The USA Position on Libya

Post by **spot** » Wed Apr 20, 2011 12:39 am

That's manifestly incorrect. Just look at Burma, for example, where the consequence of dissent is a great deal harsher than even your portrait of Libya and yet dissent is widespread and very vocal. I think the alternative possibility, that most Libyans are proud of their revolution and their current government, is tenable.

Post by **spot** » Wed Apr 20, 2011 2:40 am

Here we are - what part of the article at West Exacerbates Libyans' Suffering would you disagree with? Bringing in a third-party opinion like that might help us reach agreement.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Thu Apr 21, 2011 2:16 am

Meanwhile in a country where the west support the government.

Bahrain's secret terror - Middle East, World - The Independent

At least 32 doctors, including surgeons, physicians, paediatricians and obstetricians, have been arrested and detained by Bahrain's police in the last month in a campaign of intimidation that runs directly counter to the Geneva Convention guaranteeing medical care to people wounded in conflict. Doctors around the world have expressed their shock and outrage.

One doctor, an intensive care specialist, was held after she was photographed weeping over a dead protester. Another was arrested in the theatre room while operating on a patient.

Clearly there are good repressive regimes and bad repressive regimes and good democracy movements and bad democracy movements. The fifth Fleet are based in Bagrain - you'd think at the very least a phone call from Obama telling them to cut it out might be in order. No wonder governments hate the internet and want to censor

it.

koan · Post by **koan** » Fri Apr 22, 2011 6:20 pm

spot;1357939 wrote: Here we are - what part of the article at West Exacerbates Libyans' Suffering would you disagree with? Bringing in a third-party opinion like that might help us reach agreement.

Written by Doug Bandow

Bandow resigned from Cato on December 15, 2005, after admitting he accepted payments from Abramoff — in return for publishing articles favorable to Abramoff's clients over a period of approximately ten years. He has referred to these activities as "a lapse of judgment," saying that he accepted payments for "between 12 and 24 articles" over a period of years. He stepped down after BusinessWeek Online contacted the Cato Institute to probe news of possible payments. He typically received on the order of $2,000 per article
Doug Bandow - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Why not listen to Arabs talking about the Arab movements?

The evolution of Arab revolutions - Empire - Al Jazeera English

wonderful program that spends a lot of time talking about what they know about the origins of the uprisings. Not only do they fail to suspect the US, they show the protestors laughing at the suggestion.

Post by **spot** » Fri Apr 22, 2011 11:31 pm

It may be that you've picked up something I'm unaware of having written. Have I really blamed the US anywhere here as being the origin of the uprisings? I'm sure that over the years they've paid some of the Libyan exiles who've jumped on the bandwagon since it took off, but that's a different matter.

Washington lobbying is a sleazy gravy-train. I hadn't heard of the discredited Doug Bandow or recognized his name, I posted the link on account of the points made in the article. None of which you've acknowledged, despite their relevance to the thread.

koan · Post by **koan** » Sat Apr 23, 2011 7:16 am

I'm not acknowledging an article written by a man who has admitted being paid to write articles that favour certain people. Why waste my time?

The Al Jazeera piece also strongly states that it's important Gaddafi is ousted.

Post by **spot** » Sat Apr 23, 2011 7:45 am

Al Jazeera mistakes the greater priority, which is the humiliation of any country waging aggressive war. In this instance they happen to be the same rag-bag assortment of adventurers who raped Iraq and Aghanistan, together with some Johnny-Come-Lately Frenchman.

koan · Post by **koan** » Sat Apr 23, 2011 7:51 am

The French were Johnn-Come-Firstly in this matter.

I have a hard time agreeing that the panel of people on the Al Jazeera show are collectively making bigger mistakes than your good self.

Post by **spot** » Sat Apr 23, 2011 8:27 am

Their short-termist expedience is misguided. I prefer to consider consequences on a larger scale. I present you with a view of the forest fire, they discuss the health of this tree or that. Any sane person would recognize the pressing and immediate need for a firebreak to reduce the scale of the impending conflagration.

koan · Post by **koan** » Sat Apr 23, 2011 7:34 pm

Again, I think their opinions hold more weight.

These aren't your lab rats. The people inside the experiment are the important voices. There is a reason we don't allow testing on human beings.

Scrat · Post by **Scrat** » Sun Apr 24, 2011 11:14 am

I just finished a book by George Sansom. A History of Japan 1334-1615. If you read this book you will see in simple layman terms just what is going on in Libya.

Japan has a lot of civil war in its history, almost endless feuding between rival clans, factions and families spanning centuries of time. What was all that conflict about? Basically the size of peoples gardens. These Japanese warlords, princes, Daimyos and whoever fought basically over resources and land. The more resources and you had the more POWER AND STATUS you had. Every time somebody would win and become emperor he would parcel out land and resources. Warlord A would attack petty prince B because he had a few more peasants residing thereon. They would fight for a few weeks and realize that if they attacked prince C they could both have more land. Works great 'eh?

It certainly looks to me that the Shogun of Libya (Qadhaffi) is guilty of what Go-Daishi was guilty of in Japan around 1330. He failed to appreciate the fact that some people are more equal (in their eyes anyway) than others. In doing so he pissed a lot of very powerful people off. Not just in Libya either.

Between Libyan rebel leadership and the opportunistic individuals therein and certain powers outside the country looking for a better deal (mainly on oil) Qadhaffi and his people are going to have a hard time of it, if they survive at all. As usual the Libyan peasants no doubt will END UP WITH LESS in the end as they will be paying some real high salaries used to finance villas in Cannes or other places on the French Riveria for their new rulers and their people. Go figure.

Call me cynical but don't tell me this is about LIBERTY, FREEDOM, JUSTICE, PROTECTING CIVILIANS or any of those other bulls**t ideals. This is a struggle for power, it's a rape of a country for the profit of a few individuals. Maybe Qadhaffi screwed up in another way too. He didn't buy enough weapons. Putin tossed out the oil company contracts set up in the '90s in Russia. The west just wimpered about it. Most likely the next pack of thieves in Libya won't make the same mistake, weapons instead of medicine.

Just my thoughts.

Scrat · Post by **Scrat** » Sun Apr 24, 2011 11:17 am

And no I'm not forgetting about the reasoning behind the revolts in the region. It's the results we are seeing that show how things are really done.

Scrat · Post by **Scrat** » Sat Apr 30, 2011 6:33 pm

Gadhaffis youngest son was killed today. Apparently it was a family meeting. I guess Libyan security has not found how to hide from the drones yet. You can't use cell phones, the Russians have taken out Chechen terrorists by tracking the signals and they used ELINT to target Georgian troops hiding in forests with Smerch MLRS systems. They just triangulated the signals.

YouTube - Gaddafi's youngest son 'killed in NATO air strike'

Post by **spot** » Sat Apr 30, 2011 7:13 pm

The BBC report is at BBC News - Nato strike 'kills Saif al-Arab Gaddafi', Libya saysA Nato air strike in the Libyan capital, Tripoli, has killed the son of Colonel Muammar Gaddafi, a government spokesman has said. Colonel Gaddafi himself was in the large residential villa which was hit by the strike, the spokesman added, but was unharmed. His son Saif al-Arab was said to be killed, as well as three grandchildren.

Nato said it had struck a "known command and control building in the Bab al-Azizya neighbourhood". A Nato spokesman said that the air strikes were aimed at military targets not individuals.

Let me give my interpretation and perhaps someone can trim it with qualifications. As far as I can see, it's now legal for any politician anywhere in the world to order the staff of his armed forces to kill as many people as possible located at a specified place and time. It's now legal for any "warrior" all the way down the chain of command to accept such an order and implement it.

This was exactly that - a deliberate attempt to kill everyone present at a specified place and time. Nothing to do with "aimed at military targets", this was a confirmed residential villa. Reporters have been and looked and said so. Those who planned the killings knew who would be there, it wasn't even "collateral damage". It was legal (I assume) killing on the authority of politicians. So - who can do this? Every politician on the planet? Every Head of State on the planet?

koan · Post by **koan** » Sat Apr 30, 2011 8:30 pm

You seem rather over confident that you have facts. I'm hesitant to believe that Gaddafi was anywhere near the building when it was hit, hesitant to believe it was a known residence, also hesitant to believe that the scene wasn't staged to look like it was hit by strikes that happened somewhere nearby, also hesitant to believe anyone could have really known who would be there at the precise time.

Post by **spot** » Sat Apr 30, 2011 8:41 pm

You're doubting that three of his grandchildren died today? Or that his son died today?

If they died, you think perhaps something other than a missile attack killed them?

If they were all killed by missiles, you don't perhaps think that clandestine intelligence assets targeted the missile attacks? Or perhaps you think it was all just a coincidence that they happened, out of all the residents of Tripoli, to be where explosions went off.

koan · Post by **koan** » Sat Apr 30, 2011 8:54 pm

I'm doubting they died. I'm doubting that anyone knew they were in the vicinity. I'm doubting that Gaddafi was present at the time, sitting just down the hall preparing the family dinner.

koan · Post by **koan** » Sat Apr 30, 2011 8:58 pm

Forgot a key word there. Should have read I'm "not" doubting they died. It was the one thing I'd left out of my withheld beliefs.

Post by **spot** » Sat Apr 30, 2011 9:07 pm

What an uncanny coincidence you're proposing, then.

koan · Post by **koan** » Sat Apr 30, 2011 9:12 pm

spot;1358464 wrote: What an uncanny coincidence you're proposing, then.

Not if you've paid any attention to Gaddafi's media stunts in the past. Never fails to miss an opportunity to exploit even his dead loved ones.

Post by **spot** » Sat Apr 30, 2011 9:27 pm

koan;1358467 wrote: Not if you've paid any attention to Gaddafi's media stunts in the past. Never fails to miss an opportunity to exploit even his dead loved ones.
We may be talking at cross-purposes here. The coincidence I'm surprised by is the four of them dying today, out of all the residents of Tripoli, without being deliberately made targets by Western missile aimers. It seems unlikely. On the other hand, you're asserting it.

koan · Post by **koan** » Sat Apr 30, 2011 9:38 pm

I've no idea why four of them would be less likely than one of them. Families often travel in groups.

koan · Post by **koan** » Sat Apr 30, 2011 9:44 pm

Perhaps one of our differences in viewing events is that I believe any responsible adult who believes, as Gaddafi does, that he is being targeted by killers would put their civilian family members as far away from them in as safe a place as could be secured.

I know I would.

koan · Post by **koan** » Sat Apr 30, 2011 10:04 pm

This article sort of covers why I have some reservations on believing Gaddafi's claims.

Report questioned

Ibrahim had earlier taken journalists to the remnants of a house in Tripoli, which Libyan officials said had been hit by at least three missiles. Given the level of destruction, it is unclear that anyone could have survived.

Benghazi rebels, who control a vast swathe of the east of the country, say they cannot trust Gaddafi.

Al Jazeera's Sue Turton, reporting from Benghazi, said there were "an awful lot" of suggestions in Libya that the news of the deaths could be fabricated.

Follow our coverage of the Libya uprising

"One of the main spokesmen for the Transitional National Council, Abdul Hafez Goga, is saying he thinks it could all be fabrication, that it may well be Gaddafi is trying to garner some sympathy," she said.

"Back in 1986, Gaddafi once claimed that Ronald Reagan, then US president, had launched a strike on his compound in Tripoli and killed his daughter. Many journalists since then dug around and found out that the actual child that had died had nothing to do with Gaddafi, that he sort of adopted her posthumously."

Nato strike 'kills Gaddafi's youngest son' - Africa - Al Jazeera English

Scrat · Post by **Scrat** » Tue May 03, 2011 10:12 am

Why believe anybodies claims? The rebels say he's targeting civilians but if you watch the videos most of the rebels are wearing civilian cloths. The powers that be say that Gadhaffi is killing his own people. That's the reason we're supporting the rebels. So let me take a shot at this. The Loyalists are shooting at civilians who are peacefully protesting their governments actions while certain unknown individuals are shooting at the Loyalists? Who's this 3rd party? Space aliens?

Like it or not the first casualty of war is THE TRUTH. I'm sure NATO, Sarkozy et al would be happy if the Loyalists were simply to lay down their arms and stop fighting. Personally were I a Loyalist that's not something I would like to do. I've already seen what our good and upstanding rebels have done to the few prisoners they have caught. I'd rather die with my good old AK in my hand than be tortured, beheaded and strung up from a chain link fence.

One thing the media completely misses is some of the reasons for this conflict one of which is tribal rivalries. My tribe against your tribe. Do a little research into tribal conflicts, blood feuds and their nature and you'll see why I support Gadhaffi. For all his faults he did keep the peace between rival tribes. HE saved lives and built a country. It now appears all that will fall apart and Libya is going to take a big step backwards.

koan · Post by **koan** » Tue May 10, 2011 12:32 pm

Looks like the Libyan Councils are both on the rebel's side and pro intervention by NATO.

That blows a big gaping hole in the theory they don't want our help.

Libyan delegates back rebel council - Middle East - Al Jazeera English

"As we continue our support for the 17th February uprising and, in defiance of the regime's claims, we announce unequivocally our allegiance to and trust in the National Transitional Council (NTC)," a statement said.

"In support of the struggle of the Libyan people to establish a modern civil society, (70) members of various local councils - which represent the different western, central and southern regions and tribes of Libya - have come together in Abu Dhabi".

The conference called for international recognition of the National Transitional Council (NTC) and for providing the rebels with advanced weaponry, they say, is needed to defeat Gaddafi's better-armed troops.

Scrat · Post by **Scrat** » Tue May 10, 2011 6:32 pm

Who're these 70 tribal representatives? I can see it coming now. None of them are going to be happy with their lot in this mess. This will be another Somalia a year from now.

They'll never beat Gadhaffi and the loyalists without outside intervention. They've been pleading for help from almost day one. Included in that help is requests for sophisticated weaponry and considering the people we are dealing with I think it is very unwise to give them anything other than pep talks about freedom and liberty. Don't forget what Hizbollah did to the Israeli army in 2006. They were using antique 1950s cromuskets, old 60 era Saggers and 20 year old Kornet AT missiles. They handed Israeli armor their arses on a cheap tin plate.

koan · Post by **koan** » Tue May 10, 2011 10:29 pm

What stands out is that you've suggested giving them only "pep talks" about freedom and liberty while assessing their situation as impossible without intervention. Why bother with the pep talks then?

Scrat · Post by **Scrat** » Wed May 11, 2011 6:29 am

The pep talks would admittedly simply be for show. I doubt our junta is going to be any better than Gadhaffis. I mean the rebs already have death squads in action.

Why should we help them? We all know how tribal and sectarian conflict works.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/11/world ... s&emc=tha2

Scrat · Post by **Scrat** » Fri May 13, 2011 6:21 am

Well the deadline for air ops is coming up. May 20. This is an interesting article, we won't stop. What's happening on the ground is hard to get information on. It's still a stalemate as far as I know.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/13/world ... &emc=tha22

Scrat · Post by **Scrat** » Fri May 13, 2011 9:32 pm

It looks as if the refugees are having an impact. It seems to me Sarkozy was really gung ho about this little tiff with Gadhaffi at first. Now he doesn't want to take his share of the refugees? Same with Italy and the others?

YouTube - Floodgate of Trouble: Free travel dream gone off rails as refugees flood EU

Anybody with one tiny bit of common sense can tell you that war brings misery, the best war is one that is won quickly, preferably in a matter of days. This exercise in stupidity has now gone on for more than 3 months. It's all due to this intervention. With time more people will get desperate and believe me, they won't be going to the Congo.

NATO had better start to spend a lot more money and get some well armed boots on the ground, a lot of them. France, Italy, Britain had better take a big bite out of this like everyone else.

wellent · Post by **wellent** » Tue May 17, 2011 8:28 pm

not in favor!

wellent · Post by **wellent** » Tue May 17, 2011 8:45 pm

not in facor

wellent · Post by **wellent** » Tue May 17, 2011 8:57 pm

I think the USA must have the responsibility to all injured people in Libya.

Post by **spot** » Tue May 17, 2011 9:34 pm

wellent;1359753 wrote: I think the USA must have the responsibility to all injured people in Libya.

Why the USA? It's a European war, not an American war. This is France and the UK getting retribution for decades of diplomatic humiliation. The Americans are gawping bystanders this time round.

Scrat · Post by **Scrat** » Thu May 19, 2011 5:30 pm

More than that Spot. America has significant interest in it we just can't afford to really go after Libya so we send in the lap dogs and that wannabe Sarkozy.

This is interesting. And pathetic. Bahrain is no better than Ghadaffi ever was.

YouTube - ‪Obama slams Bahrain's mass arrests‬‏

koan · Post by **koan** » Thu May 19, 2011 5:41 pm

spot;1359754 wrote: Why the USA? It's a European war, not an American war. This is France and the UK getting retribution for decades of diplomatic humiliation. The Americans are gawping bystanders this time round.

Thank you!!

America's got enough well earned bad rep. They don't need to get blamed for other people's crap too.

Scrat · Post by **Scrat** » Thu May 19, 2011 9:48 pm

I don't know how it can be said that the US isn't involved in this. There are missile and camera armed drones crawling all over Libya. It's a cheap way to fight a war on this scale, cheap in monetary terms and cheap in bad publicity, it's low profile. I don't think the US is going to win this, I think there will be a lot of policy changes in the governments of the ME and they aren't going to serve the US as they have done in the past. There's a lot more Chinese activity politically these last few months.

Arabs are pissed. They are in a real dark mood from what I gather.

YouTube - ‪Ambivalence in Egypt over Obama speech‬‏

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Fri May 20, 2011 3:37 am

I haven't read the thread and am not particularly interested in this conversation, but I came across this column that points out that Obama's 60-day deadline is almost up and no congressional approval. Just thought y'all would be interested.

Death of the War Powers Act? - The Washington Post

Scrat · Post by **Scrat** » Fri May 20, 2011 7:49 am

I read that too, I heard it was today May 20. Anyway we aren't officially at war. We're defending civilians in a support role or something like that. Doesn't matter, we'll be there for years to come.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Fri May 20, 2011 6:39 pm

Yeh, nobody in Washington but Ron Paul looks at the Constitution as anything more than a relic of history.

Scrat · Post by **Scrat** » Sun May 22, 2011 8:22 am

Oh boy. I guess Ghadaffi didn't tolerate religious extremism. No wonder the Saudis and Qataris hate him. I guess that will all change now. I remember watching a documentary about the Arab world years ago and it went into the differences. In Saudi Arabia and the the other "good" countries women are essentially chattel. Bad countries like Syria, Jordan, Libya, Algeria plus a few others women can dress as they choose, go to school and even drive cars. Can't have that I guess.

Libya clerics see big role for Islam after Gaddafi | News by Country | Reuters

Post by **spot** » Mon May 30, 2011 6:02 am

Tell me, are we in a position yet to say it's overwhelmingly likely that had the insurrection been dealt with internally by the Libyan government, with no foreign interference, the death toll and human suffering would have been far less?

The question of whether the majority in Libya supported the government is indeterminable, though I firmly believe it to have been the case. The massive damage caused to the country and its citizens by this self-serving decision of NATO to destroy the Libyan military capability is undeniable though. The bombing has not, I suggest, been beneficial to those who live there.

Scrat · Post by **Scrat** » Mon May 30, 2011 7:27 am

No, the bombing has had no benefits and the war definitely has not. I heard that several pumping stations for the GMMR have ceased to function. If these failures are catastrophic the cost of replacing the equipment will be enormous. Irrigation for a lot of the new crop land depends exclusively on the GMMR system. The summer is already there.

The bombing has reduced the effectiveness of Ghadaffis forces but this has only brought about a stalemate. Britain and France are going to bring in Apaches and HAP Tiger helos. There will be support facilities on the ground and these combat aircraft are only part of an air assault force. This means troops on the ground.

I doubt these assets will be used to end the conflict in a decisive manner. If you want to do that you need to invade the whole country. This conflict is also tribal. The tribal leaders met in Turkey a few days ago. I can see them now, feeling one another out, maneuvering, making alliances and plans to knife one another in the back at the first opportunity.

This conflict to date has cost more lives, more infrastructure and assets than it would have ever cost had we not intervened. It's not going to stop for a long time either, tribal conflict is the next phase I'm willing to bet. Libya will never be the same.

koan · Post by **koan** » Mon May 30, 2011 1:45 pm

The question to ask is not whether NATO involvement has caused more death than a war where only one side was sufficiently armed, the question is whether or not less death occurred than would have had the rebellion possessed the military capability of NATO. Of course there is more death when bombs are dropped than if they aren't.

How would the Israel/Palestine situation be different if Palestinians possessed the same arsenal as the Israelis?

The next issue is the use of the word "benefit" because it's apparently being used in reference to what outsiders want. If you watch Al Jazeera where they talk to actual Libyans, you'll see the benefit the people are after is the removal of Gaddafi. Certainly it would be nice if they could accomplish that by voting instead of waging war but Gaddafi wasn't open to that possibility. He took over in a "bloodless coup" and promptly made sure that couldn't happen to him.

Post by **spot** » Mon May 30, 2011 1:54 pm

I don't understand your argument. The humanitarian concern is that fewer people die, fewer people suffer, national employment isn't handicapped, the universities still open, trade continues. All of that is measurably worse because NATO intervened. I say they intervened for their own selfish interest rather than to help anyone inside Libya but that's a secondary matter. You dislike Gaddafi, that's reasonable on your part, so does Robert Fisk. I think you should be able to see past that dislike to my core complaint, that life for most Libyans is worse now than it would have been without the foreign intervention and that it will stay that way for years - quite likely for the next generation, the next couple of decades.

What you're watching is the naked rape of a nation by profiteers. It's unseemly that you should applaud.

koan · Post by **koan** » Mon May 30, 2011 2:37 pm

For someone who earlier accused me of being short sighted, your own vision is practically blind. The people would rather fight a bloody battle with many lives lost and the promise of a better future post-Gaddafi than continue to live in the prison he created.

You won't be able to compare their quality of life until Gaddafi leaves and the new government has had time to stabilize conditions. Of course more people are dying than before the rebellion. It's absurd to expect anything different. The point, my friend, is that they wouldn't be able to overthrow Gaddafi without the help they asked for. They asked for help because they both wanted and needed it.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Mon May 30, 2011 2:44 pm

koan;1360607 wrote: The question to ask is not whether NATO involvement has caused more death than a war where only one side was sufficiently armed, the question is whether or not less death occurred than would have had the rebellion possessed the military capability of NATO. Of course there is more death when bombs are dropped than if they aren't.

How would the Israel/Palestine situation be different if Palestinians possessed the same arsenal as the Israelis?

The next issue is the use of the word "benefit" because it's apparently being used in reference to what outsiders want. If you watch Al Jazeera where they talk to actual Libyans, you'll see the benefit the people are after is the removal of Gaddafi. Certainly it would be nice if they could accomplish that by voting instead of waging war but Gaddafi wasn't open to that possibility. He took over in a "bloodless coup" and promptly made sure that couldn't happen to him.

Surely the question should be why do we intervene in Libya but turn a blind eye in Bahrain (when saudi arabia put down a peaceful movement by force) and Yemen when government planes are bombing demonstrators

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/31/world ... yemen.html

The answer might lie in who gets to control the oil. Syria has a big enough army and airforce it would be a tough nut to bite on. Who gains most from all the turmoil? Saudi Arabia of course. Who started it all in 2001?

Post by **spot** » Mon May 30, 2011 2:45 pm

Speaking solely for myself, and aware that Robert Fisk knows far more than I do and would disagree, I have respect for Colonel Gaddafi. I appreciate what he's done for his country, I regret the uprising and I feel he deserves a better conclusion to his lifetime of service. I certainly despise the opportunist vulture politicians and civil servants of the UK and France who have seized their moment to rip his country apart in order to extract its wealth.

Post by **spot** » Mon May 30, 2011 2:49 pm

Who cares in the Middle East what Obama says? - Robert Fisk, Commentators - The Independent is the article I've borne in mind while writing today.