Now it's Libya....? [Archive]

TheCultofAbeLincoln

19th February 2011, 09:05

Bahrain is also seeing many demonstrations, and with its demographic makeup, it would be in the interest of the monarchy to make an overarching deal with the shiite population quickly. The situation there, I believe, will depend on whether the King is willing to immediately make moves towards becoming a constitutional monarch with much less power or whether he will not see the writing on the wall until his plane is on the runway preparing for takeoff.

What irks me about Libya and Iran is that in both cases the glorious leaders hail themselves as the revolutionaries, despite being in charge for so long the vast majority of the people know no other ruler. They literally call it defending the revolution when the crackdown on revolution, it gets to me a bit.

edit: Al Jazeera is reporting 84 Libyans have been killed by the state thus far. I cannot sympathize for nor praise the protestors enough.

RGacky3

19th February 2011, 09:55

Get it, get it people, watch Algeria go, watch Saudi Arabia and the US shit themselves.

Che a chara

19th February 2011, 10:03

Get it, get it people, watch Algeria go, watch Saudi Arabia and the US shit themselves.

:) Bahrain is the country they are shitting themselves over on Fox 'news'. Apparently their waters are the key to oil distribution to the west and the US military has a large navy presence based there.

TheCultofAbeLincoln

19th February 2011, 10:33

The 5th fleet is stationed there. If the govt is toppled and it is apparent the US forces have to leave, a move to Qatar would be the most probably move in my opinion. That being said, that may not be possible, but I highly highly doubt the gulf kingdoms would allow Iran to take uncontested control of the gulf.

That being said, we are far from that point.

Bud Struggle

19th February 2011, 10:52

I don't think there will be much trouble from the US is these revolutions continue in the rather reasonable way the Egyptian and Tunisian Revolution have. I doubt there will be any real change in forign policy for these countries if a reasonable democracy gets in and by all accounts that's the way things are looking.

As a matter of fact it these countries could be opened up as markets we mught actually see a lowering of the price of oil in the long run which won't be a bad thing at all.

TheCultofAbeLincoln

19th February 2011, 10:57

Bahrain worries me. Not that I think a large percentag shia population means a revolution is going to end up like Iran, but with 70% of the population being ruled by the minority, and that minority not afraid to shoot into crowds to keep control....I do think the sectarian divide has the potential to make things a lot more ugly if that's how it breaks down.

Not saying that it will, in Egypt the unity between muslims and coptic christians was inspiring. Just saying that the potential for, how might I say, an ugly revolutionary aftermath might be something to worry about.

Bud Struggle

19th February 2011, 11:08

The thing is that in Egypt they weren't fighting for Allah--they were revolting for bread. I don't think the Egyptians would do anything further to upset a rather weak economy. The Reason Mubarak fell is that for the longest time he made a bargan with the Egyptian peoplehe would subsidize the price of bread and housing if they would keep the status quo politically. He failed to keep his part of the bargan--so he had to go.

For the most part Egypt hasn't been a major player on any economic markets. If Democracy gets in maybe Egypt can strenthen its positins and become more economically viable.

The same with the rest of the Middle East. For the most part these countries produce nothing but oil--Iit's time they begin to become a part of the modern economic world.

Che a chara

19th February 2011, 11:16

The 5th fleet is stationed there.

That's the bastard.

Iran is an interesting one. It's clear to see that the US puppet regimes in the middle east are falling and their influence will dwindle, which is probably a reason why there has been an increase of blatant Islamophobia on the corporatist Fox 'news' recently in order to hypntoise it's viewers on the 'threat' of Iran.

Sean 'cockroach' Hannity had a special of his show last night called 'Iranium' which previewed parts of a film by the same name. It was the usual lies, fear-mongering and usage of terms such as 'US/Israel security concerns', 'US interests', 'our democracy', all in the attempt of swaying the viewer in favour of bombing the fuck out of Iran. The two directors of the film were sitting beside Sean.... two hardcore Zionists :rolleyes:

before that we had Bill 'ballbag' O'Reilly spouting straight out attacks on Muslims and stereotyping that the whole Middle east has a Mulism problem, but Geraldo Rivera intervened and tried to correct him, but O'Reilly cemented his Islamophobic rhetoric :mad:

ComradeMan

19th February 2011, 11:19

The same with the rest of the Middle East. For the most part these countries produce nothing but oil--Iit's time they begin to become a part of the modern economic world.

Take away the oil and some of these countries don't have much else. Why do you think the Emirates such as Dubai and Abu Dhabi have been investing in tourism and promoting their city-states as finance centres etc? When the oil runs out... what next? ;)

I can't see the absolute monarchies of the Gulf states and Saudi Arabia falling somehow.

TheCultofAbeLincoln

19th February 2011, 11:31

That's the bastard.

Iran is an interesting one. It's clear to see that the US puppet regimes in the middle east are falling and their influence will dwindle, which is probably a reason why there has been an increase of blatant Islamophobia on the corporatist Fox 'news' recently in order to hypntoise it's viewers on the 'threat' of Iran.

Sean 'cockroach' Hannity had a special of his show last night called 'Iranium' which previewed parts of a film by the same name. It was the usual lies, fear-mongering and usage of terms such as 'US/Israel security concerns', 'US interests', 'our democracy', all in the attempt of swaying the viewer in favour of bombing the fuck out of Iran. The two directors of the film were sitting beside Sean.... two hardcore Zionists :rolleyes:

before that we had Bill 'ballbag' O'Reilly spouting straight out attacks on Muslims and stereotyping that the whole Middle east has a Mulism problem, but Geraldo Rivera intervened and tried to correct him, but O'Reilly cemented his Islamophobic rhetoric :mad:

We shouldn't go to war with Iran, though there is a market for sabre rattling bravado by these morons.

There have been protests in Iran on monday, that, despite being brutally checked by the authorities, showed that the opposition movement they tried to squash in 2009 is still very much alive.

TheCultofAbeLincoln

19th February 2011, 13:13

Some of the videos coming out of Libya are among the bloodiest seen in the protests thus far. On Al Jazeera the guest is saying there are reports of populace taking over cities and the armies siding with them. Gaddafi is reportedly using African mercenaries to try and keep control.

PhoenixAsh

19th February 2011, 13:47

Reports say that in the last three days 85 people were killed. There are both massive protestst pro and con Gadaffi.

Libya deserves to be free, however for political and strategical purposes in the current balance of power it is not so much interesting as Bahrain. If that falls teh US government is in for some deep deep trouble.

That said...Lybia is one of the most critical states within the Israel-Palestinian conflict however and strongly disapproves of other Arabic countries having dealings with Israel.

Havet

19th February 2011, 13:49

Hooray for the internet!

Revolution starts with U

19th February 2011, 15:47

The revolution will not be televised!...
It will be blogged :lol:

hatzel

19th February 2011, 16:27

It will also probably be trolled on RevLeft...:rolleyes:

ComradeMan

20th February 2011, 12:06

It seems like the Libyan regime are not being as "affable" towards the revolution as their Egy'ptian (former) counterparts.

As far as the absolute monarchies are concerned I don't think there can be compromise. The kings/sultans/emirs etc are either kings in the fulls sense of the word, or they are nothing. They will be concerned about losing face and being perceived as weak.

Well, who would have thought, anyway, that 2011 would be like the 1848 or year of revolutions in the Arab/Islamic world?

PhoenixAsh

20th February 2011, 13:21

Ok...here is what I understand so far.

There is much confusion about who protests where. It seems to be the case that pro- and con- Gadaffi protests are orchestrated simultaniously.

As it now seems the protests in and around Tripoli are pro-Gadaffi. It is these protests Gadaffi attended (in reference to the OI thread).

In the east in Benghazi, Tobruk and Misurata the protests are anti-Gadaffi.

There seems to be a split between the North-west and East in the country considering popular opinions....that creates a possibility for the government to start rumours circulating about the nature of the protests. As we have seen in Tunesia and Egypt they try to blame foreign agents for the "riots". This is succesful in the northern part of the country which largely agrees with the current government.

However....religious leaders and tribal elders in the north have condemned the killing of civilians by the government and by government supporters. Stating this is against God.

Rumoured is that there will be, or currently are, also anti-Gadaffi protests in the North which are hampered by severe security presence in the cities.

Up until now the government cuold count on support of the tribal elders and leaders. Unfortunately there are increasing (UNCONFIRMED) reports of rapes and sexual assaults committed by security forces and pro-government supporters. As I am informed this will mean that if there are tribal women amongst the victims of these assaults the tribes will not support Gadaffi much longer seeing as how this now becomes a question of tribal honour...envoking rights orf revenge.

If the tribal support for Gadaffi stops then he will have an increasing narrow support base and these tribes ARE armed...and WILL use force. Or so I am told.

PhoenixAsh

20th February 2011, 21:52

Ok....here is an update.

bengazhi has freed itself...after army units defected to the protests and defeated the personal guard from Gadaffi. Pharmacies are handing out free medication, hospitals are out of anesthetics and perform many operations without them....and youth have formed civil guard groups to rpotect the citizens and their houses. No looting has occured yet.

In Tripoli there are massive protests going on with the Green Square heavilly fought for between protesters nd the army. Also the protesters have managed to surround Azizai...the personal residence of Gadaffi.

Several tribes have joined the protests. They condemened teh attacks and reported rapes. The largest is 1 million people strong: teh warfella.

Another tribe has issued an ultimatum to Gadaffi. He has to leave within 24 hrs or they will stop teh flow of oil. Which they are capable of.

PhoenixAsh

20th February 2011, 21:58

at this moment reports at BCC arabic say that there is shooting INSIDE the residence of Gadaffi.....

This is unconfirmed...but could indicate mutiny.

PhoenixAsh

20th February 2011, 22:18

hmm....Libyan diplomats are now saying Gadaffi has fled to Venuzuela....stating this will be confirmed soon.

I doubt it...but hey...lets wait and see

edit:

Hmmm....reports from airport state a plane left for Venezuela several minutes ago....

Bud Struggle

20th February 2011, 22:31

Tunisia had a President for life.

Egypt had a Strongman ruler.

Lybia has a dictator.

There is a difference.

PhoenixAsh

20th February 2011, 22:38

But they are all gone now...so tehre are similarities ;-)

PhoenixAsh

20th February 2011, 22:59

City of Misrata is free...security forces have handed their arms over to the protesters

Venezuela stated they won't accept Gadaffi and that they are not informed of him arriving.

PhoenixAsh

21st February 2011, 00:04

Welll...Saif Gadaffi live on AJ has been a treat.

My left brain has melted, and I think I am suffering a mild stroke or something because my head hurts. This man is BORING and keeps on rambling..

Its sad that he was because his message would have been comedy gold otherwise.

He stated violence has broken out because the police was untrained and the army was confused because they thought people were on drugs and paid by outside forces. All in all it was all a big mistinderstanding.

He then went on to mention that Libya will suffer civil war for 40 years because everybody was armed and had tanks. The country would suffer from speratism and western imperialism, and that they would have no hospitals, would not see family members in other parts of the country and would not get education.

84 people died...but that was all a mistake and though regrettable...would be nothing compared to the thousands of deaths that would fall if the protests did not end.

He mentioned speratist movements and people on xtc who were rioting. He did not mention an alien invasion...however he did say somethig about galactic disasters.

In short he mentioned that the regime will fight to the last person and last bullet.

RGacky3

21st February 2011, 07:51

They all say that, gadaffi (the flyest dictator ever) is going down, honestly I kind of like that guy, mainly because its suprising how wierd he is, he's like prince.

ComradeMan

21st February 2011, 09:04

They all say that, gadaffi (the flyest dictator ever) is going down, honestly I kind of like that guy, mainly because its suprising how wierd he is, he's like prince.

Perhaps you wouldn't say that if you were one of the protesters who had been killed.

You surprise me. This isn't some reality show you know? It's not fucking X-Factor or something--- by popular televote and blogging a dictator is ousted. A lot of people are going to lose their lives here....

RGacky3

21st February 2011, 09:22

Perhaps you wouldn't say that if you were one of the protesters who had been killed.

You surprise me. This isn't some reality show you know? It's not fucking X-Factor or something--- by popular televote and blogging a dictator is ousted. A lot of people are going to lose their lives here....

I'm making fun of the way he dresses and how he acts silly ....

Your just looking for something to yell at.

ComradeMan

21st February 2011, 09:27

I'm making fun of the way he dresses and how he acts silly ....

Your just looking for something to yell at.

Yeah, whatever.

No one is "yelling" at anyone else. The fact is that you "kinda like that guy" etc, you're trivialising something that isn't funny. But then I suppose if you're watching revolutions "live" on TV I guess it's like rooting for the Packers....:rolleyes: LOL!!!

RGacky3

21st February 2011, 09:30

The fact is that you "kinda like that guy"

You don't understand sarcasm do you.

Anyway, I hope your day gets better.

Ele'ill

21st February 2011, 13:05

Croatia

http://www.revleft.com/vb/egypt-style-revolution-t150387/index.html

Morocco

http://www.revleft.com/vb/now-its-morocco-t150392/index.html?t=150392

Havet

21st February 2011, 19:15

Libya warplanes bombing indiscriminately

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/02/21/us-libya-protests-jets-idUSTRE71K3X020110221

RGacky3

21st February 2011, 20:24

It looks like Libya is going to be a hard one, but I would not be suprised if formal government itself and military turn on Gadaffi.

Havet

22nd February 2011, 20:30

Libya warplanes bombing indiscriminately

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/02/21/us-libya-protests-jets-idUSTRE71K3X020110221

600 dead in Libya... and more than 1400 missing...:(

http://www.haaretz.com/news/international/more-than-600-reported-dead-as-violent-unrest-sweeps-libya-1.344829

Khadafi says he want to remain in power until he dies, and become a martir:

http://news.theage.com.au/breaking-news-world/defiant-kadhafi-vows-to-remain-in-libya-20110223-1b49u.html

Looking grim in Libya. Stay strong, Libyans!

ComradeMan

22nd February 2011, 20:48

This makes things very precarious, Ghadadi is one of the most outspoken opponents of Israel and supporters of the Palestinians. :confused:

Bud Struggle

22nd February 2011, 21:54

It's about time that the US or NATO sends an aircraft carrier to enforce a "no fly" zone over Lybia.

ComradeMan

22nd February 2011, 21:57

It's about time that the US or NATO sends an aircraft carrier to enforce a "no fly" zone over Lybia.

But wouldn't that be interference in the internal affairs of a sovereign nation by the hated military forces of imperialism?
:crying:

Bud Struggle

22nd February 2011, 22:03

But wouldn't that be interference in the internal affairs of a sovereign nation by the hated military forces of imperialism?
:crying:

Sure but the Llbian air forces is mowing down citizens. It's time for the US military to step in. (Just like they no doubt stepped in in Egypt behind the scenes with the Egyptian military.)

Sometimes Revolutions need a helping hand.

Lt. Ferret

22nd February 2011, 22:04

Yeah, and it's effective.

ComradeMan

22nd February 2011, 23:10

I think people are forgetting that this Libyan situation has a fundamental difference in that it there is an ethnic/tribal dimension to it.

Rafiq

23rd February 2011, 00:24

Bud Struggle

23rd February 2011, 00:48

Just like the Iraqis need a 'helping hand' in their situation. :rolleyes: Seriously Bud, US imperialism will attack any oil rich nation with any excuse.

You don't see US commandos invading Saudi Arabia because of their regime's horrific, worse than Libya crimes.

Did I say Commandos? I said just enforce a no fly zone so Lybian airforce jets and helicopter gunships can't mow people down from the air.

I know you don't like America--but the American military could be useful here. They can save lives.

#FF0000

23rd February 2011, 01:13

I know you don't like America--but the American military could be useful here. They can save lives.

No doubt but I am suspicious of the US helping anybody ever. Countries like China, Russia, and America don't do a whole lot of helping unless they've got interests to push.

Plus it'll make the gov't look horrible to act in Libya when Bahrain is doing literally the same thing while the Fifth Fleet is sitting in port in the country.

EDIT: Not to mention that the US was implicit in a lot of the torture that went on in Egypt. I know it's nice to think that the US would try to help people, but I'm sure I don't need to tell you that our government kills a lot of people for terrible reasons.

But wouldn't that be interference in the internal affairs of a sovereign nation by the hated military forces of imperialism?

You are stupid.

resurgence

23rd February 2011, 01:20

This makes things very precarious, Ghadadi is one of the most outspoken opponents of Israel and supporters of the Palestinians. :confused:

Actually though he was toning it down before since 9/11 he has vastly toned down on his anti-Imperialist rhetoric. A doubt a goverment which reflects what people on the ground think would suddenly become pro-Zionist. The fact that Israel's ally in Egypt is on the way out is much more important for that conflict given that Egypt borders Israel/Occupied Palestine.

resurgence

23rd February 2011, 01:22

No doubt but I am suspicious of the US helping anybody ever. Countries like China, Russia, and America don't do a whole lot of helping unless they've got interests to push.

Imperialism always has the bad habit of making a terrible situation worse just look at Iraq and Afghanistan (though an argument can be made that Soviet social-Imperialism was a positive force there I admit, one thing is sure the Yanks arent).

#FF0000

23rd February 2011, 01:22

Gadaffi p. much shows that the sort of anti-imperialism a lot of people push is kind of dumb, since the big man himself got hella popular because of his anti-imperialist image while he cut a bunch of neoliberal deals with Bush.

Imperialism always has the bad habit of making a terrible situation worse just look at Iraq and Afghanistan (though an argument can be made that Soviet social-Imperialism was a positive force there I admit, one thing is sure the Yanks arent).

Maybe. I have to say that organizing some badass women's militias (which went off to do incredibly heroic shit iirc) was p. good but the Soviets coming in was one of the last nails in the coffin of the Afghan government with how it completely discredited it. Maybe someone can correct me, though.

TheCultofAbeLincoln

23rd February 2011, 03:55

No doubt but I am suspicious of the US helping anybody ever. Countries like China, Russia, and America don't do a whole lot of helping unless they've got interests to push.

Plus it'll make the gov't look horrible to act in Libya when Bahrain is doing literally the same thing while the Fifth Fleet is sitting in port in the country.

EDIT: Not to mention that the US was implicit in a lot of the torture that went on in Egypt. I know it's nice to think that the US would try to help people, but I'm sure I don't need to tell you that our government kills a lot of people for terrible reasons.

Bahrain is not doing the same thing as Libya. Using riot police, even using live rounds, is not the same as using jets to bomb people.

Libya is a complex nation and the US would be smart to not get too involved. I do hope a no fly zone is set up though.

You are stupid.

It is a point, American forces aren't exactly looked on favorably and even US aid will have someone denounced as a traitor. However, I believe stopping the jets could be seen as a favorable move.

ComradeMan

23rd February 2011, 10:07

You are stupid.

You are have no idea what's going on and what you are talking about.

So now you support US military intervention? :lol:

RGacky3

23rd February 2011, 10:46

You are have no idea what's going on and what you are talking about.

So now you support US military intervention? :lol:

I don't think thats what he's saying, I think he's just saying your stupid

ComradeMan

23rd February 2011, 11:14

I don't think thats what he's saying, I think he's just saying your stupid

Well then he's trolling....

Empty ad hominem attacks based on a valid point. Sorry, but Libya just happens to be pretty damn close to Italy and a lot of news and shit is going on here given all the ties to the country etc. We are poised, they say, for an influx of up to 300,000 refugees from N.Africa (human and logisitical nightmare) and it calls into question when you see Libyan jets bombing civilians protesters whether foreign intervention is needed. Now, if there is foreign intervention then does that not pose an ideological dilemma given a lot of people here's stances on such matters?

resurgence

23rd February 2011, 11:18

Gadaffi p. much shows that the sort of anti-imperialism a lot of people push is kind of dumb, since the big man himself got hella popular because of his anti-imperialist image while he cut a bunch of neoliberal deals with Bush.
.

I agree that the sort of anti-Imperialism pushed by MSH/LLCO and to a large extent the CPGB-ML could easily be considered reactionary in that it sees the contradiction between the Imperialist nations and the neo-colonies/oppressed nations as central and class contradictions as secondary but I also believe a lot of anarchists and Trots go to the other extreme and deny the reality of national oppression and Imperialist parasitism (by using the term Imperialist parasitism Im not suggesting that workers in the first world are not exploited, that is an outright rejection of Marxist economics). It is true though that a lot of third world demagoues pull out the old anti-imperialist card to prop themselves up in the eyes of the masses.

Ghaddafi though very much toned down his old rhetoric after 9/11 (though he had been moving in that direction before, infact since the fall of the USSR). Even in his "good old days" however as well as funding the Palestinian and Irish liberation struggles he also pumped money into the "third positionist" and extremely "full on" Official National Front in England. That has to be remembered too.

Ages ago I heard about these community councils and there being a large degree of direct democracy in his regime, was that just propaganda or were such things gradually swept aside by him?

RGacky3

23rd February 2011, 11:30

We are poised, they say, for an influx of up to 300,000 refugees from N.Africa (human and logisitical nightmare) and it calls into question when you see Libyan jets bombing civilians protesters whether foreign intervention is needed. Now, if there is foreign intervention then does that not pose an ideological dilemma given a lot of people here's stances on such matters?

Absolutely depends what the foreign intervention actually is, and you as well as I, know that the United states has an extremely bad record when it comes to foreign intervention.

Bud Struggle

23rd February 2011, 11:33

Well then he's trolling....

Empty ad hominem attacks based on a valid point. Sorry, but Libya just happens to be pretty damn close to Italy and a lot of news and shit is going on here given all the ties to the country etc. We are poised, they say, for an influx of up to 300,000 refugees from N.Africa (human and logisitical nightmare) and it calls into question when you see Libyan jets bombing civilians protesters whether foreign intervention is needed. Now, if there is foreign intervention then does that not pose an ideological dilemma given a lot of people here's stances on such matters?

Technically America does what it wants and it America is so moved to get involved and if it isn't interested it won't.

I don't think America will ask anyone's permission.

ComradeMan

23rd February 2011, 11:52

Technically America does what it wants and it America is so moved to get involved and if it isn't interested it won't.

I don't think America will ask anyone's permission.

I can't see the US getting involved although they might twist some rhetoric here and there to show they were right on their stance towards Ghadafi in the 1980s and the attack on Tripoli. Nevertheless I have heard of talk of Italian intervention or EU intervention...

In whatever case, the Libya situation seems to be very different to the situations in Egypt and Tunisia given the ethnic/tribal dimension too. I also think that Ghadafi is not going to go without a fight.

#FF0000

23rd February 2011, 20:01

Bahrain is not doing the same thing as Libya. Using riot police, even using live rounds, is not the same as using jets to bomb people.

I was referring to the attack helicopters being sent after protesters in Bahrain.

Dimentio

23rd February 2011, 20:04

Did I say Commandos? I said just enforce a no fly zone so Lybian airforce jets and helicopter gunships can't mow people down from the air.

I know you don't like America--but the American military could be useful here. They can save lives.

The US military in Libya will stay in Libya, therefore provoking nationalist Libyans to attack US installations.

Rafiq

23rd February 2011, 20:17

Technically America does what it wants and it America is so moved to get involved and if it isn't interested it won't.

I don't think America will ask anyone's permission.

I don't think America is a person or a single interest.

Os Cangaceiros

23rd February 2011, 20:24

I also think that Ghadafi is not going to go without a fight.

He's already proven that.

It looks like his days are numbered, though.

#FF0000

24th February 2011, 23:47

‎"Since Col. Gadhafi reconciled with the West in 2003 and shut down the country's nuclear program, Libya has also been a major growth market for Western oil companies. The unrest threatens to undo years of effort by companies that have courted Mr. Gadhafi in the face of heavy political criticism." - Wall Street Journal, February 22

Just in case anyone was holding on to any pipedreams of the US having a conscience.

RGacky3

25th February 2011, 05:52

I love those buisiness magazines, the wall street journal, the financial times, they don't even try put up a front.

Bud Struggle

25th February 2011, 07:25

Just in case anyone was holding on to any pipedreams of the US having a conscience.

Well Libya is also a major exporter of oil to China, too. And Gadhafi has close relations with Chavez.

It's a small world after all.

RGacky3

25th February 2011, 08:48

The great thing about Libya is that these pro-dmeocracy demonstrators are TAKING OVER cities, they are taking control, this can lead to grass roots democratic organizatoins or public assembalies. Gaddafi is gone, he's out, also the alternative could be a real grass roots democracy, this is great.

TheCultofAbeLincoln

25th February 2011, 17:26

Just in case anyone was holding on to any pipedreams of the US having a conscience.

I don't think anyone could call this a stain on the US conscience more that anyone could expect. If a govt is wanting to do business the west in general will do business with them. Gaddafi shows that even more, say, grotesque regimes will be accepted to do business with if, at the very least, they stop trying to make nukes. If Iran stopped enriching uranium and made a deal there is no doubt the west would buy their oil no matter how little rights the people have. Shit look at kuwait.

Bud Struggle

25th February 2011, 19:25

Shit look at kuwait.

America actually went to WAR for the honor of that kingdom. :rolleyes:

TheCultofAbeLincoln

28th February 2011, 06:39

Yes, we did go to war to defend a horribly repressive regime which treats women like second class citizens, and American blood was spilled for their soveriegnty. That was my point bud. That we don't give a fuck and we'll do business with anyone if the oil is flowing.

ComradeMan

1st March 2011, 10:12

Check this anti-Ghaddafi posters---

Why are Jewish stars being placed on his head? I find this strange seeing as he has been one of the most outspoken anti-Israel voices in the Arab World.

http://it.notizie.yahoo.com/foto/galleria/foto-gheddafi.html?imageUrl=/rtrs/20110228/r_p_rtrs_ts_other/pts-poster-con-il-volto-del-ab811053e1c7

ComradeMan

1st March 2011, 22:05

Fuck- I am wondering whether Ghadaffi was the devil we knew better.... have you guys seen these attacks on black African migrants? FFS? :scared:

B5C

2nd March 2011, 07:37

The United States is sending warships:

Also Tuesday, the U.S. ordered two warships and 1200 Marines to the waters off of Libya, but a top Obama administration official stopped short of saying the forces would intervene in the clashes that have consumed the country following anti-Gadhafi protests here in recent weeks.

At a Pentagon briefing, Defense Secretary Robert Gates announced he had ordered to the Mediterranean the USS Ponce and the USS Kearsarge, an amphibious-assault ship thatn typically carries infantrymen and troop-transport helicopters. Those ships currently have 800 marines, in addition to 400 U.S.-based Marines who will be airlifted to meet the ships. He said the ships would be ready to perform evacuations and humanitarian relief.

Mr. Gates wouldn't specify the other military options he has offered President Barack Obama. But he sounded a note of caution about sending U.S. assets into Libya. "We have to think about the use of the U.S. military in another country in the Middle East," Mr. Gates said. "We are sensitive about all these things."

Libya's opposition is increasingly seeking U.S. military support to push out Col. Gadhafi. Libyan dissidents held meetings with the State Department in Washington this week in which they called for greater logistical support from U.S. and NATO forces, and possibly targeted military strikes on against Col. Gadhafi's air force, tanks and troops.

"We're worried this conflict could drag on," said Ali Rishi, among the dissidents who met with the State Department this week. "We don't want Gadhafi to feel he can survive."

A senior State Department official confirmed the U.S. has met with a variety of Libyan opposition figures this week but wouldn't discuss the details. "There were a variety of views expressed," he said.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704506004576173831133467692.html?m od=WSJ_hp_LEFTTopStories

Instead of like Egypt where the USA had no say in the revolution. It looks like the United States wants to have a little investment in Libya.

RGacky3

2nd March 2011, 08:48

Instead of like Egypt where the USA had no say in the revolution. It looks like the United States wants to have a little investment in Libya.

Follow the money, theres lots of money to be made in Libya.

ComradeMan

2nd March 2011, 12:04

Bud Struggle

2nd March 2011, 13:16

All I can say is this Libyan situation is heading towards a fucking disaster. I hope I am wrong. I notice that Fidel was still supporting Ghaddafi along with some other left Latin American leaders and Chavez was "ambiguous". That point there speaks quite a bit, doesn't it?

The way I see it is that these rebellions will lead to a massive NATO operation in Libya. Is that to be desired from a leftist point of view? On the other hand are nations supposed to just watch while people are being bombed by their own "government"?

The US/NATO need to move and and they will. Overtly. Just like they did in Egypt, covertly. Europe with its inability inability to process anything but light sweet crude for the most part, is and will be especially hard hit by this rebellion. It's not in anyone's interest to let this go on forever.

It just shows that armed Revolution is difficult against even a fifth rate military with modern armements.

RGacky3

2nd March 2011, 13:21

That point there speaks quite a bit, doesn't it?

The point is that politicians are politicians and political interests sometimes are put above those of the people. The people of venezuela and Cuba, should oppose their leaders support of Gaddaffi.

The US/NATO need to move and and they will. Overtly.

No, they really don't need to.

Just like they did in Egypt, covertly.

You got your CIA contacts? You don't know what they did covertly.

It just shows that armed Revolution is difficult against even a fifth rate military with modern armements.

Except this was'nt an armed revolution.

Bud Struggle

2nd March 2011, 13:26

The point is that politicians are politicians and political interests sometimes are put above those of the people. The people of venezuela and Cuba, should oppose their leaders support of Gaddaffi. Exactly.

No, they really don't need to. The Libyan people are asking for help. So they seem to think differently.

You got your CIA contacts? You don't know what they did covertly. You don't think that there was American military influence on the Egyptian military? They've had close contact for 30 years, most high Egyptian officers trained in the US, the US supports the Egyptian military with its foreign aid.

Except this was'nt an armed revolution. There is a Revolution. There are guns. What else do you need?

RGacky3

2nd March 2011, 13:31

The Libyan people are asking for help. So they seem to think differently.

It should be done through the UN, the US should not get involved, they have a really really bad track record with that.

You don't think that there was American military influence on the Egyptian military? They've had close contact for 30 years, most high Egyptian officers trained in the US, the US supports the Egyptian military with its foreign aid.

Sure they do, but again, you have no idea what happened behind closed doors, they might have been told to support Mubarak (would'nt supprise me) and then refused. If you think the US was cheering the protesters on your not paying attention.

There is a Revolution. There are guns. What else do you need?

This was a peoples uprising, it was'nt rebels with guns storming the palace, or guerillas in the jungle.

ComradeMan

2nd March 2011, 13:55

Well according to Ghaddafi this is just one big fucking excuse to fuck him over and then NATO etc will get their hands on the oil....

Bud Struggle

2nd March 2011, 14:11

It should be done through the UN, the US should not get involved, they have a really really bad track record with that. I have no problem with the UN, but in the end--who's aircraft carriers are they going to use?

Sure they do, but again, you have no idea what happened behind closed doors, they might have been told to support Mubarak (would'nt supprise me) and then refused. If you think the US was cheering the protesters on your not paying attention. I think the US knew when it was time to cut a deal--and they did. You don't see any change in Egypt's forien policy do you?

This was a peoples uprising, it was'nt rebels with guns storming the palace, or guerillas in the jungle. I never said it was people comming out of the jungle.

RGacky3

2nd March 2011, 15:06

I have no problem with the UN, but in the end--who's aircraft carriers are they going to use?

Does'nt matter, at least its not juts the US that gets to choose what happens next.

I think the US knew when it was time to cut a deal--and they did. You don't see any change in Egypt's forien policy do you?

You don't know what they did, plus they did'nt really have a choice, you saw what was going on there and the huge support they had. Don't try and give the US credit for Eygpt, thats just idiotic.

I never said it was people comming out of the jungle.

fair enough.

RGacky3

2nd March 2011, 15:15

BTW, where is the US on the violent crack downs in Iraq, pretty silent huh?

brigadista

2nd March 2011, 15:26

BTW, where is the US on the violent crack downs in Iraq, pretty silent huh?

yeah it seems western sympathies dont extend to protest in Iraq
from the washington post if you dont know..

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/26/AR2011022601854.html

TheCultofAbeLincoln

3rd March 2011, 00:29

Viet Minh

3rd March 2011, 14:40

I would just like to point out that in 'the arab world protests' subforum there is a thread about how the Libyan Air Force isn't being used...But on al Jazeera there are clips of Libyan aircraft dropping bombs and dozens of people being interviewed are saying the only thing that worries them are the air attacks. Just saying.

Its a possibility the Russian sources are incorrect, or biased..

Russia stands to lose $4bn (£2.5bn) in arms deals because of UN sanctions agreed last week against Libya, says state-owned industrial giant Russian Technologies

Then again all this comes not long after America raged hard at al-Megrahi's release from jail..

Viet Minh

3rd March 2011, 16:25

I don't think anyone could call this a stain on the US conscience more that anyone could expect. If a govt is wanting to do business the west in general will do business with them. Gaddafi shows that even more, say, grotesque regimes will be accepted to do business with if, at the very least, they stop trying to make nukes. If Iran stopped enriching uranium and made a deal there is no doubt the west would buy their oil no matter how little rights the people have. Shit look at kuwait.

What happened in Kuwait? I know there was a lot of controversy regarding Palestinian refugees there, but I kind of thought of the First Gulf War as fairly justified, considering the Baathists treatment of the Kurds and Shias, then invading a smaller nation (Kuwait) to fund a sectarian war on Iran. But yeah America would buy oil from whoever sold it.

America actually went to WAR for the honor of that kingdom. :rolleyes:

Yes, we did go to war to defend a horribly repressive regime which treats women like second class citizens, and American blood was spilled for their soveriegnty. That was my point bud. That we don't give a fuck and we'll do business with anyone if the oil is flowing.

True but Kuwait were Americas allies to some extent, I think there was a treaty in place (motivated, of course, by oil shares)

Check this anti-Ghaddafi posters---

Why are Jewish stars being placed on his head? I find this strange seeing as he has been one of the most outspoken anti-Israel voices in the Arab World.

http://it.notizie.yahoo.com/foto/galleria/foto-gheddafi.html?imageUrl=/rtrs/20110228/r_p_rtrs_ts_other/pts-poster-con-il-volto-del-ab811053e1c7

'Blame the Jews' is the quickest way to get support for any cause, you will be backed by the far right and left. Grey Aliens trying to establish a Masonic Fascist NWO? Zionist conspiracy! Liberals trying to force sex education on young children? Its a Zionist attack on White American Christian family values. etc.
He's kind of shot himself in the foot though, he's spent so long blaming the imperialist west for everything (in many cases legitimately) now nobody listens when he cries wolf. Blame Imperialist America, check, blame Jews, check, blame the blacks (who he brought in as mercenaries) check..
I'm not defending Imperialism or Zionism etc by any means, I just don't agree with some leftists who immediately look to support anyone who opposes the US. In my opinion pseudo-Socialists such as Gaddafi are as much the enemy of the left as capitalist imperialists like america. in fact America usually justifies our position, wheras Gaddafi it could be said weakens it.

The United States is sending warships:

Instead of like Egypt where the USA had no say in the revolution. It looks like the United States wants to have a little investment in Libya.

A lot of Americans are majorly peed off about the release of al-megrahi, could be a factor in this. The conspiracy theorists among us might have further speculation.

All I can say is this Libyan situation is heading towards a fucking disaster. I hope I am wrong. I notice that Fidel was still supporting Ghaddafi along with some other left Latin American leaders and Chavez was "ambiguous".

The way I see it is that these rebellions will lead to a massive NATO operation in Libya. Is that to be desired from a leftist point of view? On the other hand are nations supposed to just watch while people are being bombed by their own "government"?

This situation sucks all round- but I don't really see it as a leftist uprising...

Dilemmas... dilemmas....

I still have no idea what they are rebelling against or for, other than of course ousting a dictatorship. I see no leftist flags etc, and we've not heard form anyone claiming to represent the people, but its on the back of 'pro-democracy' protests so I assume something similar.

Well according to Ghaddafi this is just one big fucking excuse to fuck him over and then NATO etc will get their hands on the oil....

In that case he should just destroy the oil fields, problem solved. In fact everyone should!

BTW, where is the US on the violent crack downs in Iraq, pretty silent huh?

I'm actually suprised those incidents haven't been blamed on 'insurgents' yet, still there's plenty of time for revisionism..

alegab

3rd March 2011, 20:42

Pseudo-socialists and Pseudo-communists are a much bigger threat than all the laissez-faire'ists and traditionalists in the world, if you ask most people what they relate w/ Communism, the first thing they'll say is the USSR and by proxy that s.o.b. of Stalin
And think about this: if in Libya Qaddafi has become associated w/ his Green Book "Socialism", why would they protest w/ leftist flags which they relate to the régime?

Viet Minh

3rd March 2011, 20:57

Agreed. Its possibly because of Cold War propaganda leftists were always on the defensive, and maybe jumped to the defence of the indefensible (however you spell it) or more to the point ideologies that actually weren't leftist, but were conveniently labelled that way by authoritarian regimes or megalomaniacs. of course the capitalists and fascists that were only too glad to behold them as a symbol of all that is wrong with the leftist struggle.

ComradeMan

3rd March 2011, 21:39

Che a chara

4th March 2011, 01:15

This is a bullshit tribal confilct that's been conflagrated into a pro-democracy thing and the West is, in my opinion, stirring it up in order to get rid of their old "enemy" and their hands on the oil....

That was my first impression, but Gadaffi's delusional behaviour and speeches ever since has led me to be a bit sceptical of him and his cronies. There's not much support for him within the Arab/African world by those who would have no real agenda against him. Oil is definitely on the radar though for the West and Gadaffi's head on a stick for being anti-Imperialist and a figure of anti-West sentiment, so there's no doubt they're now playing a role in his demise.

Lt. Ferret

4th March 2011, 04:42

he sold the oil on the open market how is the west going to get their hands on it when it was already available to them?

#FF0000

4th March 2011, 04:53

This is a bullshit tribal confilct that's been conflagrated into a pro-democracy thing and the West is, in my opinion, stirring it up in order to get rid of their old "enemy" and their hands on the oil....

can you uh back up this tribal conflict thing

I'm not saying it's wrong. You're just literally the only person I hear talking about it like this.

Os Cangaceiros

4th March 2011, 04:59

Well according to Ghaddafi this is just one big fucking excuse to fuck him over and then NATO etc will get their hands on the oil....

Ghaddafi also believes that Al-Qaeda is spearheading the entire resistance effort in his country, going so far as to get youth to rebel by slipping powerful hallucinogenic drugs into their drinks. :thumbup1:

Os Cangaceiros

4th March 2011, 05:11

Anyway, in regards to the tribal conflict: Libya's society is defined to a significant degree by the tribes. People's identities and life prospects are largely defined by what tribe they're from, especially in a governmental system that played tribes against each other, like the regime did. I guess it's kind of like a more officially structured version of Somalia and the clan system. So obviously that's going to play some role in how the insurrection or revolution or whatever you want to call it plays out.

However, taking the reductionist line that it's simply a "tribal conflict" that has nothing to do with the unrest taking place in every other country in North Africa is a hard position to argue. Back in November of 2010, Libya was being praised as an oasis of financial stability by Western financial publications, so the idea that somehow this "tribal conflict" sprang into existence coincidentally with movements in Tunisia, Egypt, and Algeria (as well as other Arab nations in the Middle East) seems hard to defend.

TheCultofAbeLincoln

4th March 2011, 15:59

All I can say is this Libyan situation is heading towards a fucking disaster. I hope I am wrong. I notice that Fidel was still supporting Ghaddafi along with some other left Latin American leaders and Chavez was "ambiguous".

The way I see it is that these rebellions will lead to a massive NATO operation in Libya. Is that to be desired from a leftist point of view? On the other hand are nations supposed to just watch while people are being bombed by their own "government"?

This situation sucks all round- but I don't really see it as a leftist uprising...

Dilemmas... dilemmas....

It's obvious what the leftist response will be.

To completely and utterly oppose whatever happens as an absolute failure afterwards--It's not like the left has to face these dilemas comrade. What leftist leader, anywhere, has the power to send aid or militarily intervene if they wanted to?

If NATO intervenes to stop bombings then it's clearly about oil. If they do not intervene, then it is clear that like Darfur or Rwanda, the capitalists do not care about the wholesale slaughter of civilians. Another method alongside this is to wholly incriminate the western media like al Jazeera for essentially inventing all this for TV and to try and get Libyas oil.

Damn comrademan, I would think by now you'd see how your average leftist plays this game.

Whether the military might of the great imperialist power should be used to establish a no fly zone or send aid seems to be the question, and it is quite a conundrum for the left. Luckily we merely comments on these things.

TheCultofAbeLincoln

4th March 2011, 16:02

he sold the oil on the open market how is the west going to get their hands on it when it was already available to them?

Libya did have very high royalties on their oil apparently. Kind of the anti-Nigeria in that regard. The fact that Libya is still a poor country is a very, very justifiable cause for revolution against any leader.

Lt. Ferret

4th March 2011, 16:13

I know Qadaffi moved 5 billion out of some swiss accounts before the Swiss locked it down. How he got 5 Billion out of Libya is really squeezing a rock. He had to go.

#FF0000

4th March 2011, 16:17

It's obvious what the leftist response will be.

To completely and utterly oppose whatever happens as an absolute failure afterwards--It's not like the left has to face these dilemas comrade. What leftist leader, anywhere, has the power to send aid or militarily intervene if they wanted to?

If NATO intervenes to stop bombings then it's clearly about oil. If they do not intervene, then it is clear that like Darfur or Rwanda, the capitalists do not care about the wholesale slaughter of civilians. Another method alongside this is to wholly incriminate the western media like al Jazeera for essentially inventing all this for TV and to try and get Libyas oil.

Damn comrademan, I would think by now you'd see how your average leftist plays this game.

Whether the military might of the great imperialist power should be used to establish a no fly zone or send aid seems to be the question, and it is quite a conundrum for the left. Luckily we merely comments on these things.

i know its hard but sometimes things are v. complex and more complicated than "lol send plains"

ComradeMan

4th March 2011, 17:02

Libya did have very high royalties on their oil apparently. Kind of the anti-Nigeria in that regard. The fact that Libya is still a poor country is a very, very justifiable cause for revolution against any leader.

Libya is not exactly a poor country in African terms. It has some of the highest standards of living, life expectancy and education.

The comparison is of course always with the US and Western Europe (not so much these days)- but one could posit the question- how rich is the US and why and how much of a genuine reflection of democracy and "national achievement" this truly is?

Viet Minh

4th March 2011, 17:46

i know its hard but sometimes things are v. complex and more complicated than "lol send plains"

i lol'd hard at that for some reason :D

Some of the protesters have been flying the flag of the kingdom of libya, and supposedly carry the portrait of the now dead king in protest at the 'Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya' so its a legitimate position for leftists to support gadaffi. Its just a question of time until we find out what sort of revolution this is i suppsoe.

wq11xxx

4th March 2011, 18:00

may be need a little time. I hope so

Viet Minh

4th March 2011, 18:23

I can't make my mind up, I wanted to go to Greece to riot but now there's so much choice! :D

*dragged off by FBI*

TheCultofAbeLincoln

4th March 2011, 23:40

Libya is not exactly a poor country in African terms. It has some of the highest standards of living, life expectancy and education.

The comparison is of course always with the US and Western Europe (not so much these days)- but one could posit the question- how rich is the US and why and how much of a genuine reflection of democracy and "national achievement" this truly is?

Egypt is a wealthy country by African standards. One could compare Libya to the other oil selling autocracies in the Middle East.

i know its hard but sometimes things are v. complex and more complicated than "lol send plains"

I think you missed my point.

#FF0000

4th March 2011, 23:55

I think you missed my point.

I was not in a normal state earlier in the day. I probably did.

RGacky3

5th March 2011, 08:32

he sold the oil on the open market how is the west going to get their hands on it when it was already available to them?

Its not about buying the oil, its about controlling it, and getting them on your terms.

TheCultofAbeLincoln

5th March 2011, 14:04

I was not in a normal state earlier in the day. I probably did.

It's no big, was more of me just ranting anyway.

Che a chara

6th March 2011, 13:03

'No comment' from MoD over SAS men captured in Libya

Details of a UK operation to rebel-held Benghazi in Libya in which eight men - six reportedly SAS - were arrested, have been disclosed to the BBC.

Defence Secretary Liam Fox told the BBC a small diplomatic team was in Benghazi and "they were in touch with them".

The BBC's Jon Leyne said eyewitnesses saw six men in black overalls land in a helicopter near the city early on Friday who were met by two others.

They were later arrested when it was discovered they were carrying weapons.

According to an earlier report in the Sunday Times the unit was trying to put UK diplomats in touch with rebels trying to topple the Gaddafi regime.

In a statement, the MoD said: "We neither confirm nor deny the story and we do not comment on the special forces."

Our correspondent, who is in Benghazi, said the men went to the compound of an agricultural company where they were challenged by Libyan guards and asked if they had weapons.

"Witnesses said that when the men's bags were checked they were found to contain arms, ammunition, explosives, maps and passports from at least four different nationalities.

"The witnesses said at that point all eight men were arrested and taken to an army base in Benghazi where they are being held by the opposition forces who control this area."

Meanwhile, eyewitnesses and rebels say four towns which Libyan forces loyal to Colonel Gaddafi claim to have retaken remain under rebel control.

BBC staff report that Tobruk and Ras Lanuf remain in rebel hands.

Anti-Gaddafi forces still control Misrata and Zawiya, residents and rebels said. But Misrata was reported to be under renewed attack on Sunday.

Routine deployment

Officials in Tripoli said pre-dawn gunfire there was celebrating pro-Gaddafi "gains" of the towns.

Regarding the SAS seizure claims, Geneva-based Human Rights Solidarity group said it was aware that a team of special forces had been seized by Libyan rebels but it did not know which country they were from.

Separately, a group of Dutch special forces was apparently captured by Col Gaddafi's forces in western Libya while trying to assist Dutch nationals evacuate.

Earlier, the MoD confirmed Scottish troops were on standby to assist with humanitarian and evacuation operations in Libya.

Defence Secretary Liam Fox told the BBC the UK had no plans to use British land forces in Libya.

The Black Watch, 3rd Battalion of the Royal Regiment of Scotland, is on a routine deployment notice of 24 hours at an RAF base in Wiltshire.

Former foreign secretary, David Miliband, told the BBC's Andrew Marr show that Libya was going to have to be a "big squeeze rather than a big bump on Gaddafi".

He said they would need to squeeze his oil money, squeeze him politically and also "make sure people know that they have our support".

Questioned about Col Gaddafi's son Saif giving the Ralph Miliband memorial lecture at the LSE last year, he said it was "horrific".

Set up to honour his academic father's memory, he said it had been "horrific to the whole family, obviously".

LINK: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12658054

Legitimate concerns from the SAS about the protesters and their cause or was their presence more sinister, eg. intel on the status and their intentions on the oil etc. .....?

Viet Minh

6th March 2011, 21:34

Anti-Gaddafi fighters are reportedly well-armed and organised

Yeah definitely sounds like a spontaneous grassroots revolution inspired by the Egyptian protests

Bud Struggle

6th March 2011, 21:39

Yeah definitely sounds like a spontaneous grassroots revolution inspired by the Egyptian protests
There are more guns in the Arab world than toothbrushes.

#FF0000

7th March 2011, 00:33

Not to mention parts of the army defected and have been training rebels.

B5C

15th March 2011, 22:45

Guess who wants America too attack and invade Libya?

Watchout for the overly biased article from the Weekly Standard.

Experts Urge Obama to Act on Libya

A bipartisan group of foreign policy experts today sent a letter to President Obama, urging “the United States and its allies [to] stand with the men, women and children of Libya who seek a future of peace and dignity.”

“The situation in Libya in the coming days will not just impact the Libyan people,” the letter states. “As protests continue against repressive regimes around the world, the message currently being conveyed by our inaction is that killing and repression will go unpunished and are the best option for despots seeking to postpone reform.”

“For the sake of our security as well as America’s credibility with people who seek freedom everywhere, we ask you to act as quickly as possible to ensure that the people of Libya – and the world – know that we are willing to back up our principles with action.”

Signatories include Bill Kristol and Bob Kagan, as well as Liz Cheney and Leon Wieseltier. The letter was facilitated by the Foreign Policy Initiative.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/experts-urge-obama-act-libya_554622.html

The Letter:

The Honorable Barack Obama
President of the United States
The White House
Washington, DC

March 15, 2011

Dear President Obama:

Regrettably, the international community has yet to take serious action to prevent a moral and humanitarian catastrophe in Libya and the Libyan opposition is now on the defensive. As forces loyal to Muammar Qaddafi push eastward, we are concerned that the brutal and indiscriminate tactics of government forces could lead to additional civilian casualties.

On Saturday, the Arab League endorsed Libyan opposition calls for a no fly zone. We call on you to urgently institute a no fly zone over key Libyan cities and towns in conjunction with U.S. allies. We also call on you to explore the option of targeted strikes against regime assets in an effort to prevent further bloodshed. The United States should also immediately recognize the Libyan National Transitional Council and take all necessary actions to support their efforts to unseat the Qaddafi regime.

In your inaugural address two years ago, you said this: "And so to all other peoples and governments who are watching today, from the grandest capitals to the small village where my father was born: Know that America is a friend of each nation and every man, woman and child who seeks a future of peace and dignity, and that we are ready to lead once more."

Today the United States and its allies should stand with the men, women and children of Libya who seek a future of peace and dignity. The situation in Libya in the coming days will not just impact the Libyan people. As protests continue against repressive regimes around the world, the message currently being conveyed by our inaction is that killing and repression will go unpunished and are the best option for despots seeking to postpone reform.

For the sake of our security as well as America's credibility with people who seek freedom everywhere, we ask you to act as quickly as possible to ensure that the people of Libya – and the world – know that we are willing to back up our principles with action.

Sincerely, Stephen E. Biegun
Max Boot
Ellen Bork
Paul Bremer
Scott Carpenter
Elizabeth Cheney
Eliot Cohen
Seth Cropsey
Thomas Donnelly
Michele Dunne
Eric Edelman
Jamie Fly
Reuel Marc Gerecht
William Inboden
Bruce Pitcairn Jackson
Ash Jain
Robert Kagan
David Kramer
Irina Krasovskaya
William Kristol
Tod Lindberg
Ann Marlowe
Cliff May
Joshua Muravchik
Michael O'Hanlon
Martin Peretz
Danielle Pletka
John Podhoretz
Randy Scheunemann
Gary J. Schmitt
Dan Senor
William Taft
Marc Thiessen
Daniel Twining
Ken Weinstein
Leon Wieseltier
Rich Williamson
Damon Wilson

Interesting that Dick Cheney's daughter Liz is a signatory of the letter.

pranabjyoti

16th March 2011, 02:15

I am curious from where the rebels have been supplied with arms and in such a huge quantity. While the revolutionary struggles around the world is just gasping for arms.

Viet Minh

16th March 2011, 08:16

I am curious from where the rebels have been supplied with arms and in such a huge quantity. While the revolutionary struggles around the world is just gasping for arms.

My guess is China, its always China. They don't seem to have much though, they're almost completely defeated now I think.

pranabjyoti

17th March 2011, 01:45

My guess is China, its always China. They don't seem to have much though, they're almost completely defeated now I think.
If they are now defeated with so much international support and arms, I doubt that they have little popular support behind them. In India, revolutionary struggle is going on with much much less arms and there is no question of any kind foreign support other than small organizations who can do nothing more than stray demonstrations with very few protesters.

B5C

17th March 2011, 03:58

My guess is China, its always China. They don't seem to have much though, they're almost completely defeated now I think.

Actually it's no one. The rebels got most of their weapons from the bases they took over or loyalists who deserted.

IF they are supplied we would have seen better fighting from the rebels, but we have not.

Viet Minh

17th March 2011, 07:32

What they need is Tunisa and Egypt to hurry tfu and take control of their armies and roll into Libya.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DQD-X9G9xfk

B5C

17th March 2011, 17:41

Looks like the United States will be at a state of war with Libya.

US gets set for air-sea strikes on Qaddafi's forces

Shortly before she left Egypt for Tunis Wednesday, March 16, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton urgently asked the head of Egypt's military junta Field Marshal Mohammed Tantawi for permission to use Egyptian air bases for American military jets to enforce a no-fly zone over Libya. This is reported exclusively by debkafile's military and Washington sources.
Clinton told Tantawi she hoped for UN Security Council approval of the no-fly zone at its special session Thursday March 17. But this might not be enough to stop Muammar Qaddafi's advance and the US might have to resort to military action against his army. She did not elaborate on this. In Tunis, she said later that a UN no-fly zone over Libya would require the bombing of targets to take out the threat posed by Muammar Qaddafi's regime.

debkafile's sources say the White House is weighing the option of US aerial strikes for halting Qaddafi's march on Benghazi, Libya's second largest city and the primary rebel stronghold. The point of this action would be less to preserve rebel control of the city and more to keep Qaddafi from proclaiming his victory over the opposition to his rule and its foreign champions.
Another part of the plan under consideration in Washington would entail strikes against Qaddafi's government and military centers in Tripoli, the capital.
Tantawi promised Clinton to convene the Supreme Military Council Thursday before the Security Council session and inform her of its decision before she flies out of the Middle East.

According to our Washington sources, the Pentagon proposes to use the big Egyptian air base at El Mansoura in the Nile Delta for enforcing the no-fly zone and launching air attacks on Libya.

The Obama administration's U-turn on direct military intervention in Libya was discernable early Thursday morning (Wednesday night Washington time) in the remarks of America's UN Ambassador Susan Rice:
She said: "The US view is that we need to be prepared to contemplate steps that include, but perhaps go beyond, a no-fly zone, at this point, as the situation on the ground has evolved and as a no-fly zone has inherent limitations in terms of protection of civilians at immediate risk."

By "the situation on the ground," she was referring to Qaddafi's three army columns, reinforced with thousands of fighters from the Warefla tribal federation, which are rapidly advancing on Benghazi.

debkafile's military sources report that the Saadi and Khamis brigades, the latter being the 32nd Libyan Brigade most of whose troops move in APCs, are approaching the last rebel stronghold.
They are backed by an artillery brigade and a tank brigade. From the west, Libyan missile ships have blockaded Benghazi.
Our sources add that Libyan army units based in Benghazi went into action ahead of the main body's arrival. Those troops were caught by the onset of the Libyan uprising on Feb. 15 in rebel-held territory. They stood by and waited for Qaddafi's orders to go into battle.
Another sign of President Obama's strong inclination to undertake military action beyond a no-fly zone came from the deployment Monday, March 14 of the nuclear attack submarine USS Providence off the Libyan coast.

In the past decade, this submarine has often been called in to support US missile attacks, usually with Tomahawk, whether in 2003 in Iraq or in Afghanistan.

The US fleet present off the Libyan coast includes also the marine assault ship USS Kearsarge, which is a helicopter carrier; the Marine Amphibious Transport Docks vessel and the missile destroyers USS Barry, USS Ponce and USS Mason.
The American aircraft carrier USS Enterprise, now near the Red Sea, could also be called in for an American missile attack on Libya.

http://www.debka.com/article/20772/

TheCultofAbeLincoln

17th March 2011, 20:44

B5C

17th March 2011, 21:33

While nothing is "off the table" regarding US action in Libya, Defense Sec Gates pretty much killed the notion of a no-fly zone in recent interviews. Either way, it appears more and more that any western action will be too little too late to save the rebels. Hopefully, I'm wrong, but it's hard not to say the momentum is with Qaddafi forces.

Well....

France pushes U.N. council to vote on help for Libya

(Reuters) - France pressed the U.N. Security Council to vote on Thursday on a resolution that Britain said would authorise all steps in Libya short of a military occupation to protect Libyan civilians.

French Foreign Minister Alain Juppe headed for New York to urge the 15-nation council not to waste any time adopting a resolution that would authorise a no-fly zone, expanded sanctions against Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi and his inner circle and other steps.

The United States said a vote would likely be taken at 3:30 p.m. EDT (7:30 p.m. British time). French U.N. Ambassador Gerard Araud earlier said he wanted a vote by 6 p.m. EDT (10 p.m. British time).

Lebanon, Britain and France circulated a draft resolution on Tuesday that called for "all necessary measures" to enforce a ban on all flights over Libya except for humanitarian flights and to protect civilians.

The United States, in a sharp shift in tone, wants the United Nations to authorise not just a no-fly zone to aid Libyan rebels but also air strikes against Libyan tanks and heavy artillery, U.S. officials said.
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2011/03/17/uk-libya-un-idUKTRE72G5LU20110317?feedType=RSS&feedName=everything&virtualBrandChannel=11708

Looks like USA, France, UK, Lebanon, and UAE is ready to fight Libya.

B5C

18th March 2011, 00:53

Updates: UN Resolution passes.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2011/03/airstrikes_on_libya_could_comm.html

UK, USA, France and other UN nations will be at war with Libya.

Bud Struggle

18th March 2011, 01:27

The US should mind it's own business. Who cares who wins--it's not like it's a Proletarian struggle going on there. ;)

RGacky3

18th March 2011, 08:48

I relaly hope the US minds its own buisiness here, but as of now, I'm pro a no-fly zone.

I think the rebels shoul have taken Gaddaffis deal personally, let him get a golden parachute, its better than whats happening now.

TheCultofAbeLincoln

18th March 2011, 17:24

I am for a no fly zone as long as it's not solely the US there.

#FF0000

18th March 2011, 18:02

UN or US involvement wouldn't fix anything. Foreign intervention in these conflicts rarely fix anything. They just add another dimension to it.

danyboy27

18th March 2011, 18:11

i got the strange feeling that this is gonna end up with 2 countries, western libya and eastern libya.

Viet Minh

18th March 2011, 19:20

As soon as Egpyt sorts out their own dictator they should help the rebels.

ComradeMan

19th March 2011, 12:52

So now they are discussing whether to use Italian bases (US) to launch "no fly enforcement" patrols over Libya. A lot of people here have a bad feeling aboutt this and the possible consequences.

Viet Minh

19th March 2011, 15:32

So now they are discussing whether to use Italian bases (US) to launch "no fly enforcement" patrols over Libya. A lot of people here have a bad feeling aboutt this and the possible consequences.

Deja vu! :(

Che a chara

19th March 2011, 18:38

Imperialist scum need to stay the fuck out. I support a 'no fly zone', but no military action. if there is any intervention it should be from African leaders/African Union for a peaceful resolution and failing that a more assertive approach from the African leaders and as a last resort the suits from the UN should then try the same peaceful and then aggressive methods (not necessarily military).

Che a chara

19th March 2011, 18:57

David Cameron has said that British warplanes are on route to take action against Qadaffi.

I was watching the BBC politics programme 'Question Time' on Thursday and the audience got to ask a Conservative politician will Britain also be sending troops in to Saudi Arabia and Bahrain because of their crackdowns and attacks on protesters, of course she was very evasive about answering, but she was in full support for sending troops into Libya. I think that says it all about whose interests are being protected in these conflicts.

Devrim

19th March 2011, 18:58

Imperialist scum need to stay the fuck out. I support a 'no fly zone', but no military action.

A 'no fly zone' means military action. It doesn't just mean shooting down planes that are going to bomb people, but attacking the relevant infrastructure, airbases, radar systems, etc, and the obvious 'collateral damage that this involves'.

Devrim

Che a chara

19th March 2011, 19:09

A 'no fly zone' means military action. It doesn't just mean shooting down planes that are going to bomb people, but attacking the relevant infrastructure, airbases, radar systems, etc, and the obvious 'collateral damage that this involves'.

Devrim

I thought it meant planes being deployed by the UN/NATO to 'man' the skies but not engaging .....

Viet Minh

19th March 2011, 19:12

I think it just means if Gaddafi orders airstrikes on the rebels the UN will intervene, not sure though..

Devrim

19th March 2011, 19:15

I thought it meant planes being deployed by the UN/NATO to 'man' the skies but not engaging .....

No, you start by making it safe for you to enforce it, which mean bombing the enemies radar stations.

Devrim

Viet Minh

19th March 2011, 19:17

No, you start by making it safe for you to enforce it, which mean bombing the enemies radar stations.

Devrim

The Iraqi no fly zones (ordered by the US and UK and France) weren't actual bombing raids as such, just a warning to Iraq not to attack the Kurdish or Shia regions with aircraft.

Che a chara

19th March 2011, 19:18

I think it just means if Gaddafi orders airstrikes on the rebels the UN will intervene, not sure though..

that would have been my impression too, except that the planes would block or crowd the surrounding skies without engaging in any military action ..... as a deterrent like.

Devrim

19th March 2011, 19:35

The Iraqi no fly zones (ordered by the US and UK and France) weren't actual bombing raids as such, just a warning to Iraq not to attack the Kurdish or Shia regions with aircraft.

That is not how I remember it:

In the aftermath of Operation Desert Fox during December 1998, Iraq announced it would no longer respect the no-fly zones and resumed its efforts in shooting down Allied aircraft. Saddam Hussein offered a $14,000 reward to anyone who could accomplish this task, but no manned aircraft were ever shot down by Iraq. Air strikes by the British and Americans against Iraqi claimed anti-aircraft and military targets continued weekly over the next few years. In the early 2000s, the U.S. developed a contingency plan, Operation Desert Badger for dealing with pilots shot down over Iraqi no-fly zones.
The operation continued until it transitioned to Operation Southern Focus in June 2002. They began to carry out offensive sorties, not only against targets that had fired on them, but upon installations that had demonstrated no hostile intent. The US claimed that these increased attacks were the result of increasing Iraqi provocations, but later, in July 2005, the British Ministry of Defense released figures showing that the number of provocations had actually dropped dramatically prior to and just after the increase in allied attacks. Their records indicate that in the first seven months of 2001, there had been 370 provocations on the part of Iraq. In the seven months from Oct. 2001 into May 2002, only 32 such provocations were recorded.[6] General Tommy Franks later acknowledged that the dramatic increase in offensive sorties was an attempt to destroy the Iraqi defenses in much the same way as the air strikes at the beginning of the Gulf War had.[7] These US and British operations had the (apparently intended) effect of reducing Iraqi ability to counter air strikes prior to the 2003 invasion of Iraq.[8])

Devrim

Viet Minh

19th March 2011, 19:51

That is not how I remember it:

Devrim

Sorry I didn't research very far into that. I remember now I read an article when I was younger from a journalist who went to Iraq in that period. The journalist visited a former school that was used as a bomb shelter, and there were physical imprints of children who were killed by US airstrikes, it had a profound effect on me hearing that.

Devrim

19th March 2011, 20:15

From today's English language press:

An American official said that the US intended to limit its involvement to protecting allied air missions by taking out Libyan air defences with missile strikes launched from US Navy ships stationed in the Mediterranean. Six Danish F-16 fighter jets landed at a US air base in Sicily, while Canadian CF-18 Hornets were also in the region.

Devrim

B5C

20th March 2011, 00:44

Too quote one of my favorite characters on Babylon 5: Ambassardor Kosh

"The avalanche has begun. It is too late for the pebbles to vote."
http://abcnews.go.com/International/libya-international-military-coalition-launch-assault-gadhafi-forces/story?id=13174246

This is what happened now. There is no way to turn back. The west has stepped into this minefield. More deaths of civilians and others WILL happen. We all thought the death toll is big now. Wait for a few weeks and see what happens.

bX7V6FAoTLc

BTW:
How ironic:
MARCH 19, 2011
OBAMA: 'Today we are part of a broad coalition. We are answering the calls of a threatened people. And we are acting in the interests of the United States and the world'...

MARCH 19, 2003
BUSH: 'American and coalition forces are in the early stages of military operations to disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger...

Sinister Cultural Marxist

20th March 2011, 00:52

If they are now defeated with so much international support and arms, I doubt that they have little popular support behind them. In India, revolutionary struggle is going on with much much less arms and there is no question of any kind foreign support other than small organizations who can do nothing more than stray demonstrations with very few protesters.

Different terrain. The Maoists in India, for instance, survive in the jungles, not the desert. If the Maoists were righting in the desert, they would be crushed by the several thousand tanks of the Indian army, much as Libya's t-72 tanks were able to wipe out the Technical jeeps and AA gun the rebels were using, thanks to their superior armor. But the Maoist people's war is being fought in thick terrain, with many more places to hide, in a far larger area (most of the fighting in Libya is contained along a contained front too, meaning theres little opportunity for guerrilla war)

I am curious from where the rebels have been supplied with arms and in such a huge quantity. While the revolutionary struggles around the world is just gasping for arms.

Easy, they seized Libyan Arms depots. All of their weapons were old Soviet guns the Libyan government bought, or AK 47s lying around the country (much like Iraq-the insurgents there also used the weapons of Saddam's army, as well as the Kalashnikovs lying around)

Che a chara

20th March 2011, 02:24

It stinks to high heavens that the "international community" are very selective of what UN resolutions should be upheld and which nations can get away with slaughter of innocent civilians :rolleyes:

Che a chara

20th March 2011, 02:25

Gadaffi forces claiming they downed two NATO planes. probably bullshit though.

Che a chara

20th March 2011, 05:14

Gadhafi allies blast attacks on Libya
CBC News Posted: Mar 19, 2011 11:37 PM ET Last Updated: Mar 19, 2011 11:44 PM ET

http://www.cbc.ca/gfx/images/news/topstories/2011/03/19/li-ghadafi-chavez-620.jpg
Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi (left)and Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez in September 2009: Chavez has criticized the air attacks on Libya. ((Fernando Llano/Associated Press) )

Venezuela, Russia and the African Union are among the countries and organizations to come out against the Western attacks in Libya.

Britain, France and the United States launched strikes Saturday against Libya's air defence to help enforce the no-fly order approved by the United Nations and to protect Libyan civilians, the Pentagon said.

But Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez condemned the strikes, claiming the attackers just want Libya's oil.

Chavez, who is close to Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi and sharply critical of the U.S., said "they want to seize Libya's oil. The lives of Libya's people don't matter to them at all."

Cuba's Fidel Castro and Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega, allies of Venezuela, backed Chavez.

Russia expressed regret over the attacks, saying the UN Security Council Resolution that authorized the no-fly order was "adopted in haste."

The African Union opposed the military action. It plans to send a delegation to the Libyan capital of Tripoli on Sunday.

Libya said Saturday the attacks rendered the UN no-fly resolution invalid. It asked for an urgent meeting of the Security Council "after the French-American-British aggression against Libya, an independent state member of the United Nations."

Canada is supporting the attacks to protect innocent Libyan civilians, Prime Minister Stephen Harper said Saturday.

LINK: http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2011/03/19/libya-attack-world-reaction.html

Che a chara

20th March 2011, 05:17

Hugo Chavez:

"We know what is going to happen: bombs, bombs, war, more suffering for the people ... this is the hand of capitalism," the socialist leader added. (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/2011/03/19/2011-03-19_khadafy_spokesperson_calls_attacks_barbaric_agg ression_venezuelas_hugo_chavez_sl.html?r=news)

B5C

20th March 2011, 06:08

Isn't interesting that Socialist authoritarian leaders are sticking together with other socialist authoritarian leaders.

RGacky3

20th March 2011, 10:52

Its politics and power play, the same way the US supports Mubarak and the Saudis.

Dimmu

20th March 2011, 10:54

I am not suprised that Libya was struck.. They had a population that was fighting a civil-war, weak military and most importantly they have black gold.

Libiya is just a battleground for the foreign leaders to boost their ratings.

RGacky3

20th March 2011, 11:08

ComradeMan

20th March 2011, 11:35

Although I agree with Chavez that the western powers are jockeying for control of that oil, I'm kind of ashamed that he's support Gadaffi, support revolution, I thought you were for the people Chavez.

This "revolution" is not about giving power to the people etc. A civil war has flared up and some are using it as an excuse to get rid of Gaddafi and impose their control over rich reserves of North African oil. Chavez is right and Fidel's analysis wasn't far off either.

I ask this, for example; the next time there are riots in the French banlieues and the French police go in with riot gear to put down the "revolt"- does this give other countries the right to intervene militarily?

This is not a good situation and I have a bad feeling it could escalate. Gaddaffi was this and Gaddaffi was that--- how come only now, after buying his oil for a good while is it important to have democracy in Libya and all the normal rhetoric and bullshit?

RGacky3

20th March 2011, 11:55

A civil war has flared up and some are using it as an excuse to get rid of Gaddafi and impose their control over rich reserves of North African oil. Chavez is right and Fidel's analysis wasn't far off either.

Absolutely, but Chavez and Fidel should be against Gaddafi and the western powers and be pro the people of Lybia.

I ask this, for example; the next time there are riots in the French banlieues and the French police go in with riot gear to put down the "revolt"- does this give other countries the right to intervene militarily?

No, and I'm against military intervention, the only thing I call for is a no fly zone, which is already clear is gonna be broken by the west.

This is not a good situation and I have a bad feeling it could escalate. Gaddaffi was this and Gaddaffi was that--- how come only now, after buying his oil for a good while is it important to have democracy in Libya and all the normal rhetoric and bullshit?

ITs just typical really.

ComradeMan

20th March 2011, 12:11

Seeing as I was restricted here for proposing a slow withdrawl from Afghanistan I find it ironic that people are supporting aggression against a sovereign nation involved in an internal conflict. :rolleyes:

This is a disaster- the pro-Ghaddafi part of Libya will now look at the rebels not only as rebels but as traitors supporting aggression against Libya. This is a civil war for goodness sakes- there are two sides in this. The fact that Russia and China are "nervous" about this does not bode well.

As usual, the real victims of this will be the ordinary people on the ground.

Gacky, there is no way you can enforce a no-fly zone over a sovereign nation without military intervention.

It's funny- how come there's no "no fly zone" over the Gaza strip and the West Bank?:rolleyes:

The hypocrisy stinks and the human cost will be very high. The Mediterranean War looms....

Viet Minh

20th March 2011, 12:29

Gaddaffi has a huge amount of support, and considering some of his international support this could get very very messy. Not to mention the power structure in the country is almost perfectly set up to become a series of 'terrorist' cells, as happened after the fall of Iraq. And lets not forget either Gaddaffis alleged involvement in previous terrorist attacks. Bad move guys

RGacky3

20th March 2011, 12:32

It's funny- how come there's no "no fly zone" over the Gaza strip and the West Bank?:rolleyes:

I would support that too.

Gacky, there is no way you can enforce a no-fly zone over a sovereign nation without military intervention.

Its not the same thing, a UN no-fly zone, is in a way military intervention, but its not trying to control anything perse.

This is a disaster- the pro-Ghaddafi part of Libya will now look at the rebels not only as rebels but as traitors supporting aggression against Libya. This is a civil war for goodness sakes- there are two sides in this. The fact that Russia and China are "nervous" about this does not bode well.

So what do you suggest? Just leg Ghaddafi run around and murder his citizens?

RGacky3

20th March 2011, 12:33

If Mubarak was exactly the same, except he was anti-American, and friends with Fidel and he had a funkier way of dressing he'd be the same as Ghaddafi.

Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk

20th March 2011, 12:47

the no fly zone is an invitation to an all out war. welcome imperialism, feel free to drop bombs all over. oh you wiped 150 people last night in a civilian area? never mind, we need a regime change, we'll just tell the people that this is a humanitarian effort. after the carnage, we will laugh our way to the bank with our new oil profits and puppet regime.

RGacky3

20th March 2011, 12:54

You do realize that the bombs dropped on civilians so far hhave been by Ghadaffi right?

Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk

20th March 2011, 13:11

You do realize that the bombs dropped on civilians so far hhave been by Ghadaffi right?

no i don't realise that, because its not true. just seen another report of 40 dead at the hands of us bombers this time. all hail ombomber and his great humanitarian efforts.

punisa

20th March 2011, 13:27

I'm ashamed how stupid we leftists really are... We actually bought the crap served to us by the propaganda :(
It is us who now demand a no-fly zone sponsored by the imperialist west?? Sad day for socialists.

t.shonku

20th March 2011, 13:41

At first they said it is going to be a no-fly zone, then why the hell are they attacking ground vehicle?

It's all about oil !

But Gaddafi is no pushover so this ain't gonna be a picnic for NATO, Gaddafi is cunning and determined .

PhoenixAsh

20th March 2011, 13:41

Absolutely, but Chavez and Fidel should be against Gaddafi and the western powers and be pro the people of Lybia.

But which ones? The country is split....and one one hand we have a crazy dictator and on the other unknown groups of rebels from various classes intermingled with tribalism and ancien regime who have turned on black people.

t.shonku

20th March 2011, 13:47

But which ones? The country is split....and one one hand we have a crazy dictator and on the other unknown groups of rebels from various classes intermingled with tribalism and ancien regime who have turned on black people.

Totally agree with u

Dropping bombs simply won't help any one, this will turn Libya into a Al-Qaida breeding ground in future

West must be careful for what it's wishing

brigadista

20th March 2011, 13:54

punisa

20th March 2011, 15:19

ComradeMan

20th March 2011, 15:24

Viet Minh

20th March 2011, 15:57

It's funny how the media aren't really talking about what the rebels have been doing, or does no one care about the Africans who were caught in the conflict? Or would it look bad? Or would it make Gaddaffi seem not so bad afterall? (I'm not saying he's a particularly nice guy but who is....?)

At the moment they're on the defensive it seems, the way I understand it is there were initially peaceful demonstrations, which the Libyan forces attacked forcefully, and this rapdily descended into actual pitched battles, and now the rebels have been chased back to Benghazi.

Viet Minh

20th March 2011, 16:00

Its pretty amazing that this whole thing started from one man standing up to the authorities in Tunisia, maybe there's hope for humanity

Che a chara

20th March 2011, 16:15

Is there any credible reports or definite confirmation of these western imperialist attacks killing civilians ?. I just see 'From Libyan sources'.

Last night at the press conference members of the media asked the Libyan government spokesman to be taken to the hospitals to witness the causalities and destruction, and he denied access. The pro-Gadaffi regime has now released a video showing one injured man in the hospital and that's all. Not that i believe or disbelieve, either way it would be good for Red Cross to get access for confirmation, but I also hear that the pro-Gadaffi regime will not allow them to access certain areas.

Che a chara

20th March 2011, 16:55

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/20/us-libya-idUSTRE7270JP20110320:

Mullen said he had seen no reports of civilian casualties from the Western strikes. But Russia said there had been such casualties and called on Britain, France and the United States to halt the "non-selective use of force."

A Libyan government health official said the death toll from the Western air strikes had risen to 64 on Sunday after some of the wounded died. But it was impossible to independently verify the reports as government minders refused to take Western reporters in the capital Tripoli to the site of the bombings.

Russia says Western strikes kill Libyan civilians

MOSCOW | Sun Mar 20, 2011 9:39am EDT
(Reuters) - Russia called on Britain, France and the United States Sunday to stop air strikes against what it said were non-military targets in Libya, saying the attacks had caused civilian casualties.

"In that respect we call on countries involved to stop the non-selective use of force," Foreign Ministry spokesman Alexander Lukashevich said in a statement.

Lukashevich said 48 civilians were reported to have been killed and 150 wounded in the air strikes, figures that matched those given early Sunday by Libyan state TV. He said strikes had destroyed a medical facility, roads and bridges.

The Western countries say they hit only military targets, including air defenses and tanks that were threatening the eastern city of Benghazi.

"We believe a mandate given by the U.N. Security Council resolution -- a controversial move in itself -- should not be used to achieve goals outside its provisions which only see measures necessary to protect civilian population," Lukashevich said.

Russia abstained during a U.N. Security Council vote which authorized a no-fly zone over Libya and "all necessary measures" to protect civilians against leader Muammar Gaddafi's forces.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/20/us-russia-libya-statement-idUSTRE72J27320110320

t.shonku

20th March 2011, 19:00

the armies of the west are merceneries employed by oil companies to protect the financial interests of the oil companies with interests in Libya. Where capital is concerned people don't matter except to be exploited for the companies profit - this has nothing to do with humanitarian interests - here comes another Iraq...shameful

Well said !

That is exactly the case.

USA lectures everyone about democracy and freedom and yet Latinos living in US face discrimination everyday, Latinos are locked down in concentration camp like prisons, Black peoples are still lynched in southern states( I saw the pics in this forum's discrimination section).

One of USA's best friend India kills Dalits,Kashmiris and Tribals by using lethal military force and yet USA considers India to be a champion of Democracy .

Another US partner UK killed thousands of Irish people and yet US cheers for UK, Israel kills so many innocent Palestinians and US still calls Israel a democracy.

USA and it's allies are two faced !

At first the Libyan rebels seemed to be a rag tag but now it seems that they are getting outside help ! But let me tell you guys an important thing this war ain't gonna be easy, the outcome may disappoint USA because Gaddafi may destroy oil deposits before he dies and distribute weapons to civilians

Sinister Cultural Marxist

20th March 2011, 19:08

In a way tshonku is right about it working against America and the UK. If this is all an imperialist plot, it was a poorly conceived one.

(1) Gaddafi had started to liberalize his economy.

(2) There is strong anti-American and anti-European sentiment amongst a large section of the rebels

(3) There's no way to protect the oil machinery, especially because Gaddafi won't cry over causing an environmental catastrophe (granted, this might work in the "Allies" favor in the long term by forcing them to find outside investors, but the new government could go to other countries like China, Russia etc).

(4) There could be a nasty civil war afterwards if there is no reconciliation with the pro-Gaddafi section of the population.

(5) There's no indication Gaddafi will go down without a fight

Perhaps this is why Obama didn't jump on board right away (neocons in America accused him of "dithering," because the American right has a serious boner for bombing countries in the Middle East). Many of Obama's advisers have come out saying Gaddafi could still win this even!

brigadista

20th March 2011, 19:31

it could also be that they want to protect business interests in the region by sending an implied message to anyone else in the region that this is what they will do if you rise up against their oppressors/dictators who make deals with western companies about leading to use and exploitation of workers and resources..

RGacky3

20th March 2011, 21:19

brigadista

20th March 2011, 21:43

What????? Did you need read? Gaddafi was "libralizing" the economy.

did you read the words "could" in my post? as its unfolding now its getting very sinister ...

khad

20th March 2011, 22:17

What????? Did you need read? Gaddafi was "libralizing" the economy.
The user STD has done nothing but misrepresent the issues with his shameless cheerleading for imperialism.

It's a lot more complicated than just "libralizing" (sic). You can trust that whatever oil deals that come in the future will be much less favorable to Libyans.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/resource-nationalism-understanding-t151783/index.html?p=2053142#post2053142

Gaddafi: the unreliable ally

Despite his old age, however, Gaddafi stubbornly refused to die and remained active in politics. In 2008, Gaddafi proposed a radical restructuring of the government and economy. Claiming that the state-run economy had failed to adequately distribute the nation's oil wealth, he proposed that almost all the functions of the government be privatized, including education and health care. In place of the welfare system of state employment, Gaddafi proposed that the nation's oil wealth be transferred directly "to the people" in the form of cash payments of $4000 a month. The plan was bizarre, to say the least. Half Tea Party libertarian, half utopian socialist. Few in the Libyan government took the proposal seriously, dismissing Gaddafi as a leader who likes to play philosopher-king. Capitalists also feared that the program would lead to runaway inflation if implemented.

Gaddafi's strange brand economic populism, however, was not the only source of frustration for the capitalists. Rising oil prices in recent years prompted the Libyan government to tighten the screws on foreign companies operating in the country. One of the Wikileaks cables described the situation:

"There is a growing concern [among international oil companies] that [the Libyan state-run oil company], emboldened by soaring oil prices and the press of would-be suitors, will seek better terms on both concession and production-sharing agreements, even those signed very recently. -- Libyan labor laws have also been amended to 'Libyanize' the economy in several key sectors, and [international oil companies] are now being forced to hire untrained Libyan employees."

One case example was a deal with the multinational Italian oil company Eni, which the Libyans renegotiated on terms that were much more favorable to the Libyan government and would cut into Eni's profits considerably. Another Wikileaks cable discussed the matter:

"Representatives of international oil companies (IOCs) operating in Libya have expressed grave doubts about the Eni deal. One executive described it as 'scary,' adding that it raised serious questions about [the Libyan government's] adherence to the sanctity of existing contracts."

In addition to "resource nationalism," Gaddafi began to promote Pan-Africanism in his capacity as leader of the African Union. He resisted attempts by French president Sarkozy to establish a "Mediterranean Union," saying that the European Union should deal on equal terms with the African Union and the Arab League rather than trying to peel off North Africa from alliances with their southern neighbors.

In one private meeting between Libyan and French diplomats, the Libyans reportedly said, "We are not one of your African countries you can boss around."

Some have wondered: why are the French and the U.S. bombing Libya but not bombing Bahrain? This is your answer.

The government and business community in Bahrain have been loyal servants of international capitalism. As Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Mike Mullen recently said on television, "The Bahrainis and that country has been a critical ally for decades." Gaddafi, despite his quixotic adoption of neo-liberal ideology, has proven to be an unpredictable and unreliable ally. It seemed the United States and France were willing to tolerate him until they could install his son Saif, but the uprisings in Eastern Libya have provided the pretext to move in militarily and put Libya on the fast track to full-blown exploitation by international capital.

Che a chara

21st March 2011, 00:13

Che a chara

21st March 2011, 00:35

Another thing that the US needs to take responsibility for is the number of orphans, homeless and refugees that result from their actions in these immoral attacks, not only in Libya, but worldwide. It's very clear that when the US goes into murder mode, they don't get the democratic support from the citizens or from elements within the governments from who they bomb. Why don't these victims be given legal immigrant status ?

I remember watching in anger when video footage was released of US and British troops paying off family members of innocent civilians they killed in air strikes and sniper attacks in Afghanistan. A couple of thousand dollars was all they got and a half assed apology as the families sat in absolute heartbreak.

Lt. Ferret

21st March 2011, 01:05

al jazeera reported that there was a funeral of a 3 month/year old (wasn't too sure which age was said) child took place today and the child's body was recovered from were the US led attacks hit in and around buildings and compounds destroyed. child murdering bastards.

your IRA thugs killed a lot more children than that, and on purpose.

48 dead civilians isnt bad when America alone launched 114 missiles against Libyan military targets, not to mention French and British strikes. Thats less than a death per two missiles. Maybe Libya is putting it's military hardware inside civilian areas? Get away from the military gear.

EspirituDeAmaru

21st March 2011, 01:17

Now libyans are making Human shields throughout the capital in Tripoli. The Arab league along with Russia and China have now condemned the attacks and are calling the military actions unjustifiable resulting from the civilian casualties. I am back and forth with this guy Quaddafi. I mean he has some human rights violations but I dont think are as bad as the other Arab revolts which are clearly being avoided in the Media. Europe Imports most of its Oil from Libya, the paradox is that the west and libya have made amends in recent years. I guess these efforts did not go far enough and now urgent action is needed to take control of those vital ports and oil reserves. There is no "regime alteration" or diplomatic discussion as seen in other arab states but outright military intervention. With no end in sight what can happen. I for sure know whatever comes of this I know the countries bombing libya will not stop until Quaddafi is ousted and a power vacuum erupts.

Before I look online..does anyone know Italy's stance on this?

Che a chara

21st March 2011, 01:17

your IRA thugs killed a lot more children than that, and on purpose.

Are you really trying to imply that the IRA has killed more children than the US military terrorists ever have ? Have you any proof for your ludicrous claim that they targeted children on purpose ? Are you even able to provide me with the numbers of children killed by Irish republican volunteers or are you just trying to excuse and compare billion dollar state terrorism to justified urban warfare and divert attention away from the topic at hand ?

48 dead civilians isnt bad when America alone launched 114 missiles against Libyan military targets, not to mention French and British strikes. Thats less than a death per two missiles. Maybe Libya is putting it's military hardware inside civilian areas? Get away from the military gear.

Cold blooded scumbag.

Lt. Ferret

21st March 2011, 01:25

Are you really trying to imply that the IRA has killed more children than the US military terrorists ever have ? Have you any proof for your ludicrous claim that they targeted children on purpose ? Are you even able to provide me with the numbers of children killed by Irish republican volunteers or are you just trying to excuse and compare billion dollar state terrorism to justified urban warfare and divert attention away from the topic at hand ?

Cold blooded scumbag.

It's a war. are you decrying Qaddafi's use of military hardware on protestors? his claims of no mercy for the soon to be defeated rebels? That will result in a massacre. Qaddafi is a cold blooded murderer. Not the West, the West voted in the United Nations for this, it has near worldwide support. They are imposing a no-fly zone which will eliminate Qaddafi's air threat. They are doing this by destroying military targets in his anti-air network. Makes perfect sense to me.

and yes, the IRA were nationalist scumbag murderers of innocent children.

http://www.childrenofireland.us/childrenkilled.htm

And of course they tolerated pedophiles.

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/opinion/letters/ira-meted-out-abuse-to-children-over-decades-14610016.html

Che a chara

21st March 2011, 01:46

It's a war. are you decrying Qaddafi's use of military hardware on protestors? his claims of no mercy for the soon to be defeated rebels? That will result in a massacre. Qaddafi is a cold blooded murderer. Not the West, the West voted in the United Nations for this, it has near worldwide support. They are imposing a no-fly zone which will eliminate Qaddafi's air threat. They are doing this by destroying military targets in his anti-air network. Makes perfect sense to me.

A war ? even I wouldn't use that excuse for the child deaths in Ireland/6 Counties by the IRA or INLA or whoever. what a disgraceful comment. The African Union and the Arab league have the legitimacy to sort it out, not the 'West' who have their eyes on black gold. You must be painfully aware of the human rights abuses and slaughters of innocents carried out by the West in their previous campaigns of terror, so I think it's very hypocritical of you to label Qadaffi as a cold blooded killer and that the end result would have been a massacre as already we have seen civilians killed and infrastructure bombed.

and yes, the IRA were nationalist scumbag murderers of innocent children.

http://www.childrenofireland.us/childrenkilled.htm

These were NOT deliberate but the same can't be said for the children killed by your allies in the British Army or your US colleagues who use collateral damage as a tactic.

And of course they tolerated pedophiles.

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/opinion/letters/ira-meted-out-abuse-to-children-over-decades-14610016.html

Eh ? you're using a letter by an obvious disgruntled newspaper reader as proof of what ? Anyway, it only mentions about Gerry Adams' father who abused his daughter. I only know of one other case of paedhophila from within Irish republicanism, and that is an ongoing case in courts. Paedos were not tolerated, they have in fact been targets for punishment attacks and executed in the past. I don't know what you were trying to prove by linking to a letter sent into a newspaper by an unknown resident who for all we know has an agenda. :Confused:

Lt. Ferret

21st March 2011, 02:05

Che a chara

21st March 2011, 02:15

If the Arab League or the African Union could have or wanted to solve this issue, it would have been solved by now, instead of us watching people get massacred by tanks because they were tired of being oppressed.

It seems to me you are now implying that oppression breeds resistance, yes ? :thumbup1:

The Arab League did support the 'no fly zone' thinking it would not cause any civilian deaths. They now have heavily criticised the UN and the axis of evil for what has occurred.

I agree that action from the Arab League and African Union should have come sooner. Maybe this 'ceasefire' called by Gadaffi can yield a resolution which includes those parties.

Lt. Ferret

21st March 2011, 02:18

Gaddafi is calling a ceasefire to concentrate his forces and buy time. And yes, its unfortunate that there are civilians being hurt in this but there were already civilians being hurt and the death toll for such an attack is surprisingly low.

Bud Struggle

21st March 2011, 02:34

did you read the words "could" in my post? as its unfolding now its getting very sinister ...

Sorry, I'm back. :(

Look. There are plenty of Revolutions and Revolts up the wazoo--and the Radical Left isn't making a wimper in all of this. They Don't exist. The class struggle is asmuch a part of these REAL LIFE Revolutions as a Clown revolution. You are NOT a part of it.

As a matter of fact even if you were a part of it--there is no telling who's side you would be on. RevLfter would be fighting Revlefter--if the fighting ever got as far as your momma's panneled basement.

That being said: these Revolutions are being "owned" by the United States. From Egypt--where the new Prime Minister is a grad of Purdue University (go Boilermakers! :thumbup1:) to Libya where the US is ingratiating itself big time with future regime.

You folks can't even agree on what side you are on.

Comrades, the world is having its Revolutions--and you aren't even invited.

Bud Struggle

21st March 2011, 02:51

There was a day when Communists heard about a Revolution going on in a country--they would have sent in a Brigade.

Where the heck are those Communists now?

EspirituDeAmaru

21st March 2011, 04:22

The death toll in Afghanistan keeps rising for civilians up to 2,777 last year in 2010. NATO strikes killing children in Pakistan and countless drone attacks. Collateral damage isn't counted when those causing it are writing history and in control.

EspirituDeAmaru

21st March 2011, 04:26

Chavez proposed a diplomatic approach to this situation. Libya is in the midst of a civil war and foreign intervention will only prolong the process of establishing a political order in that country. No one can deny that the UN air strikes are done for the "good of the people", if that we're the case there would be bombs over Yemen, Bahrain, Jordan Saudia Arabia etc..

Che a chara

21st March 2011, 04:35

Unfortunately Bud's correct. We a times can be too bogged down on romanticism and optimism which blinds us to the reality of these recent revolutions. But it must be said that there has never really been a massive communist/socialist presence in these countries. Fringe elements maybe, but religion and foreign exploitation has diluted a lot of the revolutionary edge on the ground, but in saying that, I would be optimistic that it has gave social awareness and opened up the possibility for further revolutionary politics to be considered in the Arab world.

#FF0000

21st March 2011, 04:51

There was a day when Communists heard about a Revolution going on in a country--they would have sent in a Brigade.

Where the heck are those Communists now?

I think the problem is that there just aren't near as many communists as there were, let alone those Communists.

RGacky3

21st March 2011, 09:23

There was a day when Communists heard about a Revolution going on in a country--they would have sent in a Brigade.

Where the heck are those Communists now?

We'll, they're in Eygpt, they're in Tunesia, they're in the Unions, and so on, they're the only ones in Palestine trying to help the palestinians, where the hell are your poeple?

Your criticizing us for not doing enough, but we're the only ones doing anything.

RGacky3

21st March 2011, 09:30

Look. There are plenty of Revolutions and Revolts up the wazoo--and the Radical Left isn't making a wimper in all of this. They Don't exist. The class struggle is asmuch a part of these REAL LIFE Revolutions as a Clown revolution. You are NOT a part of it.

blablabla, more out of your ass, did you miss Eygpt? Did you miss Tunesia? Why not make a point with data or something. The Radical left MADE Eygpt happen.

As a matter of fact even if you were a part of it--there is no telling who's side you would be on. RevLfter would be fighting Revlefter--if the fighting ever got as far as your momma's panneled basement.

Most likely not, the Leninist to Actual socialist ratio is much more in favor of leninists than it is in real life.

As far as your mommas basement comment? Nothing to say, except your a grown ass married man with kids making that comment on a revolutionary left forum even though you have thing to do with the revolutionary left.

That being said: these Revolutions are being "owned" by the United States. From Egypt--where the new Prime Minister is a grad of Purdue University (go Boilermakers! :thumbup1:) to Libya where the US is ingratiating itself big time with future regime.

The US lost in Eygpt, as for the new government, there is none yet, and as for being a grad from a US universtity so was Ho Chi Min.

As for Lybia, we don't know what the future regime would be

Again your juts talking out of your ass trying desperately to play everything team-America.

Comrades, the world is having its Revolutions--and you aren't even invited.

Your an idiot.

PhoenixAsh

21st March 2011, 10:19

There was a day when Communists heard about a Revolution going on in a country--they would have sent in a Brigade.

Where the heck are those Communists now?

Drunk. :-) Communism isn't dead...its just drunk

I have read your posts...and I am going to put it simple:

We can not decide which side we are on because both sides suck monkey balls.

The protesters are reactionary burgeoisie who invite and insist on imperialist intervention are composed of all sorts of groups such a tribalists, monarchists and ancien regime amongs which many racists willing to purge every black person in the country...and are probably goign to extract horrible vengeance on civilian sympathisers of the current government.

The other side is a brutal dictator who sold out to economic liberalism (the European kind), tortures his opponents, and bankrolls terorists and will in all probability extract horrible vengeance on the rebels.

The third party are the coalition and the media. Who give slanderous and one sides reports which make a lot of outrageous claims, which, if you look back...never ever have been substantiated at all...or have turned out te be completely false. These reports have been used to push through a resolution in the name of humanity which is the most unrestricted resolution in the history of the UN and allows everything short of long lasting occupation. In the mean time we have heard that there are a whole range of outcomes, but Gadaffi isn't in one of them. There has been no coordination with the rebels....yet (quote). And that they are attacking army barracks hundreds of miles away from rebel controlled cities. Naturally....not a word about Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, or the drone attack on civilians killing 80.

So...none of the lead roles can be supported. Which leaves the vague support for the people of Libya....but which people are that exactly? They are horribly devided. So perhaps the workers then? But these are also devided. So...who can we support?

Even if there still was a large and wealthy communist international alliance...who would we send in support of whom?

Both sides lie....both sides lead to unacceptable outcomes.

So yeah...its up for grabs what you support and it all matters on which of the main tennents of the political tendencies you emphasize. But whatever is going to happen...the people of Libya are fucked either way.

And since we can not influence the situation, are nowhere near the situation and can not realistically fly over there....you know....with the no-fly-zone and all....to directly participate in the revolution which really is not a socialist one but a reactionary one...this whole debate is accademic.

ComradeMan

21st March 2011, 11:13

This is a civil war not a popular revolt. The West is getting involved because Gaddaffi can be sacrificed as a "piece" in the great game and they don't want the Islamists/Al Quaeda or whoever to take over in Libya.

t.shonku

21st March 2011, 12:02

Here comes another wasteful stupid war started by the oil mafia , more American young dudes are going to be sacrificed and thousands of innocent Libyans are about to be slaughtered just in the name of "Democracy".

The anti-Gaddafi protesters are no good they were celebrating as their country was getting bombed and what will they do when the oil get plundered?

Some of them will get rich while rest will be left to beg in the streets or become suicide bomber for Al-Qaida .

I am waiting to see a day when protesters start protesting in US streets and throw out the wall street thugs and oil mafia . I hope one day Americans get tired of this pointless wars and take to the streets and throw the Democratic goons out

Long Live Revolution !

Bud Struggle

21st March 2011, 12:53

And here is exactly what the problem looks like. Two responses to my post--and you wonder if these guys are even talking about the same Revolutions.

Of course Gack is doing having his usual "delusion" moments thinking Communists were somehow involved in any of this. Hindsight is right on target--but the question still remains, why has Communism as a serious political and economic option been passed by these Revolutions.

One certainly make a case for a country with strong Islamic beliefs going Communist. It's happened before--in Afghanistan.

blablabla, more out of your ass, did you miss Eygpt? Did you miss Tunesia? Why not make a point with data or something. The Radical left MADE Eygpt happen.

Most likely not, the Leninist to Actual socialist ratio is much more in favor of leninists than it is in real life.

As far as your mommas basement comment? Nothing to say, except your a grown ass married man with kids making that comment on a revolutionary left forum even though you have thing to do with the revolutionary left.

The US lost in Eygpt, as for the new government, there is none yet, and as for being a grad from a US universtity so was Ho Chi Min.

As for Lybia, we don't know what the future regime would be

Again your juts talking out of your ass trying desperately to play everything team-America.

Your an idiot.

Drunk. :-) Communism isn't dead...its just drunk

I have read your posts...and I am going to put it simple:

We can not decide which side we are on because both sides suck monkey balls.

The protesters are reactionary burgeoisie who invite and insist on imperialist intervention are composed of all sorts of groups such a tribalists, monarchists and ancien regime amongs which many racists willing to purge every black person in the country...and are probably goign to extract horrible vengeance on civilian sympathisers of the current government.

The other side is a brutal dictator who sold out to economic liberalism (the European kind), tortures his opponents, and bankrolls terorists and will in all probability extract horrible vengeance on the rebels.

The third party are the coalition and the media. Who give slanderous and one sides reports which make a lot of outrageous claims, which, if you look back...never ever have been substantiated at all...or have turned out te be completely false. These reports have been used to push through a resolution in the name of humanity which is the most unrestricted resolution in the history of the UN and allows everything short of long lasting occupation. In the mean time we have heard that there are a whole range of outcomes, but Gadaffi isn't in one of them. There has been no coordination with the rebels....yet (quote). And that they are attacking army barracks hundreds of miles away from rebel controlled cities. Naturally....not a word about Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, or the drone attack on civilians killing 80.

So...none of the lead roles can be supported. Which leaves the vague support for the people of Libya....but which people are that exactly? They are horribly devided. So perhaps the workers then? But these are also devided. So...who can we support?

Even if there still was a large and wealthy communist international alliance...who would we send in support of whom?

Both sides lie....both sides lead to unacceptable outcomes.

So yeah...its up for grabs what you support and it all matters on which of the main tennents of the political tendencies you emphasize. But whatever is going to happen...the people of Libya are fucked either way.

And since we can not influence the situation, are nowhere near the situation and can not realistically fly over there....you know....with the no-fly-zone and all....to directly participate in the revolution which really is not a socialist one but a reactionary one...this whole debate is accademic.

RGacky3

21st March 2011, 12:58

Of course Gack is doing having his usual "delusion" moments thinking Communists were somehow involved in any of this. Hindsight is right on target--but the question still remains, why has Communism as a serious political and economic option been passed by these Revolutions.

I don't know what your talking about when you say "communism" but the whole thing in Eygpt was a workers movement.

As far as delusoinal ... your not really one to talk Capitan American.

Che a chara

21st March 2011, 18:16

The anti-Gaddafi protesters are no good they were celebrating as their country was getting bombed and what will they do when the oil get plundered?

Some of them will get rich while rest will be left to beg in the streets or become suicide bomber for Al-Qaida

Unfortunately I've seen footage of anti-Gadaffi protesters being interviewed on TV saying that they don't care about the oil and that the 'West' can come and take it all but leave just a small bit for them as long as they get rid of Gadaffi :(

khad

21st March 2011, 18:23

Unfortunately I've seen footage of anti-Gadaffi protesters being interviewed on TV saying that they don't care about the oil and that the 'West' can come and take it all but leave just a small bit for them as long as they get rid of Gadaffi :(
They can talk big all they want. I just won't care if they choose to whine about it later.

Despite his old age, however, Gaddafi stubbornly refused to die and remained active in politics. In 2008, Gaddafi proposed a radical restructuring of the government and economy. Claiming that the state-run economy had failed to adequately distribute the nation's oil wealth, he proposed that almost all the functions of the government be privatized, including education and health care. In place of the welfare system of state employment, Gaddafi proposed that the nation's oil wealth be transferred directly "to the people" in the form of cash payments of $4000 a month. The plan was bizarre, to say the least. Half Tea Party libertarian, half utopian socialist. Few in the Libyan government took the proposal seriously, dismissing Gaddafi as a leader who likes to play philosopher-king. Capitalists also feared that the program would lead to runaway inflation if implemented.

t.shonku

22nd March 2011, 08:09

Unfortunately I've seen footage of anti-Gadaffi protesters being interviewed on TV saying that they don't care about the oil and that the 'West' can come and take it all but leave just a small bit for them as long as they get rid of Gadaffi :(

I think these so called "democratic" Libyans amongst the protesters are high on a new drug called "Western BS" :laugh:. That is why they are speaking from their a** !

Tell me what good is Libya without oil? they can't farm they don't have industries , Libya is a desert ...............only thing that makes it special is liquid gold and if they loose it all they will become beggars and will be forced to fend for themselves and their Western oil sucking friends will not even care for them ! Their condition will be worse than now !

They better understand the situation and stop co-operating with west , if they want Gaddafi out they better try doing it themselves . Giving away oil to oil mafia will be the biggest act of backstabbing against Libyan working class.

RGacky3

22nd March 2011, 08:50

Unfortunately I've seen footage of anti-Gadaffi protesters being interviewed on TV saying that they don't care about the oil and that the 'West' can come and take it all but leave just a small bit for them as long as they get rid of Gadaffi :(

Well guess what under Gadaffi they wer'nt getting the oil wealth anyway, so even if they loose all of it they're still getting rid of a dictator.

But looking how things are going now, I'm pretty much giving up on Lybia, it seams like the US, the UK and France are gonna take control there ultimately.

The rebels are gonna get a rude awakening, but hey, Gaddafi out is a good thing still.

ComradeMan

22nd March 2011, 10:03

Well guess what under Gadaffi they wer'nt getting the oil wealth anyway, so even if they loose all of it they're still getting rid of a dictator.

But looking how things are going now, I'm pretty much giving up on Lybia, it seams like the US, the UK and France are gonna take control there ultimately.

The rebels are gonna get a rude awakening, but hey, Gaddafi out is a good thing still.

In African terms Libya was one of the wealthiest nations.

Militarily speaking, I don't understand this strategy and now it seems the allies are/have been arguing among themselves too.

I have heard
a) we are going to get rid of Gaddafi.
b) we are not going to get rid of Gaddafi.
c) the job is only over when Gaddafi steps down/goes

but...

a) this will only be the enforcement of a "no fly zone"
b) there will be no ground troop involvement/occupation
c) we must arm the rebels

:confused:

Now as I see it- the air strikes and no fly zone alone will not get rid of Gaddaffi but only prolong the conflict. Gaddafi's side will have no mercy towards the rebels and I don't think the rebels have a strong chance to be honest. This way Gaddaffi wipes out the rebels, including (perhaps) Islamists (who the West probably don't like) and the West conveniently blames it all on Gaddaffi.:thumbup1::confused:

We have to bear in mind that we are not privy to what's really going on or what's behind this however I heard some BBC journalists on BBC World, and also in Italy the same sort of thing, and they were asking these sorts of questions with confusing responses.

Viet Minh

22nd March 2011, 16:57

I think Cuba and Venezuela should get in there and fuck up Gaddafis shit, then create a Socialist government. If the US thinks it has the right to intervene then why not?

khad

22nd March 2011, 17:04

Well guess what under Gadaffi they wer'nt getting the oil wealth anyway, so even if they loose all of it they're still getting rid of a dictator.
Right. And I guess Libya having the highest life expectancy and per capita income on the African subcontinent means nothing.

I am less and less convinced by the hysterical propaganda of the so-called opposition every day.

danyboy27

22nd March 2011, 17:27

Right. And I guess Libya having the highest life expectancy and per capita income on the African subcontinent means nothing.

I am less and less convinced by the hysterical propaganda of the so-called opposition every day.

The public good goes well beyond the life expectency level.

khad

22nd March 2011, 17:39

The public good goes well beyond the life expectency level.
The claim was that the citizens saw none of that wealth.

I'd say they were seeing a lot of it since Libya is the richest African nation on a per capita income basis.

If the opposition wants convincing propaganda, they need to come up with something better than blatant lies such as this.

danyboy27

22nd March 2011, 18:08

khad

22nd March 2011, 18:16

They have their issues with the system, they could have more than what they are getting, and its all that really matter.

And I won't give a shit if they whine later.

Unfortunately I've seen footage of anti-Gadaffi protesters being interviewed on TV saying that they don't care about the oil and that the 'West' can come and take it all but leave just a small bit for them as long as they get rid of Gadaffi :(

Despite his old age, however, Gaddafi stubbornly refused to die and remained active in politics. In 2008, Gaddafi proposed a radical restructuring of the government and economy. Claiming that the state-run economy had failed to adequately distribute the nation's oil wealth, he proposed that almost all the functions of the government be privatized, including education and health care. In place of the welfare system of state employment, Gaddafi proposed that the nation's oil wealth be transferred directly "to the people" in the form of cash payments of $4000 a month. The plan was bizarre, to say the least. Half Tea Party libertarian, half utopian socialist. Few in the Libyan government took the proposal seriously, dismissing Gaddafi as a leader who likes to play philosopher-king. Capitalists also feared that the program would lead to runaway inflation if implemented.

Sinister Cultural Marxist

22nd March 2011, 18:30

The claim was that the citizens saw none of that wealth.

I'd say they were seeing a lot of it since Libya is the richest African nation on a per capita income basis.

If the opposition wants convincing propaganda, they need to come up with something better than blatant lies such as this.

You do realize that per capita income is an average, right? That means one man with a billion dollar income would greatly increase the per capita income. Equatorial Guinea has a per capita income roughly the same as Libya, but one of the highest levels of wealth inequality in the world. Per capita says nothing at all about how the wealth is distributed, but merely how much wealth exists per person.

The statistic you're looking for would be median income. Just sayin ...

I think unemployment would be a better indicator:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4515919.stm

danyboy27

22nd March 2011, 18:43

i doubt a gossip about a single individual can be used has a proof to discredit action taken by the working class working class.

chances are that libyan want more for their buck than what they are actually getting, plus a more free political system.

And so far, this whole oil profit redistribution you mentionned above is nothing but an empty promise that was never realized.

EspirituDeAmaru

23rd March 2011, 03:08

I am with the working class and struggling poor in Libya and here are my findings

1. This Invasion has been planned months in advance: The EU had the most to lose in this conflict seeing as the receive their oil mainly from Libya. They provoked the Quadafi forces by imposing a weak no-fly zone which as history shows us is followed by military intervention. These neo-imperialists are trying to HIJACK the revolution and when it is all said and done "claim" what is rightfully theirs after "helping" the rebels defeat Quaddafi.

2. This is shock capitalism at its finest: New deregulated free markets will spring up after this long war is over and after the implementation of troops and secure bases by the Mediterranean. The oil reserves will be opened even wider to satisfy the capitalist greed and over consumption.

3. Russian and Chinese deals with the West behind closed doors: With the simple raising of the hand this resolution could of been stopped but instead these disgraceful commies abstained from voting which did nothing. Now they try to advocate for the west to seize operations. The west must of proposed a turn the other way policy for these cowards when it comes to intervention in Chechnya and Tibet respectfully.

4. Saudia Arabia is playing its part: They are selling arms to the rebel forces in return for the US not to be involved in the growing problems of the Gulf states.

We need to support the rebels in SA and Bahrain and the rebels in Libya to take back their revolution and not let the Western powers dictate their successive regime with Neo Liberal conditions.

Bud Struggle

23rd March 2011, 06:13

^^^^Actually a pretty good post. Libya does provide most of Europe's oil. And Libya provides sweet crude which European refineraries can handle. America's refineries can handle sour crude which isnt so much of an issue.

England and France don't have much of a choice but to stabalize the situation very soon. It's more of an emergency fo rthem than they let on, because they have no capacity to refine other oil--even if it were on the market.

Besides no one likes Gaddafi.

Lt. Ferret

23rd March 2011, 07:03

Gaddafi has been spouting off about Islam and how Islamic armies need to come to his aid now. He's done. Saddam Hussein did this in his last days as well.

Viet Minh

23rd March 2011, 15:15

Gaddafi has been spouting off about Islam and how Islamic armies need to come to his aid now. He's done. Saddam Hussein did this in his last days as well.

And there goes my last shred of respect for the man. Of course Islamic nations must support each other against western Imperialism, but actually calling for religious warfare as such.. If it was Bush invading then that would be fair enough given some of his theological bullshit, but to justify military aggression againts (initially) non-violent protests?

If I was the leader of the rebels I would make it my mission to destroy every oilfield, and urge gaddafi to do the same, and then see how interested the US is in the struggle for freedom.

ComradeMan

23rd March 2011, 17:55

And there goes my last shred of respect for the man. Of course Islamic nations must support each other against western Imperialism, but actually calling for religious warfare as such.. If it was Bush invading then that would be fair enough given some of his theological bullshit, but to justify military aggression againts (initially) non-violent protests?

If I was the leader of the rebels I would make it my mission to destroy every oilfield, and urge gaddafi to do the same, and then see how interested the US is in the struggle for freedom.

Hang on- wasn't Gaddaffi all about Islamic Socialism? Secondly you can't blame the man for his context in the Islamic world. Also, would these be the same rebels that were massacring black people?

Viet Minh

23rd March 2011, 18:44

Hang on- wasn't Gaddaffi all about Islamic Socialism?

He labelled his regime as socialism, but no it wasn't Socialist and it wasn't ruled by true Shariah Law either.

Secondly you can't blame the man for his context in the Islamic world.

So likewise would you call for all Christian armies to come and fight for the Copts in Egpyt? And all Orthodox Christians to fight in Kosovo? Gaddafi was calling the invasion a Crusade, well he's not much better if he's calling for religious warfare.

Also, would these be the same rebels that were massacring black people?

I don't know much about that tbh, I heard there were a few black Africans attacked, as they were believed to be Government mercenaries. But I don't know enough to state categorically that they were racist attacks. There is underlying tension anyway in north Africa, especially in Sudan and Mauritania so I'm not saying it doesn't exist in Libya also, depsite their 'Socialist' Government of 4 decades.

Whats your opinion on Gaddafis treatment of jews in Libya?

Sinister Cultural Marxist

23rd March 2011, 20:21

Secondly you can't blame the man for his context in the Islamic world. Also, would these be the same rebels that were massacring black people?

Bahraini Shiite protesters attacked and i think even killed Bangladeshis and other Sunni migrant workers because of (1) unemployment and (2) from the Sunni royals conscripting the Sunnis to join pro-government protests. In Libya, you had a high unemployment rate among young men and a lot of migrant workers, which is a bad mix, and there were claims (which appear to be at least partially true) that Gaddafi was using African mercenaries.

So I think a lot of the racism has to do with the material conditions of Libya, like Bahrain. A smart government will split the working class, or hire migrants and marginalize the locals, which often encourages and hardens racist attitudes. It's not an excuse, what happened to the migrants in both countries is tragic. But it puts it in context.

ComradeMan

23rd March 2011, 21:05

Viet Minh

23rd March 2011, 22:17

I am not taking an apologist line for Ghaddafi but you have to see things in their context too.

As for Ghaddafi's treatment of Jews in Libya, well all two of them? The confiscation of Jewish property in 1969 and subsequent expulsion amounted to about 100 people and although wrong it does mean that is hard to really speak of Ghaddafi's treatment of the Jews up until now- because there were basically only two Jews in Libya. In 2010 he spoke of compensation and welcoming back the exiled Libyan Jews etc. It's all rather ambiguous.

I don't think Ghaddaffi is great but I don't think the rebels are that great either- not in this Libyan situation anyway.

The rebels don't have a single party line as yet, they're probably a mixture of conservatives who want to return to the kingdom of libya (judging by the use of the old Libyan flag) radicals who want a leftist government, and people pushing for US-style capitalist 'Democracy'. However they will soon be split into two camps, those who support the US occupation (which is not far off now) and those who don't, who are 'terrorists'. All violent conflicts draw in violent characters, it doesn't necessarily mean they are ideologically wrong. In fact its too early to tell yet what their ideology is, if any agreement can be made. All they seem to agree on is they want Gaddafi out, and who can blame them? Now is the time to make it clear though, when Gaddafi leaves the US/ UN does too.

ComradeMan

24th March 2011, 10:26

The rebels don't have a single party line as yet, they're probably a mixture of conservatives who want to return to the kingdom of libya (judging by the use of the old Libyan flag) radicals who want a leftist government, and people pushing for US-style capitalist 'Democracy'. However they will soon be split into two camps, those who support the US occupation (which is not far off now) and those who don't, who are 'terrorists'. All violent conflicts draw in violent characters, it doesn't necessarily mean they are ideologically wrong. In fact its too early to tell yet what their ideology is, if any agreement can be made. All they seem to agree on is they want Gaddafi out, and who can blame them? Now is the time to make it clear though, when Gaddafi leaves the US/ UN does too.

I don't think there is going to be an occupation.

Che a chara

24th March 2011, 10:46

Definitely wont be a US occupation, but the French are licking their lips....

t.shonku

25th March 2011, 12:27

Interesting video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=17YLkogAanw&feature=related

Viet Minh

25th March 2011, 16:27

Interesting video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=17YLkogAanw&feature=related

Its an interesting point he makes about divide and conquer. The problem with dictators is they keep things relatively peaceful and secure, in an authoritarian sort of way. People who want to make shady deals and backhand negotiations need a relatively unstable political situation, or better yet a civil war, so their arms dealing buddies can make a buck too.

ComradeMan

30th March 2011, 20:23

Do you guys think there is any truth to the claim that Gaddafi funded Sarkozy's 2007 election campaign?

http://www.presstv.ir/detail/170262.html

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/edwest/100080118/gaddafi-funded-sarkozy-if-true-this-is-a-magnificent-gift-to-marine-le-pen/

Viet Minh

30th March 2011, 20:59

http://www.revleft.com/vb/rebels-beat-me-t152250/index.html?p=2062666

Got anything that is actually solid?

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/africa/2011/03/201132617491827374.html

It seems to be happening on both sides. Rape is an effective weapon in Sudan so I suspect these accounts in Libya are true. The danger faced by the women attacked means its unlikely they would make false accusations purely for political propaganda.

Viet Minh

30th March 2011, 21:10

Just to answer the point about the rebels attacking sub saharan Africans this Libyan rebel is not of the typical lighter-skinned arab in Libya, not to get into a whole racial profiling thing I'm just saying its quite possible the rebels are not acting out of racism per se.

http://english.aljazeera.net/mritems/imagecache/318/480/mritems/Images/2011/3/27/2011327175838829150_20.jpg

PhoenixAsh

4th April 2011, 00:31

RbvfzA0zvgk

Viet Minh

4th April 2011, 00:50

RbvfzA0zvgk

That looks freakin awesome!! :D

Check out the computer game Act of War, all eerily familiar..

B5C

4th April 2011, 07:07

q0i9acHS_zQ

EspirituDeAmaru

8th April 2011, 01:24

The libiyan situation reminds me much of the in the Ivory coast. Libya is separated into 3 main struggles. One part is calling for an autonomous state another is religious and one wants to hold power. The Ivory coast is going through similar problems with the Gbagbo regime. Both are anti-imperialist/western regimes. The opposition seems to be in favor of the west. With Ouattara being more religiously fundamentalist and pro western. The main opposition forces in Libya are also from Kaddafi's old regime and pro US. The two opposition leaders in theses countries are not for the rebels. They will be a fresh face with liberalizing policies which favor the rich. What these countries need are genuinely new leaders and a secular pan african/Arab class orientated agenda in order to unite them against the real oppressors. This vicious cycle will continue unless a real change sweeps through the governments respectfully.

Viet Minh

8th April 2011, 01:46

I'm torn on the question of Theocracies, for instance Ivory Coast could be seen as an example, or Maluku Islands or Nigeria. Nobody in those regions is actually calling for partition but if it brought peace would you support such a move?

EspirituDeAmaru

8th April 2011, 01:51

I believe us as human beings need to get beyond these sectarian differences. I mean yes this borders were artificially drawn up with a disregard for cultures, ethnictes, religions, ect. But until the time comes when borders and state sovereignty erodes we will have to deal with where we are and/or expedite this process by truly standing underneath the umbrella which unites us all across the board; Class.

Bud Struggle

8th April 2011, 02:19

Revolutions these days are about business. Not religion or race or class or sect.

Those battles are over. It's just business. The winners of this war in Libya will be rich beyond their wildest dreams.

RGacky3

8th April 2011, 08:13

Bud Struggle

8th April 2011, 12:31

Thats funny, thats not what the people that made the actual revolution say.
It's what they do not what they say. Revolutionary leaders tend to either die young and poor or very old and rich.

RGacky3

8th April 2011, 12:34

Who are the revolutionary leaders? Read up on what actually happened in these revolutions rather than making sweeping baseless generalisations.

Revolution starts with U

8th April 2011, 12:51

what they do not what they say

I would shit my pants if you would maintain any kind of consistency from one post to the next.

RATM-Eubie

8th April 2011, 16:42

Yea who are the leaders in this revolution?
Last time i checked we really cant even figure out who the rebels are.... All we know is that they are against this fake socialist authoritarian dictator (who is fucking nutty)...

Bud Struggle

8th April 2011, 21:28

Who are the revolutionary leaders? Read up on what actually happened in these revolutions rather than making sweeping baseless generalisations.

Arafat died a rich man. Castro is king for life--I guess Chavez will be, too. Lenin never let go of power. Neither did Stalin. Mao died as a Glorious Leader. Tito was a king, too.

Leftist Revolutionaries did OK fror themselves. It's a good family business lately fror the Castros and the Kims.

And great Union Leaders like Jimmy Hoffa and Walther Ruther didn't do to bad either.

Maybe it's you that should take a closer look at what happens when Leftists get into power instead of living in you cosplay fantasy world. Grow up.

Omsk

8th April 2011, 21:32

Don't worry comrades,truth and justice will win in this matter,for it has air superiority.

Bud Struggle

8th April 2011, 21:34

Don't worry comrades,truth and justice will win in this matter,for it has air superiority.

NATO air superiority. ;)

Che a chara

8th April 2011, 21:52

The mediation of the African Union is the only democratic and logical solution to this civil war which has been disgustingly hijacked by the jack boots of imperialism.

For sure the AU should have intervened earlier, but in anycase the US lead forces were probably already planning on getting the approval of the Arab League at the behest of the AU to seriously fuck up the country.

I'm not condoning Gadaffi, but I am quite disturbed at the amount of support for the agent 'rebels' and their imperialist masters on here.

Bud Struggle

8th April 2011, 22:28

I'm not condoning Gadaffi, but I am quite disturbed at the amount of support for the agent 'rebels' and their imperialist masters on here.

Well hopefully you wouldn't be suprised by my support fror the rebels. :)

RGacky3

8th April 2011, 22:51

No one is ... the funny thing is your proud of it.

I don't mean supporting the rebels, I support the rebels, but you supporting them just because they're with team America.

Bud Struggle

9th April 2011, 00:06

No one is ... the funny thing is your proud of it.

I don't mean supporting the rebels, I support the rebels, but you supporting them just because they're with team America.

The interesting thing is that they're being with team America is REAL. Your support for them being Socialists is entirely delusionary. :D

RGacky3

9th April 2011, 00:16

They are not WITH team America, they way your saying they are, the US is trying to coopt it for imperialistic reasons that will end up screwing Lybia, and your cheerleading it on.

WHen did I ever say they were Socialists?

EspirituDeAmaru

9th April 2011, 00:30

Viet Minh

9th April 2011, 00:49

Maybe fish guy has a point. Power corrupts there is no question about that. And there is a left theory of revolution without taking power( JOhn Holloway) but thats another topic. But on the case of revolutionaries, the majority of them started with the love for humanity. Castro and che could of been made lawyers/Med respectfully. Che decided to spread the revolution around the world. These leaders speaking for the rebels are part of Kadafi's old regime. What they need is solidarity and communal authority but thats just a pipe dream...

If they didn't have it before I'd imagine the rebels have the communal authority now, with Gadaffi indisciriminately targetting civilian areas where the rebels were holed up. But there's also enough of them to suggest they are the communal authority in some way, they probably represent the proportion of their communities who are 'fighting fit' ie in the right age range and male, traditionally associated with paramilitary action.