Libya

[HoonDing]

What's with this Cold War crap lately?

[Walsingham]

Obyknven:

 

The article you posted seriously suggests that Europe wanted an armed revolution BECAUSE it had invested heavily in Ghaddafi's regime? That's the most retarded assertion I've seen in print for as long as I can remember.

[Pidesco]

That article is just incredibly wrong.

[obyknven]

Obyknven:

 

The article you posted seriously suggests that Europe wanted an armed revolution BECAUSE it had invested heavily in Ghaddafi's regime? That's the most retarded assertion I've seen in print for as long as I can remember.

 

1. Libya has an organizati

Edited March 25, 2011 by obyknven

[Walsingham]

Firstly oil prices are not exactly plummeting. Nor are gas prices.

 

Secondly your own quoted article states that nationalisation was a negotiation tactic, not a serious threat.

 

Thirdly and far more importantly, your only interest in this issue is transparently obvious: an opportunity to thump the US and Great Britain.

 

Fourthly, even if one accepts your premise that oil and gas prices are dangerously low, the party who stands to gain most from a Libyan panic is Russia. But that would be far too disturbing to your monochromatic nationalism.

 

EDIT:

 

Since I'm equally obviously not going to change your mind, have a freebie on me, Obyknven:

 

http://tarpley.net/

 

The author claims that according to a Westpoint study some 18% of AlQ suicide bombers identified in Iraq were from Libya and some 60% from Darnah, one of the rebel strongholds. Which might not cheer you until you see that the author also contends that AlQ is an American invention. So there you have it - a smoking gun PROVING your points.

Edited March 25, 2011 by Walsingham

[obyknven]

Libya, Getting it Right: A Revolutionary Pan-African Perspective

 

The West does not need united Africa. The West needs African resources, which the West would like to swap for food and luxury goods. This is the only successful mechanism – gold in exchange for beads – that works well in the relations between Africa and the West.

 

 

http://www.blackagendareport.com/content/l...can-perspective

 

The conflict in Libya is not a revolution, but a counter-revolution. The struggle “is fundamentally a battle between Pan-African forces on the one hand, who are dedicated to the realization of Qaddafi's vision of a united Africa, and reactionary racist Libyan Arab forces who reject Qaddafi's vision of Libya as part of a united Africa.” The so-called Black African “mercenaries” are misnamed. “As a result of Libya's support for liberation movements throughout Africa and the world, international battalions were formed” which are part of the Libyan armed forces

Edited March 25, 2011 by obyknven

[Walsingham]

Step too far there, 'Obyknevn'. You are Lord of Flies, and we claim our five pounds.

[obyknven]

Since I'm equally obviously not going to change your mind, have a freebie on me, Obyknven:

 

http://tarpley.net/

 

The author claims that according to a Westpoint study some 18% of AlQ suicide bombers identified in Iraq were from Libya and some 60% from Darnah, one of the rebel strongholds. Which might not cheer you until you see that the author also contends that AlQ is an American invention. So there you have it - a smoking gun PROVING your points.

 

Rebels Fight for Democratic Ideals in Libya

 

 

 

Rebels are 'not a terrorist organisation like al Qaeda'!

 

Step too far there, 'Obyknevn'. You are Lord of Flies, and we claim our five pounds.

 

Edited March 25, 2011 by obyknven

[Walsingham]

Rebels are 'not a terrorist organisation like al Qaeda'!

 

Well, I guess me and the rebels will have to disagree with you, then.

[213374U]

Of course the rebels would get help wherever they can get it, and you'd be hard pressed to find more experienced irregulars than Iraq/Stan vets. If having AlQ fighters among them means they are basically a terrorist group, then I guess that Soviet involvement with the Republican side in the SCW means the government were a bunch of stalinists. A few of them might have been Joe admirers but by and large they weren't.

Edited March 26, 2011 by 213374U

[Walsingham]

I take your point. But at the same time, if you inject a number of AlQ franchise holders into a largely spontaneous and disorganised rebellion, when AlQ models itself on Marxist insurgent tactics, then surely the eventual outcome is clear. The communists... I mean AlQaedists... will dominate by indoctrinating or killing all those in the middle ground or opposed to them.

[Gorgon]

What do you know, looks like the good guys are winning, the rebels have taken two more city centers, how terrible.

[Walsingham]

If that's pointed at me I'd like to know why you're describing them as good not knowing anything about their standards of conduct or long term intent. And if you DO know the aforementioned would you please get in touch with HM Britannic Majesty's government and let them know?

 

Malcolm Rifkind has been stamping about demanding we should arm the rebels. because, you know, arming nebulous guerrilla rebels always works so well for us. Although having said that, maybe we could foist all our ageing Challenger 2 tanks on them. Hard to smuggle one of them onto a plane.

 

EDIT: How on earth have I been argued round to being a cynical noninterventionist?

Edited March 26, 2011 by Walsingham

[Gorgon]

I've got nothing more to go on other than that it started as a democratic protest, neither has anyone else I think. It's a revolution, and not the meretriciously planned sort either. I suppose they are the good guys by process of elimination.

Edited March 26, 2011 by Gorgon

[Guard Dog]

I see Wals is still wrestling pigs. It might be a dfferent pig but the "oink" sounds the same.

 

Then again maybe it is not a different pig, who knows.

 

You know what the say about wrestling pigs Wals.

 

 

Now as to the Libya thing, the older and wiser I get the more I realize the very best thing the United States can do is revive and implement a modern version of the Monroe Doctrine. Involving ourselves in Libya, defending people who will, without a doubt, seek to harm us later from people who, without a doubt, mean us no good will now makes no sense to me. I do find it ironic that many of the voices in the US who were so opposed to intervention in Iraq and Afghanistan are perfectly fine with intervention in Libya. It seems people will suffer any evil so long as they like the man in charge at the time.

[Calax]

I do find it ironic that many of the voices in the US who were so opposed to intervention in Iraq and Afghanistan are perfectly fine with intervention in Libya.

This probably has to do with the perception of the nation. Afganistan didn't have much said about it's current politics before the US went in, plus the citizens were caught up in the patriotic "kill 'em all" fervor because AlQ was in there. Iraq didn't have the open opposition or the leader who said "My people love me and would never want to hurt me" while his troops were firing weapons on civilians.

[Walsingham]

I see Wals is still wrestling pigs. It might be a dfferent pig but the "oink" sounds the same.

 

Then again maybe it is not a different pig, who knows.

 

You know what the say about wrestling pigs Wals.

 

For a moment there I thought I was in the romance thread.

[Guard Dog]

I do find it ironic that many of the voices in the US who were so opposed to intervention in Iraq and Afghanistan are perfectly fine with intervention in Libya.

This probably has to do with the perception of the nation. Afganistan didn't have much said about it's current politics before the US went in, plus the citizens were caught up in the patriotic "kill 'em all" fervor because AlQ was in there. Iraq didn't have the open opposition or the leader who said "My people love me and would never want to hurt me" while his troops were firing weapons on civilians.

I'm sorry Calax, I don't remember where you stood on the Iraq invasion. But for the sake of agrument let's say you opposed it. If Hussein was bombing and gassing his own peoole would that have changed your mind?

 

On that note, if McCain were president and he was doing exactly what Obama was right now is there any doubt in your mind the same people who are lauding Obama would be protesting against and castigating McCain? They would not give a dried rat turd how many people Gadahfi killed or how he did it.

 

Kudos to Congressman Dennis Kucinich who it an absolute nut job in my humble opinion but at the very least he is consistent in opposing military action in Libya was he was anywhere else in the last 30 years. That in itself is a very rare quality in the modern politician.

[213374U]

Now as to the Libya thing, the older and wiser I get the more I realize the very best thing the United States can do is revive and implement a modern version of the Monroe Doctrine. Involving ourselves in Libya, defending people who will, without a doubt, seek to harm us later from people who, without a doubt, mean us no good will now makes no sense to me.

And how does letting the world go down in flames around you make any more sense? You know better than to suggest a return to parochial 19th century political stances. No great powers have been built or sustained by practicing isolationism. And think about it, if the US give up their political and military supremacy, who do you think is going to step up to fill the power vacuum?

 

I don't know about wiser, but you sure sound jaded.

 

That said, Clinton is like a wart growing on top of a tumor. I feel for you.

 

 

I do find it ironic that many of the voices in the US who were so opposed to intervention in Iraq and Afghanistan are perfectly fine with intervention in Libya. It seems people will suffer any evil so long as they like the man in charge at the time.

I don't know about the internal opinion climate in the US, but if it's anything like here, the dictator in question is immaterial - it's more along the lines of "if you do it it's wrong, if we do it it's OK". Same old double standards bull**** everywhere, it seems.

 

Speaking of something else, I'd really like to know what's been promised to Erdogan to get him to agree to allow this to finally become a NATO operation, de jure. If Turkey is really going to have a veto power on airstrikes (and decides to use it), this could become a debacle even sooner than I expected. If not... maybe this time next year Turkey will be a full EU member?

[Zoraptor]

I do find it ironic that many of the voices in the US who were so opposed to intervention in Iraq and Afghanistan are perfectly fine with intervention in Libya. It seems people will suffer any evil so long as they like the man in charge at the time.

 

Case in point:

 

"The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.

 

As Commander-in-Chief, the President does have a duty to protect and defend the United States. In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent. History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch. It is always preferable to have the informed consent of Congress prior to any military action."

[Calax]

I do find it ironic that many of the voices in the US who were so opposed to intervention in Iraq and Afghanistan are perfectly fine with intervention in Libya.

This probably has to do with the perception of the nation. Afganistan didn't have much said about it's current politics before the US went in, plus the citizens were caught up in the patriotic "kill 'em all" fervor because AlQ was in there. Iraq didn't have the open opposition or the leader who said "My people love me and would never want to hurt me" while his troops were firing weapons on civilians.

I'm sorry Calax, I don't remember where you stood on the Iraq invasion. But for the sake of agrument let's say you opposed it. If Hussein was bombing and gassing his own peoole would that have changed your mind?

 

On that note, if McCain were president and he was doing exactly what Obama was right now is there any doubt in your mind the same people who are lauding Obama would be protesting against and castigating McCain? They would not give a dried rat turd how many people Gadahfi killed or how he did it.

 

Kudos to Congressman Dennis Kucinich who it an absolute nut job in my humble opinion but at the very least he is consistent in opposing military action in Libya was he was anywhere else in the last 30 years. That in itself is a very rare quality in the modern politician.

I wasn't against it so much as I was against the reasoning behind it. I am obviously anti-bush, and felt that they were making up the WMD and Al Queda connections that they were scaring us with in order to go in. Afganistan I could understand and was willing to go along with (wish we hadn't installed a corrupt government), but right now Libya? EEEEeeehhhhhh.... I'd prefer that we keep troops off the ground, if only due to cost reasons.

 

Is that callous? Yes, but then again, so is letting the numerous other regimes that are currently in power that are far more oppressive stay in power.

[Guard Dog]

I don't know about wiser, but you sure sound jaded.

 

Comes with age my friend, it will happen to you too!

 

I do not think the US should give up any of it's military power, far from it. I would like to see it go back to being used as a deterrnet not a tool to reach the politcal ends of whichever idiot manages to get 270 electoral votes every fourth year. And the last four of those idiots have been very quick to pull out the big stick, and not always for good reason.

 

I do believe there is an isolationist streak ingrained in the American charachter and that does not strike me as a bad thing. We as a people once took great pride in self suffencincy and non-intervention. I know those days are gone for good and all but I can still wish it were otherwise.

[~Di]

America should implement a Star Trek type of "Prime Directive." We're just making matters worse every place we touch, and then we've got people in every oppressed country on the planet staring into tv cameras, screaming at the USA to come in and save them.

 

As long as the Libyan no-fly zone is a UN-approved, NATO-controlled operation, then it's okay with me... for the moment. There are reports that Khadaffi has killed nearly 8,000 people since his mercenary army went on the move. I don't like to see people dying because they want to rid themselves of oppression. I just wonder why it's okay with the UN for hundreds of thousands in Sudan and Rwandan civil wars, while it's not okay for people to die in a Libyan civil war.

 

The UN is nothing if not illogical, inconsistant, unpredictable, basically toothless, predominately useless, and utterly corrupt.

[Walsingham]

I don't know about the internal opinion climate in the US, but if it's anything like here, the dictator in question is immaterial - it's more along the lines of "if you do it it's wrong, if we do it it's OK". Same old double standards bull**** everywhere, it seems.

 

I'd suggest that the difference is intent. I have a friend who cuts strangers open almost every day. They are frequently hospitalised. She's a doctor.

 

To use an expression I heard this morning, 'putting warheads on foreheads' can be for good or bad. It's not double standards, it's just not moral relativism.

 

Although I expect I've made a logical error in there somewhere.

 

EDIT: Di, making things worse is often the first step in making them better. Ever had chemo, or renovated a house?

Edited March 27, 2011 by Walsingham

[Monte Carlo]

Don't know where to start, really. Pax Americana has been a fact of life since 1945. You have full spectrum dominance, African commands, European commands and Asian commands, you have the largest global military budget and enough nukes to destroy the universe. Twice. There isn't a single square foot of this planet you can't surveil, bomb or put boots on the ground. Every single international organisation concerning Western defence is predicated on American approval and strategic direction. You've spent ten years (not unreasonably) stirring up some of the most unpredictable hotspots on earth in order to avenge an attack on your sovereign territory, and you've resorted to extra-judicial measures to achieve it. It's been a helluva ride.

 

As a result you've had the world more or less they way you wanted it for for almost seventy years, believe it or not. You've had your ups (Ike, Reagan, LBJ) and your downs (Carter, Nixon, Bubba) but all things being equal I don't think you've done a bad job so far. So that's a tick in the 'Least Worst World Superpower' box. And what's really, really clever about the Pax Americana (and I say this as an admirer) is how you've dressed it up as something not even remotely imperialistic - your cultural and economic hegemony trumps the military and diplomatic ones in most folk's minds. Let's say burgers and Levis 501s versus the USS Nimitz and the NSA.

 

You know there's a but, right? But ,the quid pro quo, old bean, is that you have put yourselves in a position where it is your freaking business. The Colin Powell doctrine (You broke it, you fix it) can be applied to all sorts of cause and effect. Iraq stirred up the pot and the Gaddafi rapprochment with the West (hey, at least he's our bastard) made him bold. Now he needs putting back in his box.

 

To an outsider, the American duality where one minute you want to play Team America with a glint in your eye, the next an isolationist good ol' boy who simply wants to sit on his porch and watch the sun goes down is truly baffling.

 

Just re-quoting my previous comments to gftd1's sentiments on US isolationism for Di's and Guard Dog's delectation.

 

You can't put toothpaste back in the tube!