The NATO intervention in Libya was a complete fuck-up.

[LadyLeigh]

It escalated the conflict, and the human toll, to a much larger scale. It solved nothing. It brought forth a civil war that will possibly drag on for years. And NATO is very likely committing crimes against humanity on a massive scale at this very moment.

And "war liberals" carry a large share of the blame.

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Puregonzo1188]

2. Excuse me? There are many long-time DUers, myself included, who do not support intervention

in Libya.

If this poster in question was tombstoned, we'd have to a have a pretty serious purge at DU.

[EFerrari]

13. Count me out of the cruise missile liberals and with the OP. n/t

[sabrina 1]

15. Most people here do not support the latest Imperial war for

resources. Why would someone need to worry about stating the facts? They supposedly were going to leave after there was no longer a threat to the people there. Now they have armed the country so there are no 'rebels' who need protection. Yet they are still there, killing people as they are doing in Afghanistan and Pakistan and Yemen and Somalia and wherever else they are these days.

Many of us began to realize what this was pretty early on and stopped supporting what was clearly yet another Western Imperial war in an oil rich country.

The OP is correct.

[inna]

48. not only most people here at DU, but also most people here in the US - nt

[Rex]

16. And yet the poster is still here...wishing for something doesn't

always make it come true. :eyes:

[PurityOfEssence]

3. Welcome to the board, and brace for it...

NATO also has no legal justification to mount such an attack: it is a purely defensive treaty that allows member nations to respond if a fellow member nation is attacked.

The UN Participation Act of 1945 also does not allow the President to provide troops under Article 42 call-ups unless he/she has a "special agreement" with the Security Council that has been approved by vote in both houses of Congress.

The War Powers Resolution clearly defines the Constitutionality of a President introducing forces into hostilities or where they're imminent (its definition of "war") as only permissible if Congress has declared war, Congress has authorized action by vote or if we have been attacked.

This is a resource war, dressed in the petticoats of morality, when civilians had not been threatened at all.

Get ready for the heat.

[Cali_Democrat]

4. "This is a resource war"

Yup. Libya is top 10 in oil reserves. It's no coincidence that NATO suddenly decided to "free the Libyan people from Qadaffi" just like we helped free the Iraqis from the clutches of a brutal dictator. Iraq is also top 10 in oil reserves.

People need to open their eyes.

[pampango]

25. The UN had legal justification under the Responsibility to Protect adopted in 2005.

Whether they should have implemented R2P in the case of Libya is a matter of opinion, but the legal justification exists. There were no dissenting votes when the Security Council voted on invoking R2P for Libyan civilians on March 17.

If you are arguing that R2P is somehow "unconstitutional" by the UN's bylaws then someone should have pointed this out in 2005 so that R2P would have been rejected by the General Assembly. Instead the GA approved R2P and it is a part of the UN's legal framework now and has been invoked in http://www.responsibilitytoprotect.org/index.php/crises">several countries in the past 6 years most recently in Côte d’Ivoire'.

Juan Cole, who knows a thing or two about the Middle East and its history, weighed in on whether this is really a war for oil, perhaps "dressed in the petticoats of morality, when civilians had not been threatened at all."

http://www.juancole.com/2011/06/libya-not-a-war-for-oil.html

Libya not a War for Oil

The allegation out there in the blogosphere that the United Nations-authorized intervention in Libya was driven by Western oil companies is a non-starter. The argument is that Muammar Qaddafi was considered unreliable by American petroleum concerns, so they pushed to get rid of him. Nothing could be further from the truth. Bloomberg details the big lobbying push by American oil companies on behalf of Qaddafi, to exempt him from civil claims in the US.

The United States in any case did not spearhead the UN intervention. President Obama and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, along with the Pentagon brass, considered the outbreak of the Libya war very unfortunate and clearly were only dragged into it kicking and screaming by Saudi Arabia, France and Britain. The Western country with the biggest oil stake in Libya, Italy, was very reluctant to join the war. Silvio Berlusconi says that he almost resigned when the war broke out, given his close relationship to Qaddafi. As for the UK, Tony Blair brought the BP CEO to Tripoli in 2007, and BP had struck deals for Libya oil worth billions, which this war can only delay.

Not only is there no reason to think that petroleum companies urged war, the whole argument about UN and NATO motivations is irrelevant and sordid. By now it is clear that Qaddafi planned to crush political dissidents in a massive and brutal way, and some estimates already suggest over 10,000 dead. If UN-authorized intervention could stop that looming massacre, then why does it matter so much what drove David Cameron to authorize it?

An argument you sometimes here is that the new Transitional National Council in Benghazi will be pliant toward Western interests. But Qaddafi himself had come back in from the cold and all sorts of deals were being struck with him by Western powers. Those who more or less support Qaddafi and wanted to let him roll tanks on civilian protesters has weaved itself into a pretzel with all these conspiracy theories, while conveniently managing to leave out of the account ordinary Libyans, so many of whom are willing to risk their lives to bring about the end of Qaddafi’s murderous and mercurial regime.

[PurityOfEssence]

27. The UN does, but US law prohibits us from answering the call-up unless Congress approves

The UN Participation Act of 1945, and its amendment in 1949 clearly state that the President may make a "special agreement" to provide forces to a UN operation, but that special agreement MUST be approved by vote in both Houses of Congress.

As for the "future fact" that Qaddafi was going to exterminate civilians wholesale, that is nothing but hyperbole. He offered amnesty to those who put down their arms and did not threaten non-insurgent civilians at all. There were no mass slaughters when loyalists retook Brega and Ajdabia, so there's no reason to believe they would have in Benghazi.

I've asked before for quotes from him to this effect, and have been provided with statements that only substantiate my claim.

Regardless of his character and actions, though, UNITED STATES LAW PROHIBITS A PRESIDENT FROM PROVIDING COMBAT FORCES TO A UN ACTION UNLESS THE SPECIAL AGREEMENT IS AUTHORIZED BY THE HOUSE AND SENATE.

It's the law. Then there's that pesky War Powers Resolution, which was also flagrantly violated.

[pampango]

36. Then we agree. I thought you were referring to the UN's role in Libya, not

the US participation in the UN intervention.

[PurityOfEssence]

40. On that one point, but not on the rest of it

I don't think the rebellion got anywhere near the kind of crisis that warrants intervention, and I think violation of sovereignty is a horrible precedent, only to be struck in extreme situations.

There simply had not been many deaths, and the incidents where there had been were mostly where some of the protesters were armed, making it much less heinous than the bandied about accusations of mowing down innocent flower-children.

The argument that this wasn't about oil is a crock of shit. People constantly use the courting of Qaddafi back in the early part of the decade as some justification that he was a compliant partner and that this "proves" it couldn't have had anything to do with oil.

Qaddafi forced the French company Fina SA to revise its deal from taking 50% of what it pumped to 27%, and he did this with the threat of nationalization. This was the summer of 2009. Chevron and other US companies started pulling out around the same time because of the labyrinthine restrictions and onerous signing bonuses that Qaddafi was demanding. He was specifically NOT the kind of stable and lucrative partner the west wanted. The very idea that so many people swallow this bullshit is incredible. He was messing up their hustle, and it wasn't just oil: putting up the African Satellite pissed off many Europeans who relished the idea of milking the Africans for phone service. He stood in the way of AFRICOM. He was not part of global banking.

I accept the premise of R2P, but I also see here how it can be used as doe-eyed cover for naked resource theft. War is a horrible thing, and this little adventure is far from resolved.

[pampango]

41. Juan Cole and you seem to disagree whether Qaddafi had become a useful tool of the West or a thorn

in their sides.

In every future potential use of R2P there will be some who believe the real motivation has more to do with natural resources, arms sales or military bases rather than protecting civilians. There will be disagreement in each instance but, if R2P is to mean anything, there will be some times when the world community will have to take action.

The UN doesn't have a history of running roughshod over countries using R2P as a pretext. Should the UN only intervene in countries without significant resources (Ivory Coast, Burma), only in those with such resources (Libya, Sudan)? Or should there be some other standard for determining where to intervene?

I, too, accept the premise of R2P. By adopting it the member countries of the UN acknowledged that national sovereignty must not trump human rights. The hard part will be determining when intervention to protect is appropriate.

[PurityOfEssence]

46. Juan Cole does not impress me, certainly not as a paragon of impartiality

There's no history to be shown: R2P is a fairly new concept.

The UN has a VERY mixed record on defending the weak, especially when the strong have a say-so in the issue that runs contrary to the particular weak of the moment. Ask a Palestinian.

Again: there was really no "threat" or "outrage" here. Virtually all of the protests were either partially armed or were burning government buildings. Such incidents tend to provoke governmental reaction with force of arms. There were VERY few deaths. Before the UN intervention, there were hardly more than a hundred throughout the entire country, and many of those were in situations where at least some of the protesters were armed. Qaddafi made NO threat to civilians, only to those who had taken up arms in revolt and wouldn't lay them down. There was no issue here. It's a lie. It didn't happen. It's fiction. It's propaganda ginned up for a preconceived end.

People like Alex Crawford (a Murdoch employee, lest we forget) cried salt tears for the "outrages" in Zawiyah, yet when one looks at the video, one sees armed insurgents in the crowd, and a retreating three-man group with a tripod-mounted heavy machine gun. She herself bemoaned the fate of a young man who was given a Rocket Propelled Grenade and who left with the words "Allah Akbar". This was not a peaceful march, it was a foolhardy attack on a military roadblock, openly propagandized by the west.

Qaddafi is no prince charming, but this WAR was a cynical bit of opportunism played shamelessly by Britain, France and the United States for personal financial gain. We're so frothing at the mouth to get rid of someone who won't compliantly be bought off for oil on the cheap that we're willing to embrace dangerous Islamists and anyone else just to get a better deal. Qatar and Al Jazeera have shown themselves to be greedy and filthy in the process, and the very cloak of UN Resolutions have been flagrantly violated: it's not just a "no fly zone", and the arms embargo has been jaw-droppingly breached. The sugary-sweet mandate to protect civilians has been twisted to support military actions to get rid of someone we don't like, and civilians have been and are still being jeopardized to reach that real end: regime change.

It's ugly.

It's ugly when one takes altruistic premises and language to violate national sovereignty and bring natural resources into reach. It's deeply, deeply morally wrong. It shows. This is not a mystery to the rest of the world.

It's about oil, money and a childlike need for revenge, much as Junior's vendetta against Hussein was due to his having survived his Daddy's war. Google "Operation Southern Mistral" for some fun.

It's bad enough to ratfuck a country with no regard for their future and risk their immediate safety by fighting a cheap and prolonged war, but to feign moral beauty while cynically engaging in violent theft is appalling.

This is not what you've been told. This is just as bad as what Bush did in Iraq, and possibly worse, although on a smaller scale. At least Junior obeyed US law--even if lying in the process to get his way--which this President doesn't see any obligation to respect. Obama has over-inflated his justifications as well, using emotionally-charged and deliberately misleading language to justify intervention. He's supposed to be a good guy. He's supposed to be some new kind of politician. That was disgusting.

[tabatha]

5. I could refute all yours and Purity's claims

but it just is not worth the time - because you believe what you want.

Funny thing, the Syrians are praising Libya and want the UN to do the same for them. Problem is that NATO countries cannot afford it anymore.

So, I'll just leave you with a picture of peaceful, happy, contented Amizighi who are happy to be able to speak and write their language now that Gaddafi is gone. Or did you even know that?

[LadyLeigh]

6. Oh, wow, a picture. nt

[Scurrilous]

7. Oh, wow, an opinion. n/t

[Ikonoklast]

17. A picture of people still alive.

Many of whom would be dead if Qaddafi had his way.

Maybe these are the people you should ask as to what their opinion is of NATO intervening.

[LadyLeigh]

73. My, what a dumb over-simplification of the subject.

[RaleighNCDUer]

8. Well, of course the NATO countries can't afford to intervene in Syria.

IT HAS NO FUCKING OIL.

[pampango]

22. Try again. Major exports include crude oil, refined products, raw cotton, clothing, fruits,

and cereal grains. Earnings from oil exports are one of the government's most important sources of foreign exchange.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Syria

[RaleighNCDUer]

26. Uh oh.

They're fucked.

[pampango]

30. Ol' Assad may be safe. Russia has a naval base in Syria and is their main arms supplier.

"In September 2008, it was reported that Russia and Syria conducted talks about permitting Russia to develop and enlarge its Russian naval base in Syria in order to establish a stronger naval presence in the Mediterranean, and amidst the deteriorating Russia relations with the west in conjunction with the 2008 South Ossetia war‎ and the plans to deploy US missile defense shield in Poland, it has even been asserted that president Assad has agreed to Tartus port’s conversion into a permanent Middle East base for Russia’s nuclear-armed warships."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Navy#Syria

"Soviet-Syrian military cooperation dates back to the mid-1950s. This cooperation covered all spheres including massive arms' supply, training of Syrian officers, and provision of a large network of Soviet in-country military advisers. From 1980 to 1991, the Soviet Union supplied Syria with military equipment worth over $26 billion, including 65 launchers for tactical and sub-strategic missile systems, about 5,000 tanks, 1,200 aircraft, 4,200 artillery pieces and mortars and 70 warships. The Soviet Union also assisted Syria with the construction of over 100 military facilities. During the same period more then 9600 Syrian officers were trained in Soviet military schools.Over 90% of Syrian military equipment is Soviet-made though much of it -- more then 500 aircraft and 4000 tanks -- requires modernization."

http://meria.idc.ac.il/journal/2001/issue1/jv5n1a3.html

Of course, Russia has a veto on the UN Security Council and has repeatedly said it will use it to prevent any UN action in Syria (even a nasty letter). Assad has a good buddy in Putin so I think he can sleep well at night, assuming his military continues to follow his orders to crack down on domestic protesters and keep them away from his palace indefinitely.

[RaleighNCDUer]

31. NATO is not the UN. Russia has no say in NATO actions.

They're fucked.

[pampango]

34. NATO won't attack Syria without UN authorization any more than it did in Libya.

"SECURITY COUNCIL APPROVES ‘NO-FLY ZONE’ OVER LIBYA, AUTHORIZING ‘ALL NECESSARY

MEASURES’ TO PROTECT CIVILIANS, BY VOTE OF 10 IN FAVOUR WITH 5 ABSTENTIONS

Demanding an immediate ceasefire in Libya, including an end to the current attacks against civilians, which it said might constitute “crimes against humanity”, the Security Council this evening imposed a ban on all flights in the country’s airspace — a no-fly zone — and tightened sanctions on the Qadhafi regime and its supporters.

Adopting resolution 1973 (2011) by a vote of 10 in favour to none against, with 5 abstentions (Brazil, China, Germany, India, Russian Federation), the Council authorized Member States, acting nationally or through regional organizations or arrangements, to take all necessary measures to protect civilians under threat of attack in the country, including Benghazi, while excluding a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory — requesting them to immediately inform the Secretary-General of such measures."

http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2011/sc10200.doc.htm

When the Security Council approved the Libyan intervention is specifically "authorized Member States, acting nationally or through regional organizations to conduct the military operations. NATO was the "regional organization" that did it.

You are right. NATO could be stupid enough to attack Syria without UN authorization, but they didn't do that in Libya and I don't see it happening in Syria either.

[RaleighNCDUer]

37. I hope you're right. Assad may be the devil himself, but we don't

need yet another war.

Of course, these things escalate, sometimes very quickly. It took all of a day and half for the 'no fly zone' to turn into NATO attacks on Kadaffi's troops and armor - none of which were flying.

These 'entanglements' may stand for something, but the real reason we won't go into Syria is their petroleum exports hardly exceed their olive oil exports. They are NOT a major oil producer, by any stretch. The only thing we'd need from them is pipeline access for Iraqi oil.

[court jester]

38. NATO didn't bother with UN approval when it bombed Kosovo for 78 days

so maybe they flip a coin. And Clinton didn't ignore Congress.

and there was this little fiasco:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rambouillet_Accords

Oh but it was a PNAC mission:


http://newamericancentury.org/balkans.htm

[sabrina 1]

69. The UN does what the US tells it. It has zero power to act

against the US. And what right does NATO have to act outside of its member states, unless one of them is being attacked? Libya is not a NATO state nor did Libya attack NATO. What are they doing there and why are they still there? When are they leaving?

This whole 'revolution' was a lie from the start. I was fooled, but not for long. Imperial wars are not hard to detect. The same suspects are always involved in one way or another.

Halliburton did not want this war because they've been there forever and had what they wanted. But Qadaffi wanted to charge more for the oil and spend it on Libya and on Africa, forming organizations like NATO made up of African nations. We can't have that. Then he had announced he was thinking about changing the currency Libya's oil would be bought with to the Gold Dinar. That was probably among the final nails in his coffin, especially considering the mess the Western economic situation was already.

The other problem they were having with Qadaffi, he was threatening to sell his oil to China and Russia and to give them more contracts, using this as a bargaining chip in making demands from the Europeans and the US. Same thing Saddam did.

I have done quite a bit of research on Libya under Gadaffi. Without spending time now suffice it to say that Libyans had it pretty good, better than we do in many ways. We are so lied to in this country but I know one thing, millions of Libyans are going to miss Qadaffi, especially when the benefits they had under Qadaffi are no longer available to them. Social programs are not popular with the Western Imperialists in their own countries, I can only imagine what they will do to all those benefits the Libyans enjoyed, not to mention the plight of women now. Under Qadaffi women had full rights. The women of Iraq also had full equal rights under Saddam including equal pay for equal work. I am afraid that the women of Libya will now suffer the same fate as the women of Iraq have under the next government there.

And one more thing. Libya was on the PNAC list of seven countries the Neo-cons wanted to invade. Which is why they surfaced to encourage the US to get involved.

[PurityOfEssence]

33. Libya has nineteen times the oil of Syria

Syria has something like 2.5 billion barrels, whereas Libya has 47 billion.

Syria also has a real military; we're not in the habit of attacking people who can defend themselves.

The Elephant in the room, though, is Israel; for us to intervene in Syria would be seen as something entirely different than to do so in the geographically somewhat isolated Libya.

[pampango]

35. Assad doesn't have to worry about his military's ability to stand up to a NATO attack.

I doubt it would last long (it's too busy going from one city to another trying to stamp out protests) but we will never find out. Russia is Assad's protector and if the UN can't authorize any intervention no Western country or NATO is going to get involved.

I agree that the proximity of Israel does change things. I'd like to see the UN publicly condemn Assad and enforce sanctions against him (which Russia will continue to prevent) but military intervention would be very different from the case of Libya.

[PurityOfEssence]

50. Still, we don't attack people who can defend themselves

His army is fairly intact and he has anti-aircraft capabilities that would be more difficult to eliminate than Libya's.

Iran would potentially be drawn into such an imbroglio, too, and the Israel question hovers overhead like a pall.

My point is that we really don't give a tinker's cuss about the repression or killing of people--which was our lily-pure justification for intervening in Libya--we care about our interests, and we prefer to intervene when it really wouldn't cost much. Iraq was a special case, though: that was family revenge and a ultra-huge resources grab. Even so, we made sure their military capabilities were worn down before going for the gusto.

[leeroysphitz]

9. Would it have killed them to throw in a couple of U.S. or French flags?

[provis99]

10. no, the Syrian resistance leaders definitely don't want NATO interfering.

But go ahead, spouting your Fox News lies.

[eridani]

18. Yep. Oppressing them is bad. However, genocide against people who

--are members of the same tribe as Qadaffi is wonderful.

[PurityOfEssence]

28. No, you cannot, and it's not just a question of it not being worth your precious time

The war is illegal by the UN Participation Act of 1945, it's illegal by the War Powers Resolution of 1973, and NATO has no authority to engage in anything that is not a reaction to a member nation being attacked.

The world has laws for good reasons, and trampling them renders them feeble. When some future President does precisely what Barack Obama does in some situation that doesn't have the deceitful cloak of morality about it, you can thank our current President for the help down the road of imperialism.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

29. "the Syrians are praising Libya and want the UN to do the same for them."

Too bad they don't have anything we want.

I know, I know; it's too cynical and I'm not harping on you so please don't take it personal. I'd feel a lot less cynical if we did go to Syria but I say that in the teeth of my anti-war instincts.

Sorry if I sound too snippy/cranky/jaded.

[pampango]

32. The UK, France and the US have tried several times to get the Security Council

to at least publicly condemn the crackdown in Syria. So an effort has been made to try to get the UN to intervene at least marginally on behalf of Syrian civilian protesters.

Russia and China have effectively blocked the UN doing anything by threatening to use their vetos, each time the Security Council has taken up a potential resolution (even just a nasty letter) regarding Syria.

[Distant Observer]

43. So you are good for some mass killing -- for the sake of you pretty picture

[ellisonz]

44. Best post of the thread!

:yourock:

[Fire Walk With Me]

11. Yes, it's a fuck-up, but imagine if the rebels had no NATO backing.

They'd all be dead, and if the police were vindictive, their relatives as well. I don't know.

[eridani]

19. So we get genocide against Qadaffi's relatives instead.

Isn't that wonderful!

[Starry Messenger]

12. k&r

[The Northerner]

14. K&R n/t

[blindpig]

20. Not fuck up, this is design.

Ain't working as planned but that's Ok, Capital has taken control, mission accomplished!

What's a little collateral damage when there's boodle to be made?

[PurityOfEssence]

47. If it works...

This is far from over. At the moment, the mopping-up is still going on. There is no real government, and the Islamists have pretty much taken control of what little organization there is in the "military".

Revolutions tend to go through phases. Don't look at our "revolution" as any example; we NEVER had a revolution. We had a War of Independence: the powers of our society stayed precisely the same, with no real class upheaval. Look at the French and Russian Revolutions for some guidance: both started out as relatively democratic and gentle operations, but slid into outright tyranny. People forget that there was a Provisional Government in Russia that held power for about 8 months before the Bolsheviks seized power. The French Revolution was a blood-soaked nightmare that wound up circling back to empire.

Yes, the oil is flowing and we think we've contained everything. Maybe we have, but it's a complex and messy society there, and the jury's out.

Your contention, of course, is quite correct: it was an assertion of foreign powers to seize control of the oil from someone prone to threaten nationalization and who didn't want to be a mere puppet.

The beat goes on.

[inna]

49. yep. (have yet to find a post of yours with which i've ever disagreed. amazing. :)

[joshcryer]

56. France and the UK historically rolled the dice, they did not expect it to be so successful.

By all measure they http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2040763/Lucky-Cameron-accidental-hero-Libya-say-defence-experts.html?ITO=1490">got lucky. Of course, military experts don't know shit about social behavior and those of us following the revolution knew that the revolutionaries would be successful, and we were mocked for it.

[blindpig]

74. Without NATO they would be toast.

Without NATO this would have been nothing but a localized disturbance.

This is no revolution.

[Gregorian]

21. This is why Noam Chomsky will never be on tv.

Our military is the means by which we keep democracy from growing.

[bemildred]

23. But they have done so well in Afghanistan.

And remember how well it went in the Balkans?
:sarcasm:

[mojowork_n]

24. But the intervention was successful in stopping one thing....

....Self-sufficient, independent resistance to...

whatever you want to call it, the ...global oligarchy,
...the New World Order (?), "business as usual" (???)

http://www.counterpunch.org/2011/09/06/natos-war-on-libya-is-an-attack-on-african-development/

Four years ago, the US set up a new “command and control centre” for the military subjugation of the Africa, called AFRICOM. The problem for the US was that no African country wanted to host them; indeed, until very recently, Africa was unique in being the only continent in the world without a US military base. And this fact is in no small part, thanks to the efforts of the Libyan government.

Before Gaddafi’s revolution deposed the British-backed King Idris in 1969, Libya had hosted one of the world’s biggest US airbases, the Wheelus Air Base; but within a year of the revolution, it had been closed down and all foreign military personnel expelled.

More recently, Gaddafi had been actively working to scupper AFRICOM. African governments that were offered money by the US to host a base were typically offered double by Gaddafi to refuse it, and in 2008 this ad-hoc opposition crystallised into a formal rejection of AFRICOM by the African Union.

Perhaps even more worrying for US and European domination of the continent were the huge resources that Gaddafi was channelling into African development. The Libyan government was by far the largest investor in Africa’s first ever satellite, launched in 2007, which freed Africa from $500million per year in payments to European satellite companies.

[malaise]

39. 100% correct

Rec

[bvar22]

42. NATO = The Enforcement Arm of the IMF and Western Corporations.

Disaster Capitalism at its MOST brutal,
and if you don't have a disaster,
the US Military is On Call to create one.

” For all his dictatorial megalomania, Gaddafi is a committed pan-African - a fierce defender of African unity. Libya was not in debt to international bankers. It did not borrow cash from the International Monetary Fund for any "structural adjustment". It used oil money for social services - including the Great Man Made River project, and investment/aid to sub-Saharan countries. Its independent central bank was not manipulated by the Western financial system. All in all a very bad example for the developing world.”

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/MD27Ak01.html

The plan for Libya is the same as that for Iraq,
to turn it into a NeoLiberal Free Market HELL
with the IMF and Western Corporations OWNING Every-Fucking-Thing.

The next step is ensuring that a Western Friendly Puppet Government is inserted to give everything away.
This will most probably require the use of Western "Peacekeepers" to prevent "The Rebels" from more Ethnic Cleansing and Mass Revenge Murders.
It WILL be "Boots on the Ground", but purely for "Humanitarian Reasons", SUCKERS!

The only surprise is HOW MANY completely bought the package of propaganda foisted on the American Public so soon after Iraq.
They didn't even change the marketing.
They just scratched out "Saddam" and penciled in "Gaddafi",
and even "Liberal" Democrats were ready to Get the WAR On!!!


The Obama Administration's Justification for Starting a NEW WAR without Congressional Approval
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ejvyDn1TPr8



If you're not FOR the New WAR in Libya,
you're WITH The Communists AlQaeda The Terrorists Saddam Qaddafi!!!

[AngkorWot]

45. The mission in NATO was an overwhelming success.

Gave a great deal of credibility to both NATO and the UN.

History will record this as a perfect example of why the Nobel committee gave the peace prize to Obama and his doctrine.

I know there are people who will always disagree. But fuck 'em. If they had half a brain they wouldn't have been against it in the first place.

[inna]

51. yep. "overwhelming success" to corps/MIC, watershed to the rest of us

"History will record this as a perfect example of why the Nobel committee gave the peace prize to Obama and his doctrine."

no doubt

[bhikkhu]

52. I'm inclined to agree, though its still pretty early to tell

There's plenty that could still go wrong - but plenty has gone very well so far.

The main indicator is the character of the Libyans themselves, who have done the vast majority of the work - and so far they've been very reassuring.

[inna]

53. "the Libyans ... have done the vast majority of the work" - patently untrue

[joshcryer]

55. Evidence? Oh right, making stuff up.

As per usual.

[inna]

60. keep projecting and slandering, what else is new

yawn


(wake me up if you come up with anything new, will you)

[joshcryer]

62. I asked for evidence, you don't provide it because you don't have it. Ergo, dishonesty.

I say that statement with utter confidence because it's simply not true, it is dishonest. I have no fear that you will ever possibly come up with any evidence to back up your statements. No fear whatsoever.

[bhikkhu]

58. "Patently"? NATO provided air support only

And I don't think anyone who was ever involved in a similar conflict, or anyone who has studied military history, would agree that air support - especially very limited air support - was "the vast majority of the work".

A little credit for the guys on the ground who took all the risks?

[inna]

61. "air support only" - only for those egregiously uninformed (given their odd passion for

voicing uninformed opinions).


it's all in the public domain (still), educate yourself (before it's too late, perhaps)! good luck, and no sarcasm whatsoever.

[joshcryer]

63. You could provide one link, actually.

I have tens of thousands at my disposal to refuse any nonsense that you make up.

[inna]

65. ignore, long-deserved, and only the second i've ever had to resort to

[joshcryer]

67. Finally!

I would've reverse ignored you a long time ago if I had the ability!

[bhikkhu]

66. What we struggle against in ourselves, we can see most clearly in others

Food for thought. :)

[ellisonz]

57. Welcome to DU!

:donut:

[Distant Observer]

70. Great for Euro-Arab domination in Africa --- Sooo Greeeaaat!

[joshcryer]

54. I thought Tripoli was going to be a bloodbath? Not credible.

[ellisonz]

59. These posts are increasing because it's almost over.

And the Libyan people won!!!

[joshcryer]

64. I know, and I've not engaged these posts in awhile. I expect them to continue for years though.

If an islamist does something bad, if a western company gets a contract, and so on and so forth.

[ellisonz]

68. Let's just hope Muammar doesn't make himself a martyr.

:nopity:

[LadyLeigh]

72. I fully expect the white-washing by war-propagandists in the media to continue for years.

[LadyLeigh]

71. I wouldn't know, and neither would you, since there aren't any credible figures on the human toll.