The Libya Thread (III)

M. Spector wrote:

It has nothing to do with the Executive Branch of the government, which is never "bipartisan", but always either Republican or Democratic.

Exactly what I was saying. He's referring to various members of Congress - AKA the folks who don't really count in matters like this.

If you want to fret about what the U.S. is going to do, look to the Executive. I'm sure you can find a "bipartisan call" for next to anything you can imagine (i.e. a Democrat and a Republican who support it), doesn't make it remotely government policy.

Bec.De.Corbin wrote:

Gadhafi's troops have been emboldened by a string of victories in the struggle for Libya's main coastal highway but their supply lines are stretched and their dependence on artillery, airstrikes and naval attacks makes it hard for them to swiftly consolidate control of territory, particularly at night.

The insurgents claimed they moved back into the strategic town of Brega after dusk in a fast-moving battle with a constantly shifting front line, destroying armored vehicles and capturing dozens of fighters from Gadhafi's elite Khamis Brigade.

Very good. That's what I like to hear.

The clock is still ticking.

Will the people be able to hold out long enough for Gadhafi's forces to wear down and become a spent force?

If so, then victory for the people is assured.

Godspeed to the people of Libya!

Viva the Libyan Revolution!

[/quote]

Where is there proof of a genocide in a country where HDI is higher than it is for most third world capitalist hell holes?

Is this going to be another case of blitzkrieg for humanitarian reasons? Gadaffi agreed to a non-aggression pact with her Bushler and went along with the phony global war on terror.

Blood-for-oil terrorists are at it again.

Doug wrote:

I'm not really convinced by the national sovereignty-at-all-costs arguments.

What this has to do with the passage I quoted is a mystery to me. The quote clearly says intervention can be justified by a Security Council resolution. Nobody's arguing sovereignty-at-all-costs.

Quote:

If international laws and conventions are good for anything, they ought to be good for this.

International laws and conventions are predicated on respect for national sovereignty - in fact that is practically their whole raison d'être.

Quote:

A much more convincing argument is that it usually doesn't work.

As Richard Falk says, "Neither of these conditions authorising a legal use of force is remotely present, [b]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[/b] in the Arab world."

It's a completely amoral position. It's like saying "I oppose torture because it doesn't work" in order to avoid having to actually take a moral position against torture. The implication is that if it could be proven to "work" then the speaker would be in favour of torture, or "humanitarian" war, or whatever.

Read the whole article, not just the part I quoted. You'll find wisdom in passages like this:

Quote:

Mahmoud Mamdani has taught us to distinguish 'good Muslims' from 'bad Muslims', now we are being instructed to distinguish 'good autocrats' from 'bad autocrats'.

By this definition, only the pro-regime elements in Libya and Iran qualify as bad autocrats, and their structures must at least be shaken if they cannot be broken.

What distinguishes these regimes? It does not seem to be that their degree of oppressiveness is more pervasive and severe than is the case for the others. Other considerations give more insight: access and pricing of oil, arms sales, security of Israel, relationship to the neoliberal world economy.

What I find most disturbing is that despite the failures of counterinsurgency thinking and practise, American foreign policy gurus continue to contemplate intervention in post-colonial societies without scruples or the slightest show of sensitivity to historical experience, not even the recognition that national resistance in the post-colonial world has consistently neutralised the advantages of superior hard power deployed by the intervening power.

Western Countries Advocating Intervention As Pretext for Oil Grab - Russian Envoy (and vid)

http://rt.com/news/intervention-libya-military-nato/

"Some major Western oil companies with an axe to grind where their concessions and oil development projects in Libya are concerned, are quite likely to be pushing certain Western countries towards hasty decisions with regard to an intervention in Libya..."

Libyans Fear West is More Interested in Gaddafi's Money than Human Rights (and vid)

http://rt.com/news/fear-money-benghazi-opposition/

"International deliberations on what to do about the Libyan uprising have been going on for so long that many people in Benghazi no longer hope that help will come. Instead they are appealing to Allah, their last hope, as the Gaddafi forces are closing in on the embattled city. As more coffins arrive from the frontline, high spirits have given way to a sense of abandonment. After several weeks of encouraging statements from Western capitals, many here feel deceived.

Benghazi resident Kaled Obeidi says that he feels sorry to say that they expected Barack Obama to be a 'real democrat' who is for liberty for people, but in reality, he says, Obama is looking for Gaddafi's money first..."

and it may very well be that the Libyan funds seized may not ever be repatriated to Libyans. These assets are not insignificant.

West Coast Greeny wrote:

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.

Amerikkka is bad.

The 'Imperalists' are bad.

Amerikkkans and the 'Imperialists' like the rebels therefore the rebels are bad.

Ghadaffi is against the rebels.

Therefore advocating anything that's anti-Ghadaffi, involving western intervention, is pro-imperialist and bad.

This theory is straight out of the University of Babble's Philosophy 101 class, didn't you get the memo?

Oil extraction costs are $1 dollar a barrel in Libya.

Fascist Western World concern is not for democracy in Libya.

It's about the oil.

They've committed mass murder for it before, and it looks like they are maneuvering to do so again.

Vansterdam Kid wrote:

Yes, obviously Oil is a big issue for all countries that rely on Oil imports including non-Western countries like China. This is not news. What's interesting, is the general assertion, by some of the posters on this thread that doing nothing would somehow be the best solution because doing something is a thinly disguised Oil grab. What seems most likely by nothing being done is that Ghdaffi will sooner or later (more likely sooner though) crushed the rebellion and therefore regain control of the Oil. The West will scream about "human rights" for a while, meanwhile everyone will realize they need Oil, and will start doing business with Ghdaffi again (like they were before this whole thing started). Hence, Oil (as a determinate over whether or not a no-fly zone should be established) isn't one of the measures we need to look at. All things considered, regardless of which regime gains control, Oil will be flowing to those who want it again at some point in the near future.

Absolutely right.

And as H.W. Bush said concerning Saddam Hussein at the conclusion of Iraq War I, "It's better to deal with the devil you know than the one you don't."

Vansterdam Kid wrote:

Hence, Oil (as a determinate over whether or not a no-fly zone should be established) isn't one of the measures we need to look at.

Agreed. Even if Libya had no oil, we should not bomb it.

Again I repeat the term imperialism is stupid, we don't exist in an age of empires anymore but an entirely ecomomic exploitative age, who cares who controls the oil, ultimtimately the alienated nature of wealth creation is still there either way, in terms the libyan "people" and what is good for them, it seems obvious by majority preference that they just want this guy out, whatever happens from there happens, I don't think most people right now care about the retoric of american interests.

Vansterdam Kid wrote:

Obviously it's impractical and undesirable, as a rule, to intervene in any and all countries. Yet it appears that this line of thought goes something along the lines of: because x, y and z countries were allowed to suffer at the hands of a brutal despot a, b and c countries should too.

Who the hell are you to "allow" or disallow what other people do in their own countries? More to the point, who the hell are the US, Canadian, and European governments to "allow" or disallow?

I'll tell you who they are. They are the people you call "imperialists", complete with the sneer-quotes. They are the people who have brought exploitation, misery, death, and war to every corner of the earth, because they [b]allow or disallow[/b] other countries to have their own economies and manage their own affairs.

They are the self-appointed cops and mob enforcers of the world capitalist system. And apparently they have the full support of the cruise-missile left and the limousine liberals.  

Caissa wrote:

The Libyan revolt seems dead.

That is seeming more and more likely an outcome.

I really really really hope that UN/NATO/US etc. do not decide to intervene. My impression is that they just plan to keep talking about making a decision until the rebels give up and surrender to the superior firepower of Ghaddafi...thus avoiding the need to make a definitive decision.

'Gaddafi Regime Brutality Unfathomable'

http://www.presstv.ir/detail/169878.html

"A group of doctors who journeyed to Libya recently has portrayed a gruesome picture of the massacre unfolding in Libya under the country's ruler Muammar Gaddafi.."

Unionist you're making a false equvelancy for your first point...again, the reason the chinese would not intervene is because they do it better then the toronto/canada branch of the police state, what you're saying is down right insulting to those who lived through tiananmin square and the reason nobody takes your brand of ideology seriously.

i'm not nessesarily supporting intervention btw but the usual anti-imperialist rhetoric in this regard is laughable, there are plenty of examples where progessive forces did ask for help, the Krondstadt sailors in Russia actually asked for intervention in their dying days, we live in a fairly integrated world anyway I can understand the reason why people in those situations would ask for help, its something the overly balkanized sovereignty fetishist anti-imperialist(sovereignty serves no one btw its a stupid western/aristotalian term) doesn't really understand.

Cannon to Meet With Libyan Rebel Leaders

http://www.canada.com/news/Cannnon+meet+with+Libyan+rebel+leaders/443586...

"Foreign Minister Lawrence Cannon said Monday that Canada will consider all options, from tougher sanctions to military intervention, to rid Libya of dictator Moammar Gadhafi. He said the world is now seeing the same Gadhafi implicated in the Lockerbie terrorist bombing. 'What we are witnessing is the Lockerbie Gadhafie,' he told reporters. And he wouldn't rule out endorsing military intervention without the support of the UN Security Council. 'We all agree that Gadhafi must leave.'"

Gadhafi didn't do Lockerbie:

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=23362

http://killinghope.org/bblum6/aer73.html

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=23357

Caissa wrote:

Your answer Unionist presupposes countries as being natural constructs and therefore a citizen's actions need to take place on his/her homefront. It in essence suugests that countries are stuck with the leadership they have unless they are able to overthrow it themselves.

Pretty well correct as I understand it. Humanitarian imperialism and recent justifications for bombing this or that country all come from the rich, imperial centres.

And it's not like there's nothing that can be done. The left INVENTED solidarity (or internationalism which I prefer as a term). Stopping weapons from getting to the aggressor, ensuring that OTHER outside forces arent' influencing the result, etc. are all things that can be done. As Spector has put it, understanding the struggle better and supporting those elements that best represent ordinary people and their class interests.

Who has the power to intervene? The NATO countries and their puppet UN. That much should be obvious. When was the last time that NATO carried out any 'humanitarian" imperialism? In the former Yugo? ARe you kidding??!

Laws do not transcend basic movements of might makes right and the US has actually been a far more agressive force alone then any european power was in the pre-UN era post feudalism.

Ok, Mike, you have now succeeded in framing your position in terms I can understand.

You don't support regulation of snowmobiles.

You do support a no fly zone over Libya.

Sorry for not getting it clear the first time - and thanks.

Finally! The intervention has [url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/03/14/AR201103...

Quote:

A military force from Bahrain's Gulf neighbors entered the tiny island nation Monday in an apparent attempt to restore order as anti-government demonstrations escalate.

Oh. Sorry. Wrong country and wrong intervention. This is the one where US ally and dictatorial monarchy Saudi Arabia invaded Bahrain in order to destroy the protestors and protect Bahrain's dictatorial monarchy. My bad. 

Back to Libya, where I heard that Saudi Arabia and the US want a no-fly zone to protect protestors against some dictator.

"Intervention" in Libya reportedly began weeks ago, when former progressive revolutionary hero and syphillitic old prick Robert Mugabe was gracious enough to send some Zimbabwean troops to help his buddy Gadaffi murder his citizens.

Well, OK.  But let's help the other side, if we intervene.

Mike Stirner wrote:

Ultimately it seems that if gadafi goes it will just return to being a decentralized territory anyway which is by no means a bad thing as far as I'm concerned libya was just another artificial territory.

You mean like upper and lower Canada? Confederate states versus northern union, that kind of thing?

Imagine that the King George and all his illegitimate EurAsian cousins on thrones then intervened in the US civil war, or the war of 1812? Imagine that they were running guns to Texas and Alabama, and that today the USA is one large confederacy run by right wing militias, KKK, and southern plutocrats with a large British colony north of a new mason-dixon line starting at the 49th parallel. Or perhaps the Brits sold us for a few thousand dollars and a crate of whiskey to their American friends by now. It wouldn't have been democratic then, and foreign meddling in other countries affairs is considered illegal today since Nuremberg and U.N.

No man or woman is truly free. There will always be governments, societies and laws to be forcefully followed and obeyed.