Libya VII

Frmrsldr wrote:

welder wrote:

Nevermind that the "anti-imperialists" have not brought up the Lockerbie bombing that Col. Khaddaffi sponsored...

What do you think of that deal the U.K. government made with Gadhafi to return the man accused and imprisoned for the Lockerbie bombing to Libya - you know, the one who's (still) on his death bed suffering from "cancer"?

What do you think of former U.S. President Reagan's 1986 bombing of Gadhafi's home in Tripoli?

welder wrote:

Or the untold thousands he's killed in the last 2 weeks...Or the untold thousands he's murdered and tortured over the last 40+ years...

Where was our super hero action figure Uncle Sam and his sidekicks (U.N., E.U., NATO, Canada, etc.) during those "last 40+ years..."

Supporting Gadhafi, just like the Taliban, Saddam Hussein etc., perhaps?

welder wrote:

I'm waiting for the "anti-imperialists" to use the term "War of Agression"...

Done already.

I did that when I equated our (potential) military interference in Libya to our illegal war of aggression in Afghanistan back in Libya V.

1.I think the deal was disgusting...It spat on the graves of those who died because of that tragedy...

I don't have much for President Reagan,but I wish they had got the good Col. right then and there...

2.Propping up some hideous Fascist dictators in other places of the world...The good Col. was getting funding from the likes of the Soviet Union and other Pan-Arab Ba'Athist's like Abdel Gemal Nasser...And once the Soviet Union fell,as long as the supply of oil was coming,everyone looked the other way..You'll get no arguement from me about the rank hypocrisy...

3.War of Agression...That's a loaded term...You do realize that the Confederate States of America used that term to define the US Civil War,right?In fact,many history books in the South still used that term until very recently.Were the Federal forces of the USA imperialist in there attempt to stop white supremecist traitors?After the Battle of Antietam,and the resulting Emancipation Proclamation,there was no doubt what "States Rights" meant...

In this case,some are equating what's going on in Libya as some sort of economic based "War of Agression"...That might turn out to be true...However,if we take the potential oil component out of this,what do we have?

We still have the unassailable issue of a despotic dictator essentially murdering his own people because they finally had the temerity to stand up against this thug and demand their freedom.Over the last 2 weeks,it has become painfully obvious that they were in an unwinnable situation,and mostlikely doomed to die.

Are we simply supposed to sit by and let the inevitable happen and say,"It was sad,but,it was an internal struggle and at least we let the Libyan's settle it themselves."?That seems almost morally reprehensible.

Look,I'm under no illusions that there is a huge economic component to this.There always is when military action takes place.But I see stuff like this happening,and I remember what happened at Tiannemen Square and how those people were slaughtered.And I just cannot understand how we can sit by and let people die like that...

Quote:

And I just cannot understand how we can sit by and let people die like that...

So you agree that NATO should have bombed Tel Aviv in January, 2009?

Libya Seeks Meeting of UN Security Council

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/19/us-libya-emergency-meeting-idU...

"Libya has called for an emergency meeting of the UN Security Council after it was attacked by a coalition of Western states. Libyan TV reported that Muammar Gaddafi said the UN Security Council had a responsibility to halt the aggression against Libya.."

Libyans Form Human Shield At Gaddafi's Compound

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/19/us-libya-humanshield-idUSTRE72...

"Thousands of Libyans packed into Muammar Gaddafi's heavily fortified Tripoli compound on Saturday for form a human shield against possible air strikes by allied forces. 'Even if we do not have weapons, people will do everything they can to fight. You will see people on every street, pouring hot oil on the enemy.' Mahmoud el Mansouri, a farmer, said people were angry. 'There are 5,000 tribesmen who are preparing to come here to fight with our leader. THey had better not try to attack our country,' he said. 'Everyone has weapons training and we are all prepared to fight.."

Kerry Nudges Obama Into North Africa  -  by MK Bhadrakumar

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/MC19Ak04.html

"...In effect, NATO will constitute a 'coalition of the willing' from among member countries. One salient outcome of the voting was that 4 of the BRICS member countries (Brazil, Russia, India, and China - but not South Africa) abstained. The Indian stance was based on three points: that the resolution was not backed up by any report of the special representative of the UN Secretary General on Libya, and was being adopted while the African Union had yet to set up a panel to Libya - underlining that political efforts should have been exhausted first; There was 'relatively little credible information' available on the Libya situation to back up the resolution; and there was no 'clarity' about the actual operations authorized by 1973...

Egypt's covert involvement carries much meaning. It highlights that the military junta in Cairo and the Obama administration are getting along famously after the supposed loss of US influence in the post Hosni Mubarak era. The Egyptian military junta has been assigned a key role in Gaddafi's ouster. This is bound to impact Egypt's own march to democracy...

In sum, we are standing somewhere at a similar threshold to the US invasion of Afghanistan in October 2001, which began as aerial operations to back up Northern Alliance [NA] militia, supplemented by Special Forces operations, and was later legitimized as a ground presence..."

The Club Med War  -  by Pepe Escobar

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/MC19Ak02.html

"History may register that the real tipping point was this past Tuesday - when, in an interview to German TV, the African king of kings made sure that Western corporations - unless they are German (because that country was against a no-fly zone), can kiss goodbye to Libya's energy bonanza.

Gaddafi explicitly said, 'We do not trust their firms, they have conspired against us...Our oil contracts are going to Russian, Chinese and Indian firms.' In other words: BRICS member countries. So cynics have every right to invoke the time tested mantra: it's the oil, stupid.

So a who's who of profiteers of the - in theory- UN sanctioned US/NATO/Arab League military operation in Libya has got to include European Union and Anglo American Big Oil. Not to mention Wall Street - think about those billions of dollars of Libyan financial assets deposited in Western banks and now confiscated; and of course US/EU weapons producers. With Gaddafi willing to fight to the death it's fair to assume the mandate only ends with regime change...'"

The Libyan Rebellion: The West's Cloak Over the Gulf  - by Sukant Chandan

http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/2011/chandan180311.html

"Fidel Castro was right. The West WAS planning an attack on a sovereign third world nation imminently: Libya...

The West is terrified of the Arab and North African uprisings and is going all out to co-opt them the best it can, or as one of my close colleagues, Daniel Renwick states, imperialists are 'reforming to conserve'.."

Quote:

Here's video of the USS Burke, a guided-missile destroyer, firing a Tomahawk cruise missile at Libya. According to a tweet from CNN's Wolf Blitzer, each Tomahawk costs around $1 million, and the United States has fired more than 100 so far.

Ka ching. Someone is making a lot of money selling weapons to the US militarist regime.

This was from Al Jazeera which seems to be sliding over to "useful idiot" status. BTW, one of the targets hit, according to the Libyan gov, is a hospital in Tripoli.

...........................

From RT, the view of the Medvedev government seems to be one of regret over the violence. They also note that the NATO attackers seem to have overstepped the UN Security Council mandate from protecting civilians to overthrowing the Gadaffi regime.

RT wrote:

Rogozin added that in his personal opinion, the US, UK, France and Italy are somewhat overstepping the bounds of the UN resolution.

Mikhail Margelov, chairman of the Federation Council Foreign Affairs CTTE, pointed out that the main goal of the 1973 UN Security Council resolution was originally to protect the civilian population, and not to overthrow the Gaddafi regime.

However, It can hardly be a surprise that the NATO militarist regimes (UK, France, US, Canada, etc.) would escalate the conflict. There is an established record of supporting Israel's bloody atrocities and war crimes against the Palestinians, support for the Saudi torture state, bombing and occupation of Iraq, Afghanistan, ..., theft of the national wealth and oil of Iraq, etc, etc ,etc

RT - Russian reaction

[url=http://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/956848--chavez-condemns-milita..., Bolivia, Nicaragua condemn bombing of Libya[/url]

Quote:

“More death, more war. They are the masters of war,” Chavez said. “What irresponsibility. And behind that is the hand of the United States and its European allies.”

“They want to seize Libya’s oil. The lives of Libya’s people don’t matter to them at all,” Chavez said. “It is deplorable that once again the warmongering policy of the Yankee empire and its allies is being imposed, and it is deplorable that the United Nations lends itself to supporting war, infringing on its fundamental principles instead of urgently forming a commission to go to Libya.”

Frmrsldr wrote:

Roscoe wrote:

Hm. "How many dead children by NATO" not how many dead children huh? The murder of children by Ghaddaffi forces don't count?

War is ugly and indecent but unless the madmen and despots of the world voluntarily stop murdering their citizenry in order to hold power, it will remain necessary.

What, is the American Empire some super hero action figure that arrives to save innocent victims the world over?

 

Apparently, the Eeevil Empire is taking a backseat to the UK and France, if one can believe Obama's taking the air in South America while Hilary stickhandles the Libyan affair.

 

What about China? What about North Korea? What about Tibet? What about Burma (Myanmar)? What about the civil unrest and the people killed in Thailand a few months back? What about the conflict between Cambodia and Thailand? What about the violence in Zimbabwe?

 

Global authority is progressing toward a more proactive stance in intervening in genocide and internal oppression. I suppose, its all about building consensus at the Puzzle Palace.

What is the moral reasoning used to justify militarily interfering in some countries, but not others?

 

I think the moral reasoning is the same but geopolitical realities require regional consensus (like the Arab League in this case) before the UN will act.

 

Because it's certainly not the body counts of children and innocent citizens.

 

Its too bad that the atrocities and murder of civilians,especially children have to add up before some entity will act. This no-fly zone should have been imposed immediately with an implicite threat that Libyan air defenses would be destroyed if Gaddaffi used military force against his own people.

 

 

 

Bah; Uri Avneri.  He makes nice sounds that western liberals like to hear, but he's always been at his core a Zionist, and no better than any of the others.

March 20 Statement of The Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan: Foreign Intervention and Civilian Casualties in Libya

http://www.shahamat.info/english/

"The Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan strongly condemns this politically motivated and uncalled for intervention and adventure of the Western countries in the internal conflict of the people of Libya, under the auspices of the United Nations. The consequences of such an intervention certainly harm this Islamic country and the Islamic Ummah.

In the eye of the IAE, it is a matter of pity that the situation in Libya evolved to an extent that paved the way for the anti-Islamic forces to intervene. We believe the Western colonialists do not want a solution in this country on the basis of the aspirations of the people, but rather have plans to weaken this Islamic country in a war of attrition and then occupy its oil reserves, through a direct invasion.

The IAE calls on the people of Libya, through this statement, to take the initiative in their own hands and not let others play with their destiny. As a Muslim people, they should know their obligations to fulfill their Islamic and national duty. Similarly, we remind the Islamic Ummah and the rulers of the Islamic world not to remain neutral in this conflict facing the Libyan people, but rather play their role in this issue, in line with the interests of Islam and the believing people of Libya, - to enable this nation, not only to wriggle free from the current crisis, but also to save itself from the tentacles of the foreign colonialism in the long term..."

al-Qa'bong wrote:

BTW, are we at war with Eurasia or Eastasia now?

You've really got to stay tuned 24/7 to the cable news channels to know whom to be shedding your blood for.

Big Sister on the necessity of military intervention:

Quote:

"It's a priority for the US administration to work with partners in the Gulf region against the concern over the behavior of Iran," she said.

Commenting on the deployment of troops from the Peninsula Shield Force in the Kingdom of Bahrain in the wake of violent protests, Clinton said it was a sovereign right for Bahrain to seek help from GCC member states under the joint defense treaty they had signed.

Eurasia (no, really!) Review

Unionist wrote:

[url=http://zope.gush-shalom.org/home/en/channels/avnery/1300491221]The ultimate exposure of Uri Avnery[/url]

This critic of the Likudists - but opponent of BDS and proponent of the two-state "solution" - has finally exposed his inner contradictions for all to see, and it's not pretty:

Quote:

Humanity is moving towards a civilized world order. Non-intervention is the very opposite.

Thursday’s hurried Security Council resolution was a historic step in this direction. In my imagination I saw French planes rolling off the airstrips minutes after the votes were counted. That has not happened. But Libya is saved and Qaddafi’s fate is sealed.

I wonder if he would welcome bombing raids on Tel Aviv the next time his Israel murders Palestinians - or imprisons Jews for refusing to serve in the armed forces.

Avnery applauds when the financiers of Israel wage aggressive war against what he calls "Arab tyrants". That puts him squarely in the camp of Netanyahu.

Moments like these are historic. They are turning points which reveal what has been hidden before.

 

he takes a position virtually identical to the NDP. If his contradictions 'aren't pretty' neither are theirs..

The Libyan War of 2011  - by George Friedman

http://www.stratfor.com/analysis/20110319-libyan-war-2011

"The long term goal, unspoken but well understood, is regime change - displacing the government of Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi and replacing it with a new regime built around the rebels. The mssion is clearer than the strategy and that strategy can't be figured out from the first moves.."

George Galloway on West's Libyan Intervention

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zk2u-pvOpcc&feature=player_embedded#at=276

It says a lot about this country, that we have not one single politician doing this here. I won't be voting for ANY of them.

I have to laugh at the sudden pangs of conscience the Russians and Chinese are suffering. After refusing to veto the imperial assault on Libya, they are now tsk-tsking the result of their own moral cowardice.

That's the last place I would be hanging out if I were in his shoes.

Some in the Arab Union are also having pangs of conscience after jumping on board with Osama et al.

And once again, all our major political parties fail to even question this aggressive, imperialist manouevre.

[url=http://www.chris-floyd.com/component/content/article/1-latest-news/2108-... Blood: American Missiles Rain Down on Libya[/url]

Quote:

To decry the course of action being taken by the interventionists in Libya is not to "support" Gadafy. (Unlike his present attackers, who have supported him most sumptuously for years.) This should go without saying, but of course it can't; this witless denunciation is invariably trotted out against anyone who does not immediately jump on the bloodsoaked bandwagon whenever our leaders start killing people. (You can only oppose this mass production of foreign corpses after it's over -- and even then, you can only describe it as a mistake, or an example of good intentions gone awry through incompetence or happenstance.)

I can see it now. A mistake was made, based on good "humanitarian" intentions, will be what the cowardly slightly left than centre politicians and pundits say when Libya becomes another bloodbath like Iraq and Afghanistan. Ignatieff can trot out his mea culpa essay on Iraq. Maybe Layton will call on negotiations with Gadafy and his supporters.

Yes, if everybody voluntarily accepted being a slave to a ruling elite then none of this might is right would be necessary.  Then again this type of thing is what happens when 99% of the people on the planet start to realize that the ruling elite isn't necessary.

Roscoe wrote:

Its too bad that the atrocities and murder of civilians,especially children have to add up before some entity will act. This no-fly zone should have been imposed immediately with an implicite threat that Libyan air defenses would be destroyed if Gaddaffi used military force against his own people.

This betrays the U.N./U.S./E.U./NATO's intentions.

When Gadhafi forces approached Benghazi, the weapons they deployed were tanks, artillery and fighter/attack planes. These are the most effective weapons (except the tanks) for sieging cities.

They would not/would have had very few anti-aircraft guns and missiles. They would not have needed them as the People's forces have very little aircraft and combat helicopters. Combined with the fact that the Gadhafi forces have a preponderance of fighters to shoot the People's aircraft down.

Gadhafi's anti-aircraft weapons (especially the less mobile missiles) are located in Tripoli. Other locations of anti-aircraft weapons (more likely the more mobile guns) are cities under Gadhafi forces that are more secure. Heavier anti-aircraft weapons like missiles and the bigger guns are guided by radar and are thus more stationary.

Having a no-fly zone over the Benghazi to Tobruk area in a defensive posture to protect the Libertarias and perhaps tip the scale in their favor against the Gadhafi force's onslaught on that clearly defined limited front is one thing.

But,

Making the entire airspace of Libya a no-fly zone and taking an offensive posture by going after Gadhafi's radar and air defenses in Tripoli and anywhere else in Libya, his forces and his military assets, his bunker in Tripoli and ultimately perhaps Gadhafi himself,

is something quite different altogether.

This is regime change and an illegal war of aggression.

Four French air strikes in Libya: military

Libyan rebels celebrate atop the turret of one of Moammar Gadhafi's destroyed tanks along a road between Benghazi and Ajdabiyah on Sunday. Western air strikes, reportedly led by French fighter jets, completely wiped out Gadhafi's armoured column and left scores of bodies along the road. The severed head of a goat is seen dangling from the end of the turret.

Quote:

French warplanes carried out four air strikes in Libya on Saturday, destroying several armoured vehicles of forces loyal to strongman Muammar Gaddafi, the French military said.

According to the army chief, a first strike took place around 1645 GMT (0345 AEDT Sunday) against "a Libyan vehicle clearly identified as belonging to pro-Gaddafi forces".

I seen some of the video of the results of these strikes on CNN today... they hit the heavy artillery and tank units near Benghazi. These were the units that were bombarding opposition towns and cities, thus endangering civilians, more than anything the Libyan air force could do. From the looks of the video Gadaffis forces have now left the area, abandoning many tanks and artillery pieces (that's the barrel of an artillery gun, not a tank, in the picture) and the opposition was in control of that area now. Gadaffi's troops are now pulling back towards Tripoli. I don't blame them in the least bit...

More video here, click onthe bottom video to see airstike results...

West Coast Greeny wrote:

alan smithee wrote:

I fail to see how air strikes are going to 'liberate' Libyans.

They disable the tanks and planes that have been blasting them over the last month?

So do the anti-air and anti-armor guns, missiles and aircraft of the Libertarias.

Liberation is best when it is achieved by the People and not foreign governments.

Noah_Scape wrote:

Qaddafi "vowed a long war", so in reality it will be a short one.

But Daddy Warbucks on Wall Street and London will be interested in a prolonged and protracted war. Make that one more prolonged and protracted war in what is now a fourth theater of war in total for them in North Africa.

8000 military contractors in the US are looking pretty good on next month's balance sheets with purchase orders for all manner of weaponry and ammo rolling in from the Pentagon. UK and Canadian war industries are very optimistic as well.

Multinational energy companies and billionaire global speculators make lots and lots of money with "oil futures", oil prices and speculating on food and famine. It's a win-win situation for the "masters of the universe" and all.

If any of you Babbler Bombardiers are really so concerned for the wellbeing of the "rebels" (whose ranks most certainly include Crusader special forces and mercenaries, as that embarrassing little episode last week showed), then do as they did during the Spanish civil war: pick up a rifle and defend the revolution.

I'm sure it's a well paid gig. Send your resume to Xe.