Preparing Public Opinion: Intervention May Be "Unavoidable"

[khad]

http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/editors-blog/2011/0303/Libya-crisis-Intervention-may-be-unavoidable

Libya crisis: Intervention may be unavoidable

By John Yemma (http://www.csmonitor.com/About/Contact/Senior-Editors/John-Yemma), Editor / March 3, 2011
Libya is where the "Arab spring" may be turning into a long, cold winter.

In Egypt and Tunisia, popular discontent led to political change, even if democracy advocates are questioning the speed and depth of that change. Muammar Qaddafi, however, has responded to calls for change with violence, defiance, and attempt to take back parts of the country he has lost since the uprising began last month.

The Libyan opposition is still sketchy. Local communities in eastern Libya have organized to provide basic services. Former Libyan military officers have been training civilians in self-defense. But the ability of Qaddafi opponents to go toe-to-toe with the elite brigades the Libyan leader commands is limited.

Even with covert aid and advice from the outside, it would take millions of dollars and many months to raise a rival force.

Although there are good reasons to be cautious about intervening in LIbya, Qaddafi's counterattack may force the United States and its allies to act to prevent a humanitarian crisis. As in Bosnia and Kosovo, preventing a massacre of civilians by a ruthless despot could soon become a more urgent need than avoiding interference in the internal affairs of a sovereign nation.

[Nolan]

Why does the US have to be involved in everything? Why do these people think like that?

[Jose Gracchus]

Yeah the true subtext of the "global policeman" rhetoric is to contrive to give an excuse for the USA to intervene whenever it chooses.

[Threetune]

The difference between the cautious reporting of Tunisian and Egyptian imperialist backed dictators ousting, and the bellicose warmongering about Libya is glaring. How anyone could fail to see that the monarchist flag that demonstrators put up on the Libyan embassy in London, without being stopped by the British cops, is the same monarchist flag being flown by the ‘rebels’ in Libya. Unplanned coincidence?

[danyboy27]

Why does the US have to be involved in everything? Why do these people think like that?

beccause people are so horrified with violence and think the intervention of a third party will save lives.

at the same time its convenient for the us to be able to contain and control various sectors of the world.

[Ravachol]

Yeah we saw how well that worked out in former Yugoslavia....
After years of internal mongering and supporting nationalist elements while arms corporations grew fat on the profits of arms sales during the initial phase of the war, they suddenly had to 'intervene' in a bloody nationalist civil war, all for humanitarian reasons (which became obvious through the numerous civilian casualties :rolleyes:) and surely not to ensure regional stability, a favorable political climate in that geopolitical region and in order to ensure the smooth functioning of the economy... :rolleyes:

[tbasherizer]

The difference between the cautious reporting of Tunisian and Egyptian imperialist backed dictators ousting, and the bellicose warmongering about Libya is glaring. How anyone could fail to see that the monarchist flag that demonstrators put up on the Libyan embassy in London, without being stopped by the British cops, is the same monarchist flag being flown by the ‘rebels’ in Libya. Unplanned coincidence?

Actually, seeing as there really only is one monarchist flag that could be flown by Libyans, it was even less conspiratorial than a coincidence. While I don't think they should be pining for their old monarchy, it is the only alternative some Libyans have known, so I understand their flying of that flag for anti-Gaddafi purposes.

The imperialists don't have the foresight or social penetration of Alex Jones' Illuminati/Jew/Freemason conspiracy. There is zero chance therefore that the protests in Libya were secretly organized by an imperialist cabal that includes Libyan Britons and the millions of people currently embattled in that country. It is therefore an insult to the uprising in Libya to refer to its supporters as "'rebels'", as that makes their freedom struggle seem illegitimate.

[Omsk]

I wish Libya wont share the fate of Yugoslavia,although,it seems it is very close to such a situation.I still cant belive the horrible influence of the imperialist powers in Yugoslavia..Who do you think supported the para-militaries?Who gave them weapons,ammunition and supply's,and not to mention the huge support that they gave to one of the fighting sides,only to abandon it and leave it in a horrible situation.Everything they touch turns to ash..Not to mention the war - crimes these 'peace - keepers' commited..

[Fulanito de Tal]

Why does the US have to be involved in everything? Why do these people think like that?

Instead of world police, the appropriate term is neo-coloniser. The US is involved in everything [that makes its bourgeoisie rich] because as Lenin stated, imperialism is the last stage of capitalism. The economic situation for US people would be horrible is the US stayed within its borders. A few people would be super rich and everyone else would have nothing. So, the US has to seek elsewhere to extract resources, modify them, then sell back at a higher price than it paid for them. This allows some of the profit to go to creating a middle class and preventing proletariat class contentiousness.

In the case of Libya, the US is getting involved to take some of the oil.

[Luís Henrique]

In the case of Libya, the US is getting involved to take some of the oil.
This relies, of course, on the false assumption that they have no such oil as of now.

Why would they need a war to take something they already have?

Luís Henrique

[Fulanito de Tal]

This relies, of course, on the false assumption that they have no such oil as of now.

This does not rely, of course, on the false assumption that they have no such oil as of now.

If Libya designs its own government, then the US cannot manipulate the development to its benefit. It will have to work with whatever results, which may not be as favorable to the US if the US were to intervene.


Why would they need a war to take something they already have?

Luís HenriqueBecause they might not have it in the future.

Either way, if it's not oil, then something else. The US doesn't get involved for solely humanitarian aid. It gets involved with an imperialist purpose.

[Decolonize The Left]

This relies, of course, on the false assumption that they have no such oil as of now.

Why would they need a war to take something they already have?

Luís Henrique

I believe there was a threat to sabotage (i.e. burn) the oil fields. This would be reason enough for the US to get involved.

- August