No Fly Zone over Libya authorized by UN

[Salyut]

Link. (http://english.aljazeera.net/news/africa/2011/03/201131720311168561.html)


The United Nations Security Council (UNSC) has voted on a resolution authorising a no-fly zone over Libya and "all necessary measures" - code for military action - to protect civilians.

Ten of the council's 15 members voted in favour of the resolution, while Russia, China, Germany, India and Brazil abstained.

No votes were recorded against the resolution on Thursday, which was co-sponsored by France, Britain, Lebanon and the United States.

In Benghazi, the main opposition stronghold, a large crowd watching the vote on an outdoor TV projection burst into celebration as green and red fireworks filled the air, as broadcast live on the Al-Jazeera satellite TV channel.

[The Vegan Marxist]

nb4 those who were so sure this would never come.

[Magón]

FINALLY! Shit.

So does anyone know the death cap, that the UNSC needs to finally get their heads out of their asses, and pass the no fly zone?

[RedAnarchist]

I wonder if the NFZ will actually be in place before Gaddafi attacks Benghazi?

[PhoenixAsh]

FINALLY! Shit.

So does anyone know the death cap, that the UNSC needs to finally get their heads out of their asses, and pass the no fly zone?

You do realise this resolution has a clause which states that they can sent in troops on the ground at any time when deemed necessary? And also calls for airstrikes on strategic targets outside the NFZ if there is an idea the NFZ will be violated....making it very likely that barracks, industry, infrastructure, and TV and communication will be hit in preemptive strikes and attacks. Its not unthinkable...in fac6t highly likely...Gadaffi will put moveable targets in or near civilian areas.

[PhoenixAsh]

I wonder if the NFZ will actually be in place before Gaddafi attacks Benghazi?

From a purely strategic prespective....it would be the "wisest" move to enter Benghazi as soon as possible.

Airstrikes will be almost impossible against him then without causing huge casualties amongst the civilian population and the rebels. Heavy equipment will almost certainly be less effective....but on the other hand...could be left out so as to maintain them and preserve them from air assault.

[psgchisolm]

2EIMO2FtzFI
This is what I fully expect to happen Gaddafi's forces.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

2EIMO2FtzFI
This is what I fully expect to happen Gaddafi's forces.

If the Iraq war was any indication, probably.

Of course, 4 months later we'll hear that a third of the "Smart" bombs missed their targets and levelled buildings.

Best of luck to the Libyan people.

fighters are presumably being scrambled already, with attempts to tell gaddafi to stand down before violence is inevitable.

[Rusty Shackleford]

ITT: cheering for US and NATO bombs being dropped in Libya.

[RedAnarchist]

ITT: cheering for US and NATO bombs being dropped in Libya.

Who is cheering, exactly?

[Rusty Shackleford]

Nin and psgchisom

[gorillafuck]

nb4 those who were so sure this would never come.Who was sure of it?:confused:

I mean there were people such as myself who stated the facts that Qaddafi is pro-imperialist but I don't recall anyone saying there will never be a no-fly zone or efforts to get rid of Qaddafi by Europe and the US.

[Magón]

Nin and psgchisom

I wouldn't call it cheering, I haven't once cheered during this whole event since I first heard about rebels fighting against Gaddafi. Instead I'd call it happy to see that people already being bombed by an evil man and his military goons (who without a doubt has already killed numbers of civilians in the bombings), can get some of the pressure taken off them, and regain the ground lost to take the fight back to Gaddafi in Tripoli. And/or see Gaddafi get killed by a well placed bomb/missile?

I don't care really who's doing it, because no matter what, it's going to be some Western world nation I don't agree with, and instead I just want to see Gaddafi finally knocked from power, and the people of Libya be free from him. This no fly zone will probably boost the rebels and allow them to do so.

[manic expression]

I wouldn't call it cheering, I haven't once cheered during this whole event since I first heard about rebels fighting against Gaddafi. Instead I'd call it happy to see that people already being bombed by an evil man and his military goons (who without a doubt has already killed numbers of civilians in the bombings), can get some of the pressure taken off them,
But that means that civilians on the other end of Libya will now be bombed by multiple men as atrocious as Gaddafi. And then what? The rebels will be vassals of the imperialists, since their survival rests on intervention, and in all likelihood the imperialists will hold all the cards while the Libyan people (especially the Libyan workers) will hold none.


I don't care really who's doing it, because no matter what, it's going to be some Western world nation I don't agree with, and instead I just want to see Gaddafi finally knocked from power, and the people of Libya be free from him. This no fly zone will probably boost the rebels and allow them to do so.
Forgive me for saying so, but I hear echoes of 2003.

[IndependentCitizen]

That fucking bastard Gaddafi is threatening to attack passenger planes, and cargo ships. I mean, WTF. Civilians are a no-go area in fucking war. I apologise for the swearing but just read the Guardian article on it.

Up the rebels, crush the scumbag that is Gaddafi. The rebels could gain from the NFZ. However, I'm sure western imperialists will definitely try to get in (So let's hope the rebels notice that, take advantage of the situation and grow in power to be able to resist western occupation). Anyway, I'd rather have NATO shooting down Libya's air force than rebels risk their lives by using those AAA guns. Use them for armour, then leave the air force to NATO. I sure hope they use this to their advantage.

It's somewhat exciting, and I feel guilty. But it's an inspiration at the same time. Just seeing how vicious their revolt was, what they've faced and still face. But still continue. True heroes.

[Magón]

But that means that civilians on the other end of Libya will now be bombed by multiple men as atrocious as Gaddafi. And then what? The rebels will be vassals of the imperialists, since their survival rests on intervention, and in all likelihood the imperialists will hold all the cards while the Libyan people (especially the Libyan workers) will hold none.

Well it is war, and you can't deny that in war, people, civilian or not will die. Hopefully though, through the media attention, and work by the rebels, not many more civilians will have to die while trying to get Gaddafi out, and the US/West can get out of there. If this no fly zone didn't go up, the rebels would probably be smashed by Gaddafi's forces, and who knows what he'd do afterwards to the people who stood up against him, and those he suspects did. It's just weighing the odds of an evil dictator killing off his people by himself, and with mercenaries/goons. Or killing/expelling an evil dictator who no longer has the advantage to killing them off so quickly when he (hopefully) starts to lose ground again.

Also, I doubt the rebels would willingly fall under any US/Western thumb and pressure since mostly what's going on in Libya is not only a political one, but also very very tribal. The rebels may hate Gaddafi without a doubt obviously, but I don't think they're probably willing to side with the US/West either since they aren't a single, unified force, and are focused more on freeing themselves from oppression (what really has brought them together), not just from Gaddafi, but any other oppression that would try to follow after their (hopefully) victory.


Forgive me for saying so, but I hear echoes of 2003.

It's alright, because I never said the US should go into Iraq or Afghanistan, either. I never said the US had a right to do it, or the years after. But then again, Libya and Iraq/Afghanistan are two different places really, for the US to fully intervene.

If the US tried to intervene like they have in Iraq or Afghanistan, there'd be an even shit storm from everywhere, including the rest of the Western World. I don't think even the current US administration would be so stupid to get itself drawn into such a thing. Maybe the last one, but I doubt this one would do like it's predecessor and get bogged down.

[Wanted Man]

Anarchists arguing in support of their own state and army. What a strange turn of events.

[Magón]

Anarchists arguing in support of their own state and army. What a strange turn of events.

Interesting? Where does it say that? And also, since when did Anarchists have their own state and army, and where might I get in touch with them?

[manic expression]

Well it is war, and you can't deny that in war, people, civilian or not will die. Hopefully though, through the media attention, and work by the rebels, not many more civilians will have to die while trying to get Gaddafi out, and the US/West can get out of there. If this no fly zone didn't go up, the rebels would probably be smashed by Gaddafi's forces, and who knows what he'd do afterwards to the people who stood up against him, and those he suspects did. It's just weighing the odds of an evil dictator killing off his people by himself, and with mercenaries/goons. Or killing/expelling an evil dictator who no longer has the advantage to killing them off so quickly when he (hopefully) starts to lose ground again.

Also, I doubt the rebels would willingly fall under any US/Western thumb and pressure since mostly what's going on in Libya is not only a political one, but also very very tribal. The rebels may hate Gaddafi without a doubt obviously, but I don't think they're probably willing to side with the US/West either since they aren't a single, unified force, and are focused more on freeing themselves from oppression (what really has brought them together), not just from Gaddafi, but any other oppression that would try to follow after their (hopefully) victory.
It is war, but a war for what? The imperialists are not going to drop bombs on Libya because they care about the people there. Hell, these are the same governments that were all smiles and handshakes with Gaddafi just a few months ago. They smell blood in the water and want to take full control of the country and its resources. If you think Gaddafi is a monster, take a look at Iraq and Afghanistan and tell me who the real menace is.

Gaddafi winning would be one thing, but Gaddafi being replaced by imperialist puppets (on the back of "Shock & Awe 2.0") is quite another. Whatever the character of the rebels might have been, it has now been irreversibly changed. You said it yourself: without the invasion the rebels would likely be toast. They are entirely indebted to the imperialists now, and will be in no position to protest when French, British and US capitalists slice up Libya's oil like a birthday cake. That the rebels are "tribal" (as you put it) makes this all the easier...they don't even have a unified ideological objection to Gaddafi. The imperialists have just invested in buying themselves a protectorate in North Africa (and on the border with Egypt, whose future is still up in the air)...the cost? Libyan blood.


It's alright, because I never said the US should go into Iraq or Afghanistan, either. I never said the US had a right to do it, or the years after. But then again, Libya and Iraq/Afghanistan are two different places really, for the US to fully intervene.I can't help but notice a similarity in tone. Many said similar things about Saddam being taken out of power, that the Kurds and others wanted the US to invade and that "we would be greeted as liberators". I know it's a different situation, but the pro-intervention rhetoric does not share so much these local differences.

An imperialist invasion of one country is, at a certain point, no different than an imperialist invasion of another.


If the US tried to intervene like they have in Iraq or Afghanistan, there'd be an even shit storm from everywhere, including the rest of the Western World. I don't think even the current US administration would be so stupid to get itself drawn into such a thing. Maybe the last one, but I doubt this one would do like it's predecessor and get bogged down.Sure, this is not exactly like Iraq or Afghanistan. But then again, Iraq wasn't like Afghanistan and Pakistan wasn't like Iraq.

They won't put many boots on the ground because they don't need to. Gaddafi was only saved by air superiority and now that's gone. His forces are sitting on a thin coastline with no cover, and can be bombed with impunity not only from air but from sea. That's why the imperialists have calculated that they can invade without risking all that much. That doesn't mean it's better than or fundamentally any different from imperialist invasions of other countries. It's not, it's an imperialist adventure made at a precisely calculated time in order to extract maximum control.


That fucking bastard Gaddafi is threatening to attack passenger planes, and cargo ships. I mean, WTF. Civilians are a no-go area in fucking war. I apologise for the swearing but just read the Guardian article on it.
Civilians will be killed by the imperialist invasion. Libyans will suffer because of imperialism's greed (in fact, they've been suffering because of imperialism's greed). Gaddafi is pressing the panic button because he knows the imperialists will crush him if they so wish it...and it looks like they wish it.

[Devrim]

That fucking bastard Gaddafi is threatening to attack passenger planes, and cargo ships. I mean, WTF. Civilians are a no-go area in fucking war. I apologise for the swearing but just read the Guardian article on it.

Of course the major powers that are fighting against Gaddafi would never do anything like that. I mean who could image that anybody would shoot down passenger planes? Perhaps the passengers on Iran Air Flight 655 could have, but they are dead. Of course there are many civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan, and other countries across the world who can't tell you that the US, Britain, and all of the other imperialist powers murder civilians because they are dead too.

The oft used term 'collateral damage' is what is generally called murder of civilians when people other than the Western powers are doing it.


Anyway, I'd rather have NATO shooting down Libya's air force than rebels risk their lives by using those AAA guns. Use them for armour, then leave the air force to NATO. I sure hope they use this to their advantage.

It is truly shameful when people who call themselves socialists are supporting their own state's military interventions abroad.

Devrim

[Wanted Man]

Interesting? Where does it say that? And also, since when did Anarchists have their own state and army, and where might I get in touch with them?

Quite obviously, if you're an American "leftist" and you support this "humanitarian" intervention, the American state does indeed become your state, and its army becomes your army. Nice job crossing the line. Please don't look back.

[Magón]

It is war, but a war for what? The imperialists are not going to drop bombs on Libya because they care about the people there. Hell, these are the same governments that were all smiles and handshakes with Gaddafi just a few months ago. They smell blood in the water and want to take full control of the country and its resources. If you think Gaddafi is a monster, take a look at Iraq and Afghanistan and tell me who the real menace is.



Gaddafi winning would be one thing, but Gaddafi being replaced by imperialist puppets (on the back of "Shock & Awe 2.0") is quite another. Whatever the character of the rebels might have been, it has now been irreversibly changed. You said it yourself: without the invasion the rebels would likely be toast. They are entirely indebted to the imperialists now, and will be in no position to protest when French, British and US capitalists slice up Libya's oil like a birthday cake. That the rebels are "tribal" (as you put it) makes this all the easier...they don't even have a unified ideological objection to Gaddafi. The imperialists have just invested in buying themselves a protectorate in North Africa (and on the border with Egypt, whose future is still up in the air)...the cost? Libyan blood.

I agree with you on, and would never disagree that the US interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan is doing WAY more harm, than it could every try and doing good there. But, I think you don't give the Libyan rebels enough credit for what they're trying to achieve. Sure, the US and the West smells blood, and is vying for the natural resources, but I don't think the rebels will trade one asshole goon, for a whole team of them.

As for the West trying to put in a puppet, I'm sure they'll try to, but like I said, the whole tribal thing makes that difficult. For the US, the tribes in Libya are a double edged sword. Some may agree with the US in putting in one of their puppets, the others not so much. I mean, the tribes in Libya have been oppressed and kicked by Gaddafi for years, and is one of the reasons why they've joined up with the rebels to fight back. But they also have the history of agreeing with Gaddafi when it came to handling the West. So like I said, the tribes are a double edged sword for the US, just as they have been for Gaddafi in years past. They just happen to currently oppose him because of what he's done to them in the past few decades. When he first came to power, they didn't have much problem with him and his dealings with the US.


I can't help but notice a similarity in tone. Many said similar things about Saddam being taken out of power, that the Kurds and others wanted the US to invade and that we would be greeted as liberators. I know it's a different situation, but the pro-intervention rhetoric does not share so much these local differences.

An imperialist invasion of one country is, at a certain point, no different than an imperialist invasion of another.

The tribes in Libya are much different (in number as well), than the Kurds in Iraq. The tribes don't necessarily see the US/West as liberators like the Kurds did, but see them as a means to getting their way. I mean, nobody can deny, whoever's side your on, that all the forces in the Libyan conflict, have their own greedy objectives to achieve. The tribes just, as I said, see them as a means to getting their own way, achieved before anyone else can. The Kurds when the US invaded did little from what I remember, to change much.


Sure, this is not exactly like Iraq or Afghanistan. But then again, Iraq wasn't like Afghanistan and Pakistan wasn't like Iraq.

They won't put many boots on the ground because they don't need to. Gaddafi was only saved by air superiority and now that's gone. His forces are sitting on a thin coastline with no cover, and can be bombed with impunity not only from air but from sea. That's why the imperialists have calculated that they can invade without risking all that much. That doesn't mean it's better than or fundamentally any different from imperialist invasions of other countries. It's not, it's an imperialist adventure made at a precisely calculated time in order to extract maximum control.[/QUOTE]

Like I'm hoping my posts are getting through, I'm not trying to defend the US/NATO/UN side of things, but the rebels side. I'm not blind to the West's greedy undertones, that's clear as day to any action they take like this, wherever it might be. But as I said, the rebels see the no fly zone as a means to get back on the track they were, and progress back to Tripoli, and hopefully take it back for themselves, like they planned before Gaddafi was bombing them with jets and helicopters.

Just because a new player, who's been sitting on the fence, has finally made their move, doesn't mean that the rebels plan has differed from their original plan. They probably just see the no fly zone, as a bit of pressure taken off them, along with (hopefully) the West's greedy action to maybe put in a puppet government/man. The rebels could play the West, just as much as the West could try and play them.

[Amphictyonis]

nb4 those who were so sure this would never come.

It makes you wonder...why is the US so fast to help? I honestly think, just my opinion, everything happening in the middle east is part of the ongoing plan to westernize middle eastern markets/culture. A friendlier face to the US will be put in and Libya's oil will also end up in friendlier hands. I refrain from commenting on the situation in the middle east because I'm aware many socialists think it's all grass roots peoples revolt. I'm telling you the US is going to come out of all this smelling like golden covered roses.

It's not conspiracy theory the US has had it's eye on "democratizing" the middle east for over a decade. We all know what that euphemism stands for. A no fly zone over Israel when thousands of women and children were being bombed in Palestine? Humanitarian efforts?

[Magón]

Quite obviously, if you're an American "leftist" and you support this "humanitarian" intervention, the American state does indeed become your state, and its army becomes your army. Nice job crossing the line. Please don't look back.

Interesting way of trying to spin things. But as I said in my above post, I see the no fly zone, just as the rebels fighting probably see it, which is nothing more than taking a bit of pressure of them to push back and retake the ground they lost in the last week, not what the West's real intentions are for the country.

I don't agree with US domestic or foreign policy, I never said I did (and I never will), nor do I agree with any other Western state's foreign policy that's involved in this. (Because there is more than just the US playing a part in this no fly zone.) Even two Arab League nations (UAE & Qatar) are taking part in the no fly zone to stop Gaddafi's bombings. I'm on the side of the rebels for kicking Gaddafi out, and this no fly zone just insures that it's even more of a possibility. I don't see why thinking something that can ultimately help kick a evil dictator out of power, is bad, even if the undertones of who's taking the actions are bad. Especially if the rebels know about it, and can do something about it themselves when the fighting is all over.

[manic expression]

I agree with you on, and would never disagree that the US interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan is doing WAY more harm, than it could every try and doing good there. But, I think you don't give the Libyan rebels enough credit for what they're trying to achieve. Sure, the US and the West smells blood, and is vying for the natural resources, but I don't think the rebels will trade one asshole goon, for a whole team of them.
They just did (after begging them to invade)...and a team of asshole goons who have a track record of wrecking entire regions if they can make a dollar from it. And now they can sit on both sides of Egypt as that situation plays out. It's revolting.


As for the West trying to put in a puppet, I'm sure they'll try to, but like I said, the whole tribal thing makes that difficult. For the US, the tribes in Libya are a double edged sword. Some may agree with the US in putting in one of their puppets, the others not so much. I mean, the tribes in Libya have been oppressed and kicked by Gaddafi for years, and is one of the reasons why they've joined up with the rebels to fight back. But they also have the history of agreeing with Gaddafi when it came to handling the West. So like I said, the tribes are a double edged sword for the US, just as they have been for Gaddafi in years past. They just happen to currently oppose him because of what he's done to them in the past few decades. When he first came to power, they didn't have much problem with him and his dealings with the US.
The "tribal thing" makes it far easier. Division among the rebels serves the imperialists, and they have a great deal of experience in exploiting tribal antagonisms to "divide and conquer". The lack of unified ideology (or objective beyond getting Gaddafi out) will play right into the US' hands. Even if it didn't...what are the rebels going to do? "Thanks for squashing the guy we couldn't beat under your thumb...but I'm going to stop you from taking whatever you want from my country". Doesn't really have too much force behind it. Trying to argue with the combined air forces of France, UK, US and a few others isn't going to go very far when you couldn't argue with Gaddafi's.

By the way, you're forgetting that if one faction somehow figures out a way of going against the imperialists, they can easily be countered by other factions willing to play ball and make lots of money doing it. Divide and conquer, where division already exists, has no mercy.


The tribes in Libya are much different (in number as well), than the Kurds in Iraq. The tribes don't necessarily see the US/West as liberators like the Kurds did, but see them as a means to getting their way. I mean, nobody can deny, whoever's side your on, that all the forces in the Libyan conflict, have their own greedy objectives to achieve. The tribes just, as I said, see them as a means to getting their own way, achieved before anyone else can. The Kurds when the US invaded did little from what I remember, to change much.
As far as imperialism was concerned, the anti-Saddam Kurds were an excuse and a convenient local ally. The rebels in Libya aren't serving any radically different purpose.


Like I'm hoping my posts are getting through, I'm not trying to defend the US/NATO/UN side of things, but the rebels side. I'm not blind to the West's greedy undertones, that's clear as day to any action they take like this, wherever it might be. But as I said, the rebels see the no fly zone as a means to get back on the track they were, and progress back to Tripoli, and hopefully take it back for themselves, like they planned before Gaddafi was bombing them with jets and helicopters.
Now, imperialism's side is the only side capable of imposing its will upon the entire country...and imperialism has no problem murdering millions to enrich itself.


Just because a new player, who's been sitting on the fence, has finally made their move, doesn't mean that the rebels plan has differed from their original plan. They probably just see the no fly zone, as a bit of pressure taken off them, along with (hopefully) the West's greedy action to maybe put in a puppet government/man. The rebels could play the West, just as much as the West could try and play them.
The rebels' original plan was to defeat Gaddafi. Now their plan is to keep breathing long enough until imperialist air and sea power can obliterate Gaddafi's forces and likely Gaddafi himself. Very different plans.

There's almost no way the rebels can "play" the west once bombs hit the ground (assuming they even wanted to, which there's no evidence for). This isn't Buggs Bunny and Yosemite Sam, this is a ragtag group of rebels that were effectively defeated by Gaddafi's air force. They're not going to be in a position to say anything to the imperialists except "Yes, sir...how high, sir?", which is basically what they've been saying for weeks now.

[Magón]

They just did (after begging them to invade)...and a team of asshole goons who have a track record of wrecking entire regions if they can make a dollar from it. And now they can sit on both sides of Egypt as that situation plays out. It's revolting.


The "tribal thing" makes it far easier. Division among the rebels serves the imperialists, and they have a great deal of experience in exploiting tribal antagonisms to "divide and conquer". The lack of unified ideology (or objective beyond getting Gaddafi out) will play right into the US' hands. Even if it didn't...what are the rebels going to do? "Thanks for squashing the guy we couldn't beat under your thumb...but I'm going to stop you from taking whatever you want from my country". Doesn't really have too much force behind it. Trying to argue with the combined air forces of France, UK, US and a few others isn't going to go very far when you couldn't argue with Gaddafi's.

By the way, you're forgetting that if one faction somehow figures out a way of going against the imperialists, they can easily be countered by other factions willing to play ball and make lots of money doing it. Divide and conquer, where division already exists, has no mercy.


As far as imperialism was concerned, the anti-Saddam Kurds were an excuse and a convenient local ally. The rebels in Libya aren't serving any radically different purpose.


Now, imperialism's side is the only side capable of imposing its will upon the entire country...and imperialism has no problem murdering millions to enrich itself.


The rebels' original plan was to defeat Gaddafi. Now their plan is to keep breathing long enough until imperialist air and sea power can obliterate Gaddafi's forces and likely Gaddafi himself. Very different plans.

There's almost no way the rebels can "play" the west once bombs hit the ground (assuming they even wanted to, which there's no evidence for). This isn't Buggs Bunny and Yosemite Sam, this is a ragtag group of rebels that were effectively defeated by Gaddafi's air force. They're not going to be in a position to say anything to the imperialists except "Yes, sir...how high, sir?", which is basically what they've been saying for weeks now.

I guess this whole discussion has sort of just been shot dead in the water with this breaking news.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12787739

[manic expression]

I guess this whole discussion has sort of just been shot dead in the water with this breaking news.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12787739
I'm not so sure. If the ceasefire stands (and it might), I think we could be looking at an effectively split Libya, one government indebted to imperialism and the other humbled by it. If it doesn't stand (and it might not), Gaddafi will probably be cooked.

[Wanted Man]

Interesting way of trying to spin things. But as I said in my above post, I see the no fly zone, just as the rebels fighting probably see it, which is nothing more than taking a bit of pressure of them to push back and retake the ground they lost in the last week, not what the West's real intentions are for the country.

I don't agree with US domestic or foreign policy, I never said I did (and I never will), nor do I agree with any other Western state's foreign policy that's involved in this. (Because there is more than just the US playing a part in this no fly zone.) Even two Arab League nations (UAE & Qatar) are taking part in the no fly zone to stop Gaddafi's bombings. I'm on the side of the rebels for kicking Gaddafi out, and this no fly zone just insures that it's even more of a possibility. I don't see why thinking something that can ultimately help kick a evil dictator out of power, is bad, even if the undertones of who's taking the actions are bad. Especially if the rebels know about it, and can do something about it themselves when the fighting is all over.

How can one possibly fail to understand that the "bit of pressure" of the no-fly zone and the "west's real intentions" are strongly related to each other? Making the rebellion dependent on this intervention is the best way for the US and co. to co-opt it beyond repair.

And who cares about the involvement of other countries? This sounds like the "You forgot Poland!" argument. It is true that the US is taking more of a backseat in this one, but there are quite a few more imperialist nations in the world. And I'm sure the UAE and Qatar are big fans of freedom and democracy as well.

Imperialism is a bit more than just the evil machinations of the evil US (which suddenly become good when their target is an evil dictator). But this is impossible to understand to people who consider everything as a shallow battle between good and evil.

[Magón]

How can one possibly fail to understand that the "bit of pressure" of the no-fly zone and the "west's real intentions" are strongly related to each other? Making the rebellion dependent on this intervention is the best way for the US and co. to co-opt it beyond repair.

Well I don't know who failed to understand that the two were the same, but obviously if you and I can, then surely those who are fighting in the actual country, know it too, and are probably making up their own plans to counter it in whatever way they can, depending now on the ceasefire that's just taken place.


And who cares about the involvement of other countries? This sounds like the "You forgot Poland!" argument. It is true that the US is taking more of a backseat in this one, but there are quite a few more imperialist nations in the world. And I'm sure the UAE and Qatar are big fans of freedom and democracy as well.

I'm not trying to say the UAE or Qatar are friends of freedom or democracy, I'm a fucking Anarchist, I oppose all states like the US, Britain, UAE, Qatr, etc. I'm just stating that two Arab League nations (which the US had to make sure their involvement in Libya was okay with the Arab League,) are also involved. So I doubt that with two countries who obviously are opposing Gaddafi, and the need to get the Arab League's approval, the US or the West won't dare make such an imperialist move like they have else where in Iraq and Afghanistan.


Imperialism is a bit more than just the evil machinations of the evil US (which suddenly become good when their target is an evil dictator). But this is impossible to understand to people who consider everything as a shallow battle between good and evil.

Where do I state once, that the US/West are the good guys, or that this whole matter is as you put it, "a shallow battle between good and evil." I stated quite clearly to you, that I'm on the side of the rebels because like them, I want Gaddafi out of Libya. Just because I called Gaddafi an evil dictator, doesn't automatically mean I'm saying the West is the good guys. (The enemy of my enemy, isn't my friend, even if they help out ONCE, someone I support, and I know they're playing at their own greedy game.) That's a pretty shallow generalization right there, and one that doesn't even stand when I said I'm on the rebels side, not the Wests in the first place.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Anarchists for imperialism. Should we laugh or cry?

Not that the socialists who back either NATO or Gaddafi are any less disgusting.

The only side workers have in this, or any situation, is that of fellow workers and the class as a whole. There may have been some sort of opening for independent class action somewhere during the fighting between the rebels and the regime, but from here on out most working people are likely just going to have to try to survive as the rest battle it out, lobbing bombs and missiles at home, places of work, and public spaces.

The best scenario would be the class emerging as an independent force in Libya, opposing all warring factions of bosses and imperialism, and strikes, hotcargoing and other actions against intervention in the countries carrying it out. That's what militants should be arguing for, as much as the situation allows.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

I don't care really who's doing it, because no matter what, it's going to be some Western world nation I don't agree with, and instead I just want to see Gaddafi finally knocked from power, and the people of Libya be free from him. This no fly zone will probably boost the rebels and allow them to do so.

Unfortunately, you don't get to decide how and why imperialism pursues its interests. Capital serves capital. If and when the U.S. or European powers decide to intervene in Libya, it will be because they think it will serve their interests. It will not because they want to help "the people," and it will be not be done in accordance with the wishes of people in Libya requesting assistance.

What's missing in both sides of this long distance fan fest (what does it mean to "support" or oppose this or that side of a war in Africa from behind your computer screen in North America anyway, and how does it differ from choosing a team in the World Cup?) is the question of class, as is usual for the left.

The only real way forward out of this bloodbath and into something of use for humanity is for the working class to pursue its own interests, independent of all bourgeoisie factions, inside and outside of Libya. That's what proletarian militants would argue and fight for, to the best of their capabilities.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Here you go:

TRIPOLI, Libya – Libya declared an immediate cease-fire and promised to stop military operations Friday in a bid to fend off international military intervention after the U.N. authorized a no-fly zone and "all necessary measures" to prevent the regime from striking its own people.

The announcement by Foreign Minister Moussa Koussa followed a fierce attack by Gadhafi's forces against Misrata, the last rebel-held city in the western half of the country. A doctor said at least six people were killed.

The U.N. Security Council resolution, which was passed late Thursday after weeks of deliberation, set the stage for airstrikes, a no-fly zone and other military measures short of a ground invasion. Britain announced that it would send fighter jets and France was making plans to deploy planes, but the U.S. had yet to announce what its role would be. NATO also held an emergency meeting.

With the international community mobilizing, Koussa said the government would cease fire in line with the resolution, although he criticized the authorization of international military action, calling it a violation of Libya's sovereignty.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110318/ap_on_re_af/af_libya

[Amphictyonis]

With the international community mobilizing

I wonder if China and Russia approved this in the UN security council? Anyone know?

EDIT

I obviously didn't read the first post close enough to see the word abstained. It was my thought Russia and China had majority voting power along with the US.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Did you read the first post?

"Ten of the council's 15 members voted in favour of the resolution, while Russia, China, Germany, India and Brazil abstained."

[Luís Henrique]

Who was sure of it?:confused:
I was.

And so was Immanuel Wallerstein.

Evidently I was wrong. It happens, at least to people who take actual positions.

Luís Henrique

[punisa]

I mean, WTF. Civilians are a no-go area in fucking war.
War for the middle-earth? Harry Potter? Name one war were civilians were NOT the main casualty.
The whole idea behind any war is to exterminate civilians. It's practically the number 1 weapon. Slaughtered children, raped women - that's what drives fear in the hearts of your enemies.
Fuck all wars !

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Manic Expression-Stalin took military aid from the USA and worked with them. God, that Imperialist toady Josef Stalin was never able to stand up to the West again after that. :rolleyes: Sarcasm aside, consider the Taliban too ... they got substantial arms and help from the West, but they were more than willing to turn those arms towards Americans a decade after the Soviets withdrew.

I don't think the West helping the rebels will cause them to be absolutely indebted. The rebels made it pretty clear that they didn't want actual soldiers in the country, because they want to have some power over their fate. Perhaps you are right, and they will be too indebted to the west, but even then, MB the rebels aren't perfect, but if they win, it will create more room for organizing labour since the new government probably won't imprison and torture anybody who ever challenges the government's rule. And if it does do that, then it's certainly no worse for labour than the current government. So as far as workers concerned, at worst its a no-lose situation.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

So there you have it. Things "may get better" .... after a thorough bombing campaign from NATO. Reformism via imperialism. Luxemburg must be spinning fast enough in her grave to drill a hole through bedrock.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

NHIA- well, none of these revolutions have had an explicit socialist nature yet, and so they are all only "getting better" and reformist. The important point is that the old governments in Egypt, Libya and Tunisia were all equally repressive to Socialists and organizing of all classes, including the working class. Consider the Russian Revolution as an example. Kerensky was a douchebag for remaining allied to Imperialists in England and France, but he was certainly preferable to the Monarchs in Russia, for more or less the same reason as why even the worst of the rebels is preferable to Muammar Gaddafi. Consider also the fact that Mao Tse-Tsung supported the Liberal Democrat Sun Yat Sen as a great revolutionary ... why would a "Revolutionary" support a liberal or reformist? What may appear as reformism now can be reorganized as revolution later, once there is an opportunity to organize the working class and once the dictator is gone.

As for a bombing campaign by NATO ... I'm not supporting that at all. I want the rebels to win but without Imperialist intervention, or at least not indebted to the intervention, because it is clear that Gaddafi is an enemy to his people. It is Gaddafi who has been receiving support from Imperialists since he took power (despite his claims of anti-imperialism), and now the rebels are facing that in the form of Gaddafis superior military hardware.

[Mindtoaster]

Quite obviously, if you're an American "leftist" and you support this "humanitarian" intervention, the American state does indeed become your state, and its army becomes your army. Nice job crossing the line. Please don't look back.

The rebels and civilians in Benghazi would in all likelihood have been mercilessly massacred had the no-fly zone not passed.

Not saying the no-fly zone should necessarily be cheered on or celebrated, but the situation is a bit more complicated then your rhetoric gives justice to

[Devrim]

The rebels and civilians in Benghazi would in all likelihood have been mercilessly massacred had the no-fly zone not passed.

We don't have crystal balls. I would have imagined that if the no fly zone hadn't been instigated Gaddafi's troops would have sat outside Bengazhi whilst they waited for people to defect.

Nevertheless, a no fly zone isn't some nice thing where they only shoot down enemy planes. It starts with a bombing campaign to knock out airbases radar system etc, and all of the 'collateral damage' that that involves.

Devrim

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Whether or not the No Fly Zone is a good thing is entirely conditional on Gaddafi. If he follows the cease fire, it is wonderful because nobody dies. If he breaks the cease fire, all hell breaks loose and bombs will be dropping.

[Princess Luna]

We don't have crystal balls. I would have imagined that if the no fly zone hadn't been instigated Gaddafi's troops would have sat outside Bengazhi whilst they waited for people to defect.

Judging by the way Gaddafi has acted so far its more likely he would have bombed the shit out of it, and had his troops open fire on random people.......

[Devrim]

Judging by the way Gaddafi has acted so far its more likely he would have bombed the shit out of it, and had his troops open fire on random people.......

I don't think so. I think that strategically the Libyan states forces have taken pretty good decisions. Tribes were beginning to defect. Two went the day before the UN resolution was introduced. To wait while more came over would have been the logical thing to do.

That wasn't my point though. Nobody has a crystal ball.

Devrim

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

The rebels and civilians in Benghazi would in all likelihood have been mercilessly massacred had the no-fly zone not passed.

Not saying the no-fly zone should necessarily be cheered on or celebrated, but the situation is a bit more complicated then your rhetoric gives justice to

Because NATO and the den of wolves that is the UN are concerned with saving lives.

[khad]

I was.

And so was Immanuel Wallerstein.

Evidently I was wrong. It happens, at least to people who take actual positions.

Luís Henrique
Never thought much of Wallerstein or any leftist who follows that anti-marxist world systems trash. These are bits from a conversation I had about 2 weeks ago. It appears that events have unfolded largely as I predicted. It appears that not everyone is wrong.

[22:07] <@khad> the protesters are disorganized rabble
[22:07] <proletarianrevolution> Saddest part about that is that thats not even a member of the ISO in the US. Thats some blogger in England, if i recall correctly. The ISO is worthless.
[22:08] <@khad> one solid stroke and they will fold

[22:55] <@khad> the government wants to lure the opposition into a premature attack
[22:55] <@khad> and then run interdiction and smash them to pieces before they can reach the staging grounds for a push on Sirt and Tripoli

[23:46] <RStephen> I wonder if Gaddafi will win the war
[23:46] <@khad> he probably won’t because the moment he gains the upper hand the protesters will call in the marines


The rebels and civilians in Benghazi would in all likelihood have been mercilessly massacred had the no-fly zone not passed.

Not saying the no-fly zone should necessarily be cheered on or celebrated, but the situation is a bit more complicated then your rhetoric gives justice to


Judging by the way Gaddafi has acted so far its more likely he would have bombed the shit out of it, and had his troops open fire on random people.......

While there have been civilians killed in military operations, there has been virtually no evidence that air power has been deliberately used to target civilians. Air attacks have hit rebel supply caches with such seeming regularity and have missed teeming throngs of disorganized, bunched together rebel "fighters" with such seeming regularity that it cannot be a coincidence. This is one reason why the no-fly zone has been so long in coming. Most of the civilians were killed or wounded in ground operations with artillery.

The no-fly zone is basically just a necessary step towards the real goal, a no-drive zone and a possible deployment of actual ground forces in the future.

[Princess Luna]

While there have been civilians killed in military operations, there has been virtually no evidence that air power has been deliberately used to target civilians. Air attacks have hit rebel supply caches with such seeming regularity and have missed teeming throngs of disorganized, bunched together rebel "fighters" with such seeming regularity that it cannot be a coincidence. This is one reason why the no-fly zone has been so long in coming. Most of the civilians were killed or wounded in ground operations with artillery.

The no-fly zone is basically just a necessary step towards the real goal, a no-drive zone and a possible deployment of actual ground forces in the future.
Please show me the proof that the Air attacks were only targeting Ammunition dumps , because the only person i have heard say that is the same man who said Bin Laden was putting drugs in the rebel's Nescafe. Also the fact Gaddafi said he will burn Libya to the ground before he leaves clearly shows he will use what ever destructive forces he can without regards to a death toll to keep his power.

[PhoenixAsh]

Please show me the proof that the Air attacks were only targeting Ammunition dumps , because the only person i have heard say that is the same man who said Bin Laden was putting drugs in the rebel's Nescafe. Also the fact Gaddafi said he will burn Libya to the ground before he leaves clearly shows he will use what ever destructive forces he can without regards to a death toll to keep his power.

You do realise that the country is currently open for journalists in the rebel areas? I mean....they would have missed the biggest fucking story in the whole situation if they missed bombed cities.

All I have seen for days on end is journalists saying they 'heard' loud bangs...some miles over to the south, north, west, east...but never ever actually catching anything on tape...not even after the bombing was over.

We haven't even seen any nice satelite imagery. all this is done on the basis of rumors and hear say.

I am no Gadaffi supporter...but the whole media has been unbelievably slanted, scetchy, politically motivated and intentionally or unintentionally wrong.

[Luís Henrique]

Evidently I was wrong. It happens, at least to people who take actual positions.

On the other hand, I don't think I was wrong on what would happen if they intervened. Their coalition is already starting to fall apart, with the Arab League claiming the actions are not within the mandate of the 1973 Resolution, China and Russia opportunistically decrying the intervention, and bourgeois Western press wondering why do we have an intervention in Libya, but not in Bahrein or Yemen.

This is going to have consequences, and not all of them are going to fall upon Libya.

Luís Henrique

[barutiwa]

I can't support the UN with the US, UK and France leading the intervention. In the name of protecting civilians is really justification for Qaddafi's murder and the outright theft of Libya's oil. The rebel faction are suckers for the West and are really hurting their people more than Qaddafi has ever done!