT Libya
Sat, 2011-03-12 22:54
#26
2) THE ARAB LEAGUE ITSELF HAS CALLED FOR A NO FLY ZONE. The only two countries opposed to this measure during the vote were Algeria (which has an interest in not being the only North African country to avoid regime change) and Syria (who occupied Lebanon just 6 years ago). Revolutionary-led Tunisia, revolutionary-led Egypt, Lebanon (who has plenty of experience getting bombed by Western ordinence) and Iraq (ditto)
Ah well, all those nice "revolutionary" countries want a no-fly zone? Why don't they go create one themselves, instead of crawling on their knees and licking the boots of Obama and Sarkozy?
Are you actually of the view that these regimes don't have enough fighter jets to do the job themselves?
What the fuck else do you need? Libyans want it. Arabs want it. The US has been politely waiting on the sidelines, and were on the verge of seeing a Security council resolution pass for it. Instead you're all durp, durr, hurrrrr, Amerikkka is planning to steal oil.
Umm, next you'll be reminding us that the U.N. blessed ISAF's slaughter of the Afghan people. Do you support the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan? The Afghan people wanted to be liberated from the Taliban dictatorship, didn't they?
I'll tell you "what the fuck else" I need. I need imperialism and its lickspittles keeping their hands off other people's countries. Sounds simple, doesn't it?
Sat, 2011-03-12 22:58
#27
I'll tell you "what the fuck else" I need. I need imperialism and its lickspittles keeping their hands off other people's countries. Sounds simple, doesn't it?
Why dont we just save that for countries that dont have anything we want?
Oh wait, we do that now already!
Sat, 2011-03-12 23:23
#28
"Liberation"; Beware the Ides of March Part 2 - by Felicity Arbuthnot
http://target.ps/en/2011/03/liberation-beware-the-ides-of-march-part-two/
"Whatever the undisputed failings of the Libyan regime, the 'humanitarian intervention' aspect does not sit well in a country, where, according to the Human Development Index (HDI) (which means, life expectancy, health, literacy and well being) an 'extensive' social services programme, including a comprehensive pension system, compensation for sickness and work injury, maternity benefits, free medical care and education, with a 'dramatic' improvement in literacy over two decades and the lowest infant mortality rates and highest life expectancy in Africa.
Whilst Colonel Gadaffi's treatment of opponents leaves much to be desired, Abu Ghraib, Bagram, Guantanamo and secret torture renditions across the planet, the potential treatment of Julian Assange adn the actual treatment of Bradley Manning, are hardly platforms from which to preach human rights.
Since the imposition of sanctions on Iraq in 1990, the subsequent bombings, George W Bush's declaration of a 'Crusade' before Iraq's invasion, the carpet bombing of Yugoslavia in 1999, the bombing, invasion and occupation of Afghanistan in 2001, the US and UK have led 21 shameful, homicidal, infanticidal, blood soaked years against Muslim lands."
African Union Rejects Foreign Intrusion
http://www.emnnews.com/2011/03/12/arab-league-asks-for-no-fly-zone-over-...
"The African Union on Friday rejected any military intervention in Libya, urging the International community to observe the rules of International law and find a non military intervention strategy to end the crisis. Ramtane Lamamra, the AU Commissioner for Peace and Security, in a reaction said, 'The Council reaffirms its firm commitment to the respect of the unity and territorial integrity of Libya, as well as its rejection of any form of foreign intervention.."
Sat, 2011-03-12 23:32
#29
Bec.De.Corbin
Ah well, all those nice "revolutionary" countries want a no-fly zone? Why don't they go create one themselves, instead of crawling on their knees and licking the boots of Obama and Sarkozy?
Are you actually of the view that these regimes don't have enough fighter jets to do the job themselves?
Exactly... an even simpler solution would be for those countries to arm the rebels with modern shoulder fired SAMs. Those nations have stocks of those weapons as well as fighter jets.
It's pretty obvious now most Libyans, aside from the regime, want SOME outside help. I don't want to see Gadaffi survive this as much as the next guy, but I also don't want to have the USA to get directly involved in this as well.
Sun, 2011-03-13 00:21
#30
The voices for military intervention in Libya are now increasingly alarming and suspicious. I get more suspicious when I read the liberal (read always Zionist) commentators screaming for direct military intervention when those same people never showed any concern for Arab victims before, especially during Israeli war crimes sprees.
...I don't trust the Tunisian or the Egyptian military because they are not the product of popular people's will, and are led in both cases by appointees of tyrants, but they can help if they wish. Mustafa Abd-al-Jalil is a potential messenger for Wahhabi tyranny who can foil the democratization of Libya. He has become famous for double talk and for dishonesty. Fortunately, the council is very fragmented but is also infiltrated by Qadhdhafi's henchmen.
Military Intervention in Libya: for a categorical rejection of NATO/Saudi intervention
Sun, 2011-03-13 00:30
#31
Apparently many of the protesters have waved the flag similar to that of the former monarchist regime, with a black background and white crescent. That flag has roots in the flag of the Senussi dynasty, of which Libya’s royal family was part of.
Imagine that thousands of Americans in the Southern states began protesting and waving confederate flags, or that thousands of Canadians protested in the streets waving the Royal Union Flag. And then those protesters were suddenly rampaging throughout the country and challenging the police and army to do battle. How long would they last? And, how long would they last if China or Cuba or North Korea or Libya began supplying them with weapons covertly? Would it be an invitation for China, Libya or Cuba to intervene militarily?
Sun, 2011-03-13 03:30
#32
Do you think I could persuade, say, China to send me some shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missiles? Or better yet, establish a no-fly zone over Canada until Harper fled the country and handed power over to me and my Chinese backers?
China wouldn't do it because the Chinese government doesn't like chaos and instability (especially where it has invested and recieves strategic resources) because it threatens China's growing economy.
As for a no-fly zone, it's not China nor the E.U. nor even NATO for that matter that's going to do it. It's going to be the kid on the block with the largest military spending, largest military and greatest number of combat planes - the U.S.A.
But even Obama and the U.S. government realize they don't have the finances and military assets to be able afford it and that the American public with the Afghan, (covert) Pakistan, Iraq, Somali and Yemen wars, they are war weary and have little stomach for yet another financially draining quagmire war they cannot win.
I'd like some outside help getting rid of the Harper conservative government.
If you and an additional five to six digit figure of like minded people first peacefully demonstrated against the government and then the government sent elite personal guard and foreign mercenary troops to wage war against you and you took up arms to defend yourselves and bring democracy, liberty, equality and justice to Canada, I'm sure some international smalltime arms dealers would be willing to sell you arms and ammunition.
You can't make an analogy between Canada and Libya. Canada shares a border with the U.S. If a revolution occurred in Canada, the U.S. would inevitably involve itself in it. This would prevent any other country from supporting the Canadian revolutionaries and getting directly involved as this would mean war against the U.S.A.
In the case of Libya, its neighbors are Tunisia, Algeria, Niger, Chad, the Sudan and Egypt. None of these countries singly or in combination would be grounds for the U.S.A. and NATO countries to not militarily interfere in Libya's affairs. Not doing so would be based on other grounds.
Sun, 2011-03-13 03:53
#33
Yes, looks like warmaking mode all the signs are go, we all know why and what for and there'll be cheers and applause from all the wrong people for all the wrong reasons. Once Western warplanes start blasting away inside the sovereign state of Libya, it's not going to be a pretty sight - especially for the people's popular uprising(s). As a matter of fact, if they let him live, Muammar Ghadaffi's poltical star could rise again in Libya. It's awful that they're going to get away with this again...
Sun, 2011-03-13 03:55
#34
[url=http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=23657]"Operation Libya": Recognizing the Opposition Government Constitutes a Pretext for Military Intervention[/url]
The Gulf Hypocrisy CouncilThe Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) is an organization comprised of the petro-sheikdoms of Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Oman, and Saudi Arabia. They have betrayed Palestine, they worked against Iraq, they turned their backs on Lebanon, and now they are conspiring against Libya together with Washington and Brussels.
In a blatant act of hypocrisy, the leaders of these sheikdoms have announced that Qaddafi’s regime is “illegitimate.” Forbes had this to say about the GCC announcement: “Gulf nations including Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) have withdrawn any sort of support for Muammar al-Gadhafi calling his regime ‘illegitimate’ and condoning its use of organized violence against a civilian population.” [1] Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain, Oman, the U.A.E., and Kuwait have withdrawn their recognition of Qaddafi’s regime as the legal government of Libya.
In addition, the GCC announced the following: “On the situation in Libya, the Council denounced the crimes committed against civilians by using live bullets and heavy weapons and recruiting mercenaries, killing big number of innocent victims and constituting flagrant violations of human rights and international humanitarian law.”
Autocratic petro-sheikdoms siding with western world autocrats against Libya to affect regime change and re-colonization.
Sun, 2011-03-13 04:04
#35
I don't recall if West Coast Greeny, Bec, and Layton all called for a no-fly zone and shoulder launched SAMs for the people of Fallujah when the US was doing the [i]exact same thing they accuse Ghaddafi of doing[/i]. Only when the US was massacreing people in Fallujah, it was to save them for democracy.
I suspect that when the US is massacring protesters or freedom fighters, it is done so in a humane manner that meets with the approval of the NDP and the fightin' progressives.
I also seriously doubt that Bec would advocate sending SAMs to the people of Afghanistan to defend themselves from NATO aircraft. Keep in mind that NATO was bragging (seriously, bragging) about only killing around 800 civilians last year.
Sun, 2011-03-13 04:17
#36
Am I the only one who sees that imperialism is a stupid term??? cmon people we don't live in a age of empires anymore, its entirely about economic exploitation at this point, it matters not who does it. The whole concept has replaced a critique of capitalism and its made people stupid in the process.
Sun, 2011-03-13 04:19
#37
The NDP was never supportive of the phony global war on terror beginning with the war on a former CIA puppet in Baghdad whom western governments and their corporate pals supplied with all manner of weaponry for years. [url=http://www.ndp.ca/press/new-democrats-support-iraq-war-resisters]New Democrats support Iraq war resisters[/url]
And the NDP called on Paulie Pockets and company to come clean with Canadians as to what new role Canadian troops would be serving in Kandahar by late 2005. Liberals lied for the sake of toadying to US interests as expected.
The NDP is most likely wrong about Libya though as they were wrong about the deliberate economic and ethnic-religious destabilization of Yugoslavia at a time when the Clinton regime, Brits and Iran created a militant Islamic base in 1991-95 Bosnia, and then aided and abetted KLA criminals in 1998-99 leading up to NATOs aerial/saturation bombing and crimes perpetrated on the eastern edge of Europe.
Sun, 2011-03-13 04:33
#38
He doesn't support a no-fly-zone: #3
Sun, 2011-03-13 04:40
#39
This Lybia situation is complete bullshit. The USA is salivating over this just waiting for the chance to step in and grab all the oil. Canada will be right in there too since our government is made up of a bunch of greedy wannabe americans. To hell with the people being tired of war or the financial burden, they will just drop a few more taxes on the working class and get on with raping another country regardless of public opinion.
In post #2 NDDP refers to Gadaffi being the 'lawful diplomatic representitive of a soveriegn state' but, whatever anyone thought of them, so was Saddam and so were the Taliban. Never stopped the states then and it won't now. There is oil and big profits available and that is all that will matter. Obama himself may actually care about the people of Lybia but his puppetmasters pulling the strings don't.
about post #32...You're damn tootin the US would be up here in force if 15 million working class people tried to create some kind of revolution to set up a government the americans couldn't control. You want to see US warplanes overhead and tanks in the streets let them think we are going to cut off their supply of oil, natural gas, clean water, hydro power etc or at least make them pay a fair price for it. Couple that with stopping american based corporations from taking all their profits back home without paying taxes and you would see a major war on us in a heartbeat.
Anyway, thats my rant for the night. Please feel free to discuss.
Sun, 2011-03-13 04:41
#40
cmon people we don't live in a age of empires anymore, its entirely about economic exploitation at this point, it matters not who does it.
That's true. In just the last century a number of empires faded away:
[list] [*]the Ottoman empire, [*] Austro-Hungarian empire, [*] Russian imperialism, [*] the British empire, [*] Japanese imperialism, [*] ex-nay on Chinese imperialism, and [*] the Soviet "empire" is no more[/list]
Guess who's next?
The whole concept has replaced a critique of capitalism and its made people stupid in the process.
Capitalism died in 1929, Mike. There was no funeral announcement. And not many people miss dollar a day wages under the former laissez-faire capitalism from 1900 to 1929-32 or so. The millions of Americans who voted against Hoover in the US and Canadians who gave Bennett the toss in Canada were not enthusiastic about high unemployment, the grinding poverty, and farmers going belly up for a lack of money to invest in farm equipment. Not even the capitalists want a return to the bad old days of laissez-faire capitalism. It's all about socialism since WW II - socialism for rich people.
Sun, 2011-03-13 10:40
#41
This Lybia situation is complete bullshit. The USA is salivating over this just waiting for the chance to step in and grab all the oil.
It's really weird how some people have reacted with such hysteria. On one hand we have the U.S./NATO/EU etc. essentially doing nothing (at worse, they're discussingconsidering intervention that has been requested - provided U.N. approval is forthcoming), yet Counter Punch, Global Research and Press TV (a mouth-piece of the Iranian regime, let's not forget) and others carry daily pronouncements about how Libya is set to become the 51st state by the end of the week.
These are of course the sources cited widely by the anti-imperialists who claim to stand for principled non-intervention - but one wonders to what extend the hysteria they're whipping up emboldens Ghaddafi's regime? By providing the propaganda that he needs to falsly paint this rebellion as the work of foreigners, the former monarchy and the oil companies, aren't they just doing Ghaddafi's job for him? How can they still claim to support Libyans deciding the matter for themselves without foreign influence?
Sun, 2011-03-13 10:51
#42
M. Spector
The hysteria is all on the side of the Tea Party, the Democrats, Sarkozy, Harper, and their friends in the cruise-missile left.
Where was the hysteria to invade the Congo when millions were being slaughtered in a civil war? Where was the hysteria to launch strategic air strikes against Pinochet when he was killing leftists? Where was the hysteria for humanitarian military intervention in Gaza?
Sun, 2011-03-13 12:28
#43
On one hand we have the U.S./NATO/EU etc. essentially doing nothing (at worse, they're discussingconsidering intervention that has been requested - provided U.N. approval is forthcoming), yet Counter Punch, Global Research and Press TV (a mouth-piece of the Iranian regime, let's not forget) and others carry daily pronouncements about how Libya is set to become the 51st state by the end of the week.
You've said this before. I read Counterpunch regularly, so I specifically went over their recent articles to see if you were right.
You're making this up.
Sun, 2011-03-13 12:39
#44
The hysteria is all on the side of the Tea Party, the Democrats, Sarkozy, Harper, and their friends in the cruise-missile left.
Where was the hysteria to invade the Congo when millions were being slaughtered in a civil war? Where was the hysteria to launch strategic air strikes against Pinochet when he was killing leftists? Where was the hysteria for humanitarian military intervention in Gaza?
Or, more pressingly and totally going unnoticed, the violence in Ivory Coast.
Sun, 2011-03-13 14:09
#45
M. Spector
Exactly. And it's going unnoticed because it's not being promoted on the front pages of the MSM papers and the headlines on Faux News and their clones.
Manipulation of public opinion by the media is such a well-known phenomenon that you'd think smart people would have learned by now to recognize it.
Sun, 2011-03-13 14:12
#46
M. Spector
I'd like some outside help getting rid of the Harper conservative government.
Do you think I could persuade, say, China to send me some shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missiles? Or better yet, establish a no-fly zone over Canada until Harper fled the country and handed power over to me and my Chinese backers?
ETA: Rhetorical questions, of course. But thanks to Frmrsldr for the following detailed analysis.
Sun, 2011-03-13 14:35
#47
M. Spector
Am I the only one who sees that imperialism is a stupid term???
Probably not.
But if you click on the "Babble policy" link at the top of this page, you will be informed that "rabble.ca embraces a[n]... anti-imperialist... stance."
Imperialism is still very much with us, as [url=http://www.zcommunications.org/kicking-the-intervention-habit-by-richard... Falk[/url] notes:
What is immediately striking about the bipartisan call in Washington for a no-fly zone and air strikes designed to help rebel forces in Libya is the absence of any concern with the relevance of international law or the authority of the United Nations.None in authority take the trouble to construct some kind of legal rationalisation. The 'realists' in command, and echoed by the mainstream media, do not feel any need to provide even a legal fig leaf before embarking on aggressive warfare.
It should be obvious that a no-fly zone in Libyan airspace is an act of war, as would be, of course, contemplated air strikes on fortifications of the Gaddafi forces.
The core legal obligation of the UN Charter requires member states to refrain from any use of force unless it can be justified as self-defence after a cross-border armed attack or mandated by a decision of the UN Security Council.
Neither of these conditions authorising a legal use of force is remotely present, and yet the discussion proceeds in the media and Washington circles as if the only questions worth discussing pertain to feasibility, costs, risks, and a possible backlash in the Arab world.
The imperial mentality is not inclined to discuss the question of legality, much less show behavioural respect for the constraints embedded in international law.
Sun, 2011-03-13 14:56
#48
N.Beltov
There's also been an enormous amount written about "humanitarian imperialism". Jean Bricmont wrote a whole book, ffs.
Sun, 2011-03-13 15:49
#49
What is immediately striking about the bipartisan call in Washington for a no-fly zone and air strikes designed to help rebel forces in Libya is the absence of any concern with the relevance of international law or the authority of the United Nations.
I'll give Falk the benefit of the doubt and assume that by "bipartisan call" he's talking about those Representatives and Senators who are advocating unilateral action. What the Executive is saying, however, is completely different than what he's claiming is happening:
PressTV - Libya no-fly zone a UN decision: Clinton
US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has said the decision to impose a no-fly zone over Libya must be taken by the United Nations and not the United States.
"I think it's very important that it's not a US-led effort because this comes from the people of Libya themselves. We think it is important that the United Nations make that decision," AFP quoted Clinton as saying on Tuesday.
You've said this before. I read Counterpunch regularly, so I specifically went over their recent articles to see if you were right.
You're making this up.
Counterpunch saw fit to reprint Fidel Castro's latest missive about war being "inevitable", and all about stealing Libya's oil. So far, this is all false, but I'm sure this tale helps Ghaddafi's cause.
Sun, 2011-03-13 16:21
#50
The Pro-War Left in Australia and Intervention in Libya - by John Passant
http://enpassant.com.au/?p=9617
"The phrase 'an exceptional situation' is an apologia for US imperialism...Who has the US really intervened for humanitarian reasons? Iran in 1953? Israel as its attack dog in the regin since 1948? Central and Latin America since forever? Vietnam? Grenada? Iraq? Afghanistan? Can you see a pattern here?
It is ahistorical nonsense to support Western intervention in the misguided belief it will serve the interests of Libyan rather than US imperialism. Does the pro-war left learn nothing from history? Imperialism has no humanitarian intentions and those who give it that gloss do its dirty propaganda work. The left needs to be clear. Support is intervention. A no-fly zone means bombing Libya.."
Sun, 2011-03-13 16:47
#51
Counterpunch saw fit to reprint Fidel Castro's latest missive about war being "inevitable", and all about stealing Libya's oil. So far, this is all false, but I'm sure this tale helps Ghaddafi's cause.
Just for my own understanding, A_J, but are there any other "revolutions" in the world that you support? Or any other government crackdowns that you deplore?