Libya - civil unrest & now NATO involvement

[phildwyer]

I wonder whether any of the innocents and milksops who refused to believe that permanent war and chaos is the West's desired result and aim in Libya (as throughout the region) are yet ready to change their views?

Such people might like to reflect on the West's actions during the Iran-Iraq war in the 80s, when "we" fanned the flames, selling weapons to both sides, and ensuring the war would go on as long as possible. Why? To prevent either nation from threatening Israel, to keep their governments hungry for cash and thus willing to sell oil cheaply, and to provide a showplace for weaponry.

What will it take before they can see the truth? When the entire middle east is in flames will they still be calling it a well-intentioned mistake, a bungled operation run by risible incompetents?

 

[TruXta]

I wonder whether any of the innocents and milksops who refused to believe that permanent war and chaos is the West's desired result and aim in Libya (as throughout the region) are yet ready to change their views?

Really? I don't believe that permanent war is on the wish-list at all. One solid reason for that, especially in Northern Africa, is immigration. Italy, Spain, France and Greece have enough perceived problems with immigrants as is, do you think they're wishing for another few million displaced?

PS: Don't worry, you're still on ignore you pigshit.

 

[phildwyer]

It's an excellent article.

I read it as a silly and naive article, which still assumes--for how long will such fantasies be possible?--that the West would like to see democracy in Libya, that "our" plans have somehow gone awry, and that such interventions are planned and run by clowns.

The truth is that, like Iraq and Afghanistan, things in Libya are going precisely according to plan.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

The vast majority of those displaced by 'our' wars do not end up in Europe. For instance, in the Iraq wars, Iran took in the bulk of the refugees. People often forget this – Iran the great evil one has done more to clear up 'our' messes than 'we' have ever done.

 

[Spion]

Phil's bored again. Back trolling with that nonsense

 

[phildwyer]

Really? I don't believe that permanent war is on the wish-list at all. One solid reason for that, especially in Northern Africa, is immigration. Italy, Spain, France and Greece have enough perceived problems with immigrants as is, do you think they're wishing for another few million displaced?

PS: Don't worry, you're still on ignore you pigshit.

How am I still "on ignore" when you've just quoted me and responded to my post?

How is that possible?

Or have you just inadvertently exposed yourself in public as a vile liar?

I fear that your public mendacity will prevent anyone here taking you seriously from now on.

 

[TruXta]

The vast majority of those displaced by 'our' wars do not end up in Europe. For instance, in the Iraq wars, Iran took in the bulk of the refugees. People often forget this – Iran the great evil one has done more to clear up 'our' messes than 'we' have ever done.

I'm fully aware of that, but what matters isn't reality, it's perception. If people on the Continent see that boat-loads of "Arabs" (whether or not they are in fact Arab) are coming ashore I'm pretty sure politicians will have to do something post haste.

 

[TruXta]

How am I still "on ignore" when you've just quoted me and responded to my post?

How is that possible?

Or have you just inadvertently exposed yourself in public as a vile liar?

I fear that your public mendacity will prevent anyone here taking you seriously from now on.

Alright, I cheated just this once. Besides you've been quoted a lot in this thread so I wouldn't even have had to peak at your posts to know what you think.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I'm fully aware of that, but what matters isn't reality, it's perception. If people on the Continent see that boat-loads of "Arabs" (whether or not they are in fact Arab) are coming ashore I'm pretty sure politicians will have to do something post haste.

Sadly, I think most people are not fully aware of the humanitarian role Iran has played during the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan. People poured over the border and the Iranians looked after them. This needs to be far more widely known and acknowledged – it would make demonising Iran far more difficult.

 

[phildwyer]

Phil's bored again. Back trolling with that nonsense

Fool. Three successive Western interventions impose permanent war and chaos on three different nations. Such a situation is obviously in the Western interest, and especially in the interests of Israel.

And yet you still believe that this is somehow an accident. After all, it's not as if anyone could have predicted that permanent war and chaos would be the outcome, is it? No-one saw that this was likely to happen, did they?

You fail to see how you are being manipulated here. Your Western media wants to construct the debate as being between those who think that Western intervention can succeed, and those who think it will fail. This excludes those who know the truth: that Western intervention is not failing at all, but is succeeding brilliantly in its aims.

You are the worst kind of sucker and idiot. I'd rather talk to Hillary Clinton.

 

[TruXta]

It is deeply sad yet ironic that we in the west complain about immigration, asylum seekers etc yet most don't have a clue that probably 90% of refugees are either internally displaced or goes to a neighbouring country.

 

[Spion]

Dwyer. Last week you said 'Permanent war and chaos' were the publically stated aim of PNAC and the like. I'm still waiting for the evidence of this. But of course you haven't come up with a single shred because the whole idea doesn't exist outside of your tiny, trolling mind

 

[phildwyer]

Seriously though, what will it take to convince such people?

When we invade Iran, and cause permanent war and chaos there, will that be another accident? When we intervene in Syria and permanent war and chaos result, will Spion still be saying: "whoops, another mistake! Hahaha those Western buffoons just keep getting it wrong don't they? Whoa, there goes Lebanon, no-one saw that coming! Hmm... the entire Muslim world seems to be in flames, well there's a turn-up for the books! Who'd a thunk it, poor Obama must be so upset, feel a bit sorry for him really..."

Yes, I fear he will. There is literally no limit to the lies he will swallow.

 

[ernestolynch]

Disagree with liberal imperialists? Trolling.

 

[Spion]

LOL. Just give us some evidence that 'Permanent war and chaos' in the middle east are the stated aim of anyone that matters in a western state. If what you say is true there'll be some evidence there in speeches, policy documents etc. Just get on with it, you self-important windbag

 

[Spion]

Disagree with liberal imperialists? Trolling.

You're as thick and mental as Phil. You just don't have the fancy words to dress it up in

 

[phildwyer]

Disagree with liberal imperialists? Trolling.

Innit. This is a brilliant example of how a debate can be manipulated by defining its terms.

It's OK to argue that the West will succeed in their aims, and it's OK to argue that they will fail. But when you suggest that they are succeeding, that this is their will--well, that is beyond the pale. Only a troll and conspiraloon would believe such a thing. Hahahahaha.

Meanwhile, in the Islamic world, no-one is under any illusions about the West's intentions. I remember in 2002 asking a wise old Turkish relative what he thought would happen if the US/uk invaded Iraq. He looked at me like I was crazy and, as if speaking to a small child, he slowly explained: "why... then the middle east will burn."

It was obvious then, and it is even more obvious now.

 

[dylans]

Disagree with liberal imperialists? Trolling.

Idiot. I have been disagreeing with liberal imperialists since before the Western intervention even began and I don't need to resort to either blind support for a reactionary dictatorship or madhouse conspiracy theories (sorry Phil but that's what your position amounts to). Am I trolling?

 

[phildwyer]

LOL. Just give us some evidence that 'Permanent war and chaos' in the middle east are the stated aim of anyone that matters in a western state. If what you say is true there'll be some evidence there in speeches, policy documents etc.

The evidence is before your eyes. All you have to do is look at what is happening in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya.

What do you see?

Et voila. Your only recourse, really, is to argue that the West has made the same obvious and basic mistake three times in succession, that Western policy-makers and military leaders are about as efficient in pursuit of their vital interests as the Keystone Kops. Do you really believe that?

 

[weltweit]

The evidence is before your eyes. All you have to do is look at what is happening in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya.

What do you see?

What I see, is regime change at the point of a western gun. It is not easy, there is continued conflict but over time it reduces as the new regimes start to get control of the situation. This too will come to an end.

And in Libya the west does not want to be the one to overthrow Gaddafi because it does not want another Iraq, instead it wants Libyans to overthrow Gaddafi and Libyans to launch the new regime. This can only happen if the west merely helps, if the west were to actually do the overthrowing then it would have a moral imperative to establish the new regime and it knows that is messy. Hence no occupation forces in this case.

So Libyans to overthrow, Libyans to start again. Different from Iraq.

 

[dylans]

So Libyans to overthrow

LOL

 

[phildwyer]

What I see, is regime change at the point of a western gun. It is not easy, there is continued conflict but over time it reduces as the new regimes start to get control of the situation. This too will come to an end.

You reckon? Looks more like the beginning of a lengthy and bitterly-disputed civil war to me.

I keep thinking about what it must be like to live there, as an ordinary apolitical person. I'm sure that life under Gadaffi wasn't great, but you could make a living, educate your children, get health care and so on. You might have been oppressed, but not obviously or painfully (as long as you didn't get involved in politics). Life would have been basically OK.

Now? You're living in a warzone, people you know would be dead, perhaps even members of your family (conscript army remember), you won't be getting paid, basic supplies will be immense hassle to find, and despite your optimism above, there's no end in sight. Life sucks, as we say in the USA.

I'd be really, really pissed off at the West, personally.

 

[Spion]

The evidence is before your eyes.

You said 'permanent war and chaos' in the ME were publically stated aim of western govts and policymakers. Put up some documentary evidence of these publically stated aims or shut up.

 

[weltweit]

You reckon? Looks more like the beginning of a lengthy and bitterly-disputed civil war to me.

So are you another one that would have preferred Gaddafi had been left alone to sack Benghazi and slaughter his opponents then repress the region and dissapear his critics?

Because if you are, then your preferred action would include at least as much bloodshed as mine.

 

[Spion]

So are you another one that would have preferred Gaddafi had been left alone to sack Benghazi

Who says he would have succeeded? Gadafi's army against a city the size of Birmingham? That's no foregone conclusion

 

[frogwoman]

This is obviously an extremely frivolous example but imagine if Chavez said that Britain's behaviour regarding the cuts etc was unacceptable, and its invasion and occupation of other countries like Iraq, so Venezuela was now going to bomb and invade it. I'm not comparing our gov't to gaddafi but you get the idea - it wouldn't exactly be a constructive solution would it?

 

[Divisive Cotton]

There's chatter about a couple of more high level defections coming through from the Gaddafi regime

 

[Lock&Light]

Who says he would have succeeded? Gadafi's army against a city the size of Birmingham? That's no foregone conclusion

I don't think that there is any doubt that Gaddafi's well-equiped army would have slowly but surely flattened Bengaazi without the intervention of the coalition's air forces.

 

[Spion]

I don't think that there is any doubt that Gaddafi's well-equiped army would have slowly but surely flattened Bengaazi without the intervention of the coalition's air forces.

Of course there's not by those who want to get in there and secure oil deals with not-Gadafi.

 

[Lock&Light]

Are you saying that the rebels could have fought Gadaffi off?