Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

What about Benghazi?

kyser_soze said:
Panic?
Click to expand...

You're not serious?

Wars are not started in panic. The West is behaving in an entirely rational manner. It is prosecuting the two vital interests I mention above. You seem only to recognize one of them. In my opinion, that will prevent you from ever understanding the nature of politics in the middle east.
 
TruXta said:
Well, I wasn't squabbling, I was simply trying to get him to clarify. That's not a squabble in my book.
Click to expand...

It is in his book, as he'll just keep evading whilst poking as hard as he can. I've given up trying to figure out why it happens. Quick retort, then back to the thread seems best ;)

So, you were saying .... :)
 
kyser_soze said:
I suspect that Libyan prisons could easily be emptied & the coasts of France, Spain and Italy suddenly full of ex-prisoners of all types, a la the marielitos in Miami in the 80s.
Click to expand...

If i was him thats exactly what Id do . Anyway its standard practice for a country facing invasion .
 
phildwyer said:
You're not serious?

Wars are not started in panic. The West is behaving in an entirely rational manner. It is prosecuting the two vital interests I mention above. You seem only to recognize one of them. In my opinion, that will prevent you from ever understanding the nature of politics in the middle east.
Click to expand...

I recognise both, I just don't think engaging in speculation about Mossad is or isn't up to is really that helpful or useful in this discussion, least of all because it's all based around assumptions rather than any actual evidence in situ. I don't even necessarily disagree with you on the idea that they are active, just as the CIA, MI6, French & German secret services are no doubt active - but I don't know it, I don't have access to operational data so I can't assume that Isreali agents would be punting for this rebellion to go one way or another.

Dylans touches on how a form of panic could have driven the push from Europe to commence bombing - that the rebels were a busted flush by that point, and suddenly there's a lot of anti-G rhetoric lying around all over the place and a huge amount of money & resource tied up by big Euro petrochem & mining concerns.
 
dylans said:
Phil it's really not rocket science is it. Gaddafi was always the devils choice, even as Blair kissed his ass. The simple answer is that they gambled on the rebels winning and then the rebels went and spoilt it all by getting their asses kicked.
Click to expand...

But why did they gamble on the rebels? To put the same question another way: doesn't the fact that the West supports the rebels make you suspicious of them?

dylans said:
Gaddafi is the perfect candidate for James bondian villain. Really, you couldn't make it up. So, oblivious of the contradictions and hypocrisy, they march in regardless. Libya is the perfect world stage to demonstrate in BIG BOLD LETTERS the Wests democratic credentials. Supporting the rebellion but gently, no more Iraqs, no boots on the ground (yet) no direct regime change. Just " humanitarian intervention" to save the civilians. All aided by the genuinely heartfelt cries of "what about Benghazi"
Click to expand...

Just enough intervention, perhaps, to ensure permanent warfare and chaos, an absence of central authority and thus free rein for the unhampered foreign exploitation of natural resources?

Just enough intervention, perhaps, to ensure the absence of a state with anything like the capacity to put together an armed forces that might ever threaten their regional nemesis?

Sort of like Iraq and Afghanistan?
 
Just enough intervention, perhaps, to ensure permanent warfare and chaos, an absence of central authority and thus free rein for the unhampered foreign exploitation of natural resources?

Just enough intervention, perhaps, to ensure the absence of a state with anything like the capacity to put together an armed forces that might ever threaten their regional nemesis?

Sort of like Iraq and Afghanistan?
Click to expand...

The problem with this view, of course, is that neither of those countries have an environment where there is free rein for resource exploitation.

But why did they gamble on the rebels? To put the same question another way: doesn't the fact that the West supports the rebels make you suspicious of them?
Click to expand...

I dimly remember a post by dylans repsonding to someone talking about the 'Libyan People' being involved, where he listed the various tribal, monarchist & other groups involved in the uprising - altho my suspicion is that noone really knows.
 
dylans said:
P This has taken the form of a narrative and a set of assumptions One just as self absorbed as ever but one that presents the rolling wave of rebellions as an example of the primacy of liberal democracy. As such all national events are treated according to this narrative regardless of their particular national characteristics. They are all seen as desirous of recreating Western style liberal democratic regimes in the mould of the West. (again regardless of the reality of each case) The narrative dictates that the West must gently embrace these "democratic movements" even if it includes direct intervention as in the case of Libya.
Click to expand...

Precisely. It is also interesting to note the Western insistence that the new informational media are somehow instrumental or causative factors. They are hawking a particular model of representation in general: of political representation, but also of the "democracy" on the interweb. They appear determined to insist that these two modes of representation are connected.
 
invisibleplanet said:
To have succeeded in holding Benghazi, the rebels would have needed to get the Fezzan oases & folk on their side, and hold those oases militarily & ideologically. Then onwards to Benghazi, then a push westwards either ideologically, with each town getting on board, or militarily, with rebels holding each town, although they don't seem to have the numbers needed for that, before capturing the trophy of Sirte (Khaddafi's home town) and then onwards, finally to Tripoli.
Click to expand...

they would have needed the support of the Libyan masses , which patenly they did not have . Many among the Libyan masses are well fucked off with them and their colonial flag . To the point of taking up arms against them . Thats why they had to invent myths about unarmed protestors being bombed from the air in an attempt to secure the western intervention now artifically propping them up . And also to invent tales of imported mercenaries to explain away the fact why so many of their fellow Libyans were unenthusiastic about their endeavours to the point of actually shooting at them .
I don't know. Sometimes there is only one chance for such an uprising as we see happen here in Libya. It would take years of planning for future rebels to succeed. Neither a continuing Khaddafi regime, nor any future post-Khaddafi regime will want the rebels to rise up again. Western intervention will both oust the Khaddafi regime and try to ensure that no future rebellions can rise up. I view the Western intervention as being both against the continuation of the Khaddafi regime, and against this and any future uprisings.
Click to expand...

I view it as completely illegal . They are not mandated for regime change . They are attacking another country on a pure whim . Attempting to artifically implant a regime there which is more favourable to them . Its base colonialism , gunboat diplomacy . Andd they are making it up as they go along . Setting precedents for even more outrages in the future and whoeve else they may decide to invade on a whim .

There are simply not enough rebels in the first place to have achieved the ousting of Khaddafi. It needed more Libyans to join that cause. That the rebels didn't sieze/hold/enjoin the folk at the Fezzan oases first makes for failure, imo. As things stand, there's no crossing from Benghazi to take Triploli without having the southern flank exposed to the Fezzan oases.
Click to expand...

They engaged withthe coloured folk alright , make no mistake about that . At the end of a noose . They do not represent the broad mass of th Libyan people or their aspirations . It was a failed coup now being propped up by western crusader adventurism .
I don't think it's saveable in it's original form. I don't think those who rose up will be beaten that easily but it will take years or even a generation for them to rise up again. IMO, the Western businesses with investments in Libyan resources don't have that time and will work with whoever is next in power to prevent future uprisings.
Click to expand...

come off it , your trying to imply that really the west are really with Ghadaffi . Theres a desperate attempt to impose a puppet regime by force . This crew and their royalist flag never had the support to begin with and they knew it . Ghadaffi ultimately did when push came to shove , not withstanding a lot of greivances . Its as simple as that . .
Click to expand...
 
kyser_soze said:
I suspect that Libyan prisons could easily be emptied & the coasts of France, Spain and Italy suddenly full of ex-prisoners of all types, a la the marielitos in Miami in the 80s.
Click to expand...
They wouldn't want a horde of politicals plotting all kinds of jiggery pokery abroad so they'd have to kill any troublemakers. But then, it was the manner in which the Abu Salim prison was emptied in 1996 and the repression of those seeking justice that kicked off the counter revolutionary activity in Benghazi.
 
Casually Red said:
come off it , your trying to imply that really the west are really with Ghadaffi.
Click to expand...

No, I'm not trying to imply that at all. If anything, the West have had their hand forced by the rebels to be against Khaddafi (whom they were previously working with) and the West are not with the rebels either except that it suits their purposes in terms of explaining their military intervention to their own populaces.
 
dylans said:
Supporting the rebellion but gently, no more Iraqs, no boots on the ground (yet) no direct regime change. Just " humanitarian intervention" to save the civilians. All aided by the genuinely heartfelt cries of "what about Benghazi"
Click to expand...

theres ten thousand marines sitting in 2 troop carriers just off the libyan coast . Not including all manner of special forces . They arent there to get a suntan .
 
Then they'll take the Fezzan oases. Benghazi will be left as a flagship distraction for a while.
Our news will focus mainly on the plight of the rebels in Benghazi.
 
invisibleplanet said:
No, I'm not trying to imply that at all. If anything, the West have had their hand forced by the rebels to be against Khaddafi (whom they were previously working with) and the West are not with the rebels either except that it suits their purposes in terms of explaining their military intervention to their own populaces.
Click to expand...

I dont believe their hand was forced at all . They jumped at an opportunity . Nobody forced France to announce some bunch of Yahoos sitting in Benghazi were the legitimate Libyan government , an absolutely outrageous thing to do . The same France that just months ago was openly offering to send physical assitance to Tunisia to put down protestors there . From the outset the western powers demand has not been simply that Ghadaffi decalre a truce , but that he must go regardless of what happens . Nobody has forced them into that situation either , that is patently their own desire and own agenda . Just because they did business in Libya doesnt mean they wanted to keep him there . They did business in Chile , did business in Venezuela too .
 
Fair play for trying to answer this question dylans. Clearly it needs answering for the anti-war left, since so many people in the intervening countries do clearly care about the possible massacre of rebels in Benghazi. But your post doesn't come close to answring the question, but rather spins off into talkiing about how "well, I wouldn't start from here." But what about Bengzahi? And what about tripoli?
 
invisibleplanet said:
IMO, they'll go straight into Tripoli, perhaps within days.
Click to expand...

only as part of a coalition that inludes oher arab forces in my opinion , at least that would be the object . They may be sent in unilaterally as an act of desperation if the Libyan forces endure the airstrikes and prevail .
Arab League starting to get very shaky .
 
Casually Red said:
I dont believe their hand was forced at all . They jumped at an opportunity . Nobody forced France to announce some bunch of Yahoos sitting in Benghazi were the legitimate Libyan government , an absolutely outrageous thing to do . The same France that just months ago was openly offering to send physical assitance to Tunisia to put down protestors there . From the outset the western powers demand has not been simply that Ghadaffi decalre a truce , but that he must go regardless of what happens . Nobody has forced them into that situation either , that is patently their own desire and own agenda . Just because they did business in Libya doesnt mean they wanted to keep him there . They did business in Chile , did business in Venezuela too .
Click to expand...
Okay. Then I agree. No forcing of hand, just a seizing of an opportunity to be rid of Khaddafi once and for all.
 
copliker said:
They wouldn't want a horde of politicals plotting all kinds of jiggery pokery abroad so they'd have to kill any troublemakers. But then, it was the manner in which the Abu Salim prison was emptied in 1996 and the repression of those seeking justice that kicked off the counter revolutionary activity in Benghazi.
Click to expand...

amazing how theyre politicals when it suits and Islamists when theyre in Afghanistan . 84% OF Libyan Islamists caputured in Afghanistan claiming to have come from Benghazi according to US figures . One mans freedom fighter still seems to be anothers terrorist .

rambo3-israelity-0408.jpg


160521-living_daylights_1_600_super.jpg


afgh-stinger-o1.jpg
 
phildwyer said:
Which other Arab force would fight with them? I'm not sure, but I can't see the Turks being up for it.
Click to expand...

well they arent arabs for starters.

Saudis and Egyptians would be the top choice , especially egyptians . They invaded Libya under Mubaraks command , again at western urging . Egyptian boots paid for by Saudi money and with Saudi air support would be one likely option .
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Dom Traynor
The government in the North of Ireland is about to be restored.
Replies
8
Views
751
likesfish
likesfish
Cloo
  • Poll
What was behind Trump shooting? make your bets now
2 3 4 5 6
Replies
164
Views
6K
Nylock
Nylock
singsongfun
What chance does Trump have of winning the 2024 Presidential Election?
4 5 6 7 8
Replies
216
Views
12K
Lucky 888
L
weltweit
What is this car sized object which America has shot down?
10 11 12 13 14
Replies
397
Views
17K
NoXion
NoXion
I
Political crisis, institutional decline, conspiracism, right wing radicalism: what's going on, where's it going, is there an answer?
2 3
Replies
74
Views
4K
yield
Y
Back
Top Bottom