Idaho
blah blah blah
People are a fickle bunch. If it's not all run away good news they bail out.
Loads of Hercules landing at Exeter Airport this evening. Plus one fighter - possibly a Typhoon?
Libya - civil unrest & now NATO involvement
- Thread starter ernestolynch
- Start date
People are a fickle bunch. If it's not all run away good news they bail out.
Loads of Hercules landing at Exeter Airport this evening. Plus one fighter - possibly a Typhoon?
audiotech
wav, aiff, mp3, ogg, flac
Libya: Murder and Plunder Masquerading as “Humanitarian Intervention”.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article27749.htm
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article27749.htm
Deareg
Well-Known Member
Thanks for putting up that link.
TruXta
tired
While the writer makes some decent, but utterly unoriginal factual points about past Western intervention patterns, s/he completely fails to spot the irony in quoting a Reuters report that in its turn quotes unnamed sources in the Libyan Dept of Defence, claiming that they're arming 1 million people. Just next to decrying the propaganda machinery of the meeja. Besides, I think the last thing Gadaffi would want to do is arm everyone of fighting age, in a time of such shifting loyalties.
That aside, this piece - despite its protests to contrary, reads as nothing more than an apologia for the Libyan regime and Col G. And as such its pretty despicable. Bahrain is held up as a place of genuine brutality in presumed contrast to a much more humane touch in Libya. Really? It's like reading Ern, FFS.
Idaho
blah blah blah
While alternative views and comments are essential in any discussion. That one seems to be a little divorced from any evidence. It's a bit like being read the news in a spooky voice with background screams, while audible "scare quotes" are emphasised round random phrases.
If I was going to plunder and steal stuff from a country, I think the last thing I would do would be to launch a few billion dollars worth of guided missles at it. What exactly are they going to plunder? Oil? I don't think the US military has crude oil tankers lined up ready to smuggle the black gold to their underground lair in Alaska.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
There's a lot of evidence for what the article says about Kosovo, Iraq and Turkey. I would also be skeptical of the part about a million guns, but the piece explicitly states that it is not intended as an apologia for Gadaffi, and it didn't read like one to me.
TruXta
tired
It can state it til it bleeds, but all it really does is trying to protect the current regime. It off-handedly compares G to Milosevic and Saddam, but still makes it sound like they weren't bad guys, just had a bit of bad press. What it really boils down to is, two wrongs don't make a right. This piece advocates nothing but the status quo ante - leave G were he was, go back to the way things were, the rebels are reactionaries, and it's all a lie what you read in the mass media.
Based on what? A blind disbelief in the MM - while having the good cheek to quote them extensively in support of the arguments marshalled. Hypocrisy is the accusation the piece makes, which is rich given the hypocrisy on display.
weltweit
Well-Known Member
I wonder if we should put up a poll asking how long people think the no-fly zone (if that is what it should be called) will carry on for.
Weeks, months, years.. I wonder .. I suppose it all depends on the end game whichever of the many one might chose. Rid of Gaddafi is I suppose the key ingredient of the end game most if they are honest would like to see.
Weeks, months, years.. I wonder .. I suppose it all depends on the end game whichever of the many one might chose. Rid of Gaddafi is I suppose the key ingredient of the end game most if they are honest would like to see.
I can't see the use of that. How can anyone know?
weltweit
Well-Known Member
Well it might be worth a sub debate as to how long the international action is likely to continue. None of the countries involved, nor the UN, has mentioned time frames or what conditions contitute complete success.
I suppose partial success is there if Gaddafi's air forces cannot operate, but that condition has already been met. Wider interpretations of the resolution include that Gaddafi's tanks and artilliary are unable to attack cities of civilians and here it seems they are still attacking Misrata at the moment so that objective has not been met.
But complete success, i.e. when resolution 1973 or the no-fly zone can be called a complete success and the resolution revoked, what will that be and when could it be achieved?
Paulie Tandoori
shut it you egg!
well that is the basic problem as usual, rush off to war without any clear idea of permission or prejudice or even necessity; nor long, or even medium, term idea of strategy or success or impressions.
The UN action, backed by the arabs or not, can not end while Gaddafi is still in power.
newbie
undisambiguated
newbie
undisambiguated
and the fact that the new finance minister is someone who parachuted in from Washington. but those are aspects internal to the politics of Lybia, which is well beyond my understanding.
The cash was seized by the British government in rather dodgy circumstances and has now apparently been offered to one side in a civil war. Is that even remotely legal?
The cash was seized by the British government in rather dodgy circumstances and has now apparently been offered to one side in a civil war. Is that even remotely legal?
Idaho
blah blah blah
If we hadn't intervened and Benghazi and the country were brought once again to heel by Gaddafi, urban, and indeed the world would be full of voices saying how we didn't care, didn't want to upset our pet dictator, only cared about oil not lives, etc. And I'll bet they would be the same people complaining as are complaining now.
That's not to say that the west is acting for purely noble motives. Nor that they are going about things in the best way. Just that it's a messy old world, and it's often hard to make decisions that are more than 60% right.
That's not to say that the west is acting for purely noble motives. Nor that they are going about things in the best way. Just that it's a messy old world, and it's often hard to make decisions that are more than 60% right.
weltweit
Well-Known Member
I agree.
dylans
overlord of all acorns
Ok but turn this on its head. The rebels have made it clear that they intend to take Tripoli by force of arms, regardless of the wishes of the civilian population there.
So the rebels have given up on any attempt at the removal of Gaddafi by insurrection in Tripoli. They have given up on winning the population of the capital to the revolution and intend to attack and seize civilian areas against the wishes of the residents in those areas. To win by purely Western supported military means what they have proved incapable of doing by revolutionary means.
When this happens. When those citizens who remain loyal to Gaddafi are attacked and killed in Tripoli, Sirte and other towns, can we expect heartfelt appeals for the West to bomb the rebels from those who are supporting Western intervention on the basis of protecting civilians?
elbows
Well-Known Member
Meanwhile in Benghazi, the usual progress of a civil war continues:
Thats just the sort of shit I feared when I mentioned the talk of 'sleeper cells' the other day
Divisive Cotton
Now I just have my toy soldiers
Why do you state that?
Idaho
blah blah blah
This is why diplomacy, politics and international law are 95% bullshit. Is all just hiding behind legal pretenses rather than just saying why you are doing what you are doing. The truth is that the west, and some of the middle east have jumped on the hope that someone they hate is going to be kicked out. They wanted to help overthrow him when it looked easy, and would have happily let the Libyans sort it out themselves. However it all got very sticky and complicated when the rebellion prooved not to be popular with everyone. They know that intervening too little will be a disaster, and intervening too much will be a different kind disaster. Which is why we have this strange halfway house.
I don't believe the idea that it's all about siezing Libyan oil. That's a niaive understanding of the international economy. No-one in the world cares who owns it, as we are all quite willing to buy it off anyone. We just don't want supply to slow down.
I also don't discount the genuine intent to protect civillians by some politicians. I think some of them, deep in their black hearts, do actually give a shit, and genuinely want/hope for some kind of democracy in Libya.
Now we have a civil war and we are on one side. We aren't the protectors of civilians against a tyrant, we are backing a revoultionary/rebel army. That means we are partly responsible for all the nasty shit they are doing and will do.
elbows
Well-Known Member
Not entirely true. Global supply is the biggest issue, but where the oil money goes, and whether our 'international oil companies' have access to exploit the resources, matter too.
Idaho
blah blah blah
As I said, everyone wants oil, everyone is willing to buy oil and don't really care who owns it or who we buy it off.
We are all oil junkies. We will pay double, triple, the current prices. And we would stuff the money in the pocket of Satan himself to get it.
dylans
overlord of all acorns
Because by stating their intention to march on Tripoli they have made their intention clear that they intend to IMPOSE the revolution on them by force from the outside.This is a far cry from calling for insurrection from the inside.
There is not a scrap of evidence that the Capital supports the rebellion. In fact, apart from a few districts, all the evidence suggests the opposite. Therefore the rebels taking the Capital will be against their wishes.
Spion
I hear ya
The use of the word 'we' illustrates the limits of your understanding. Who on this thread - apart from Weltweit, who was entirely predictable on that score - would you expect to be complaining if 'we' hadn't intervened?
Lo Siento.
Second As Farce
As an aside, I'm always intrigued by this usage of naïve that seems like it's being used as a synonym for "simplistic". I've come across it a few times. I understand the word as meaning something innocent or inexperienced. Saying that the Allies are only motivated by oil would be the opposite of my understanding of the word, ie. "cynical"
I wouldn't disocunt that there are some politicians who give a shit. But when the whole global political economy gets on the move so quickly, humanitarianism isn't an adequate explanation. And although the blood for oil explanation is simplistic, in the broader sense that the intervention is an attempt to defend the geopolitical interests of the participants (which will include, but not be limited to, access to material resources), the idea is undoubtedly true. Furthermore those interests will only coincide with some of the interests of some of the rebels.
Spion
I hear ya
You are overstating your case here. There have been instances of rebellion in Tripoli, and we have to take into account the weight of repression there.
That said, while there has clearly been a popular, plebian element to the uprising and some remarkable heroism, it is also plain that the leadership of the revolt is coalescing into a mirror of Gadafi that differs by being western-friendly, made up of exiled members of the Libyan ruling strata. The battle hasn't been won yet tho, tho prospects for any w/c organisation look slim right now.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Sorry, but you're calling others naive?
The price of a barrel of oil went down immediately after the announcement that action would be taken. They are going to bomb Libya and no doubt kill quite a few people – civilians and conscripts mostly – in order to keep the oil flowing. No matter how bad it gets there, don't expect a similar action in Yemen, whose oil has all but run out.
Similar threads
- Locked
- Poll
