War with Libya?

[Red_Struggle]

http://theredphoenixapl.org/2011/03/19/stop-the-u-s-war-against-libya-and-bahrain/

(reprint)

The International Action Center calls on all anti-war and social justice activists to call Emergency Response STOP THE U.S. WAR AGAINST LIBYA AND BAHRAIN actions in their areas on Friday, March 18 or Saturday, Marcy 19, or to mobilize support for any already existing anti-war demonstrations called to mark the anniversary of the Iraq War, with this statement and signs to STOP THE U.S. WAR AGAINST LIBYA AND BAHRAIN, as well as to intensify the mobilization for the April 9th and 10th Anti-War demonstrations in New York and San Francisco called by the United National Antiwar Committee.

On March 17, 2011, Washington showed its true intentions by pushing through a U.N. Security Council resolution that amounts to a declaration of war on the government and people of Libya.
A U.S. attack is the worst possible thing that could happen to the people of Libya. It also puts the unfolding Arab revolutions, which have inspired people across North Africa and Western Asia, in the gravest danger.
The resolution goes beyond a no-fly zone. It includes language saying U.N. member states could “take all necessary measures” … “by halting attacks by air, land and sea forces under the control of the Gadhafi regime.”(CNN.com, Mar 17)
The new resolution not only calls for attacks on Libyan aircraft and air defenses, but authorizes the strafing and bombing of ground forces as well. The U.S. and French governments immediately announced that they were ready to go. Britain and Italy are aiding. In essence the former colonial powers have begun an armed attack on the Libyan government and its people, backing one side of a civil war.
No matter how one feels about Libya today and the role of the Gadhafi government; regardless of how one evaluates the Libyan opposition, a U.S.-led war or intervention in Libya is a disaster for the Libyan people, and for peace and progress around the world.

BAHRAIN EXPOSES THE LIE ABOUT “PREVENTING ATTACKS ON CIVILIANS”
The U.S. and its allies are repeating over and over the lie that they are trying to “prevent attacks on civilians” and are acting from humanitarian motives. But nobody should be fooled. Consider these “humanitarians” and how they react to Bahrain.
The U.S. Fifth Fleet is based in Bahrain, which is an absolute monarchy. Its people have been valiantly trying to change their government for weeks. They had some initial success. The king responded with deadly repression and later with hints at reform.
On March 14, however, hours after Secretary of Defense Gates visited Bahrain, the Bahraini government commenced a brutal crackdown, backed up by Saudi Arabian troops. Helicopters, tear gas, rubber bullets, and live ammunition were used, killing and injuring many people. Nearly all of Bahrain’s security forces are foreign mercenaries.
Unlike the Libyan rebels, the Bahraini people have absolutely no arms. But there has been no talk of a no-fly zone over Bahrain, let alone attacks on the murderous Bahraini and Saudi armies.

NO BLOOD FOR OIL
This is because the real motivation for the U.S. and its allies in both Bahrain and Libya, and indeed the whole region, is to control the OIL! It is Washington’s main strategic interest and a primary financial interest for U.S. big business.
This is true even though the U.S. is not directly dependent on imported oil from Libya. Oil is a worldwide commodity, and any country which imports oil must deal with a world market, no matter from which individual country or countries they import the oil.

Of even more importance to the U.S. and Europeans is who controls the flow of oil. A military presence or a reliable puppet in Libya would give Washington –and to a lesser extent the European imperialists — control of the oil spigot to Europe and also establish a military presence in North Africa from which to influence or prevent the development of the revolutions, especially in Egypt and Tunisia.http://theredphoenix.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/050419-n-5313a-049.jpg?w=294&h=412 (http://theredphoenix.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/050419-n-5313a-049.jpg)

ARAB LEAGUE “VOTE” FRAUD
Not only a demonization campaign against the Libyan leader, but every form of fraud and propaganda is being used to push for this intervention, including a supposed “vote” by the Arab League supporting the latest U.N. resolution. Left unsaid is the fact that only 11 of the 22 members of the League even attended the meeting, which was held behind closed doors. Two of these 11 attending members, Syria and Algeria, made clear that they were completely opposed to military intervention in Libya.
Meanwhile the corporate media has ignored a resolution by the African Union, representing 53 countries, which adamantly rejected a no-fly zone or other intervention.

WHAT ABOUT GAZA?
The U. S. blocked any UN action, even a toothless resolution, during the massive Israeli bombardment of Gaza in 2008 and also during the Israeli bombing and attempted invasion of Lebanon in 2006, as well as the continued bombardment of Gaza as recently as this week!.
It is important that peace-loving and progressive people around the world develop a consistent approach opposing ALL U.S. intervention. This is the only way to avoid becoming just an echo of the U.S. State Department and Pentagon.
U.S., French, British, Italian hands off Libya!

NO to the U.S. supported attack on the people’s movement of Bahrain!

U.S. Out of Arab and African Lands!

[ComradeOm]

On March 17, 2011, Washington showed its true intentions by pushing through a U.N. Security Council resolution that amounts to a declaration of war on the government and people of LibyaI think you'll find that the two are not one and the same

[Nolan]

I think you'll find imperialism ultimately doesn't care.

[syndicat]

I think you'll find imperialism ultimately doesn't care.

but we do...or should.

[ComradeOm]

I think you'll find imperialism ultimately doesn't care.Marxists do however. Failing to distinguish between a government and its citizenry (and then further down through the classes) is unforgivable. Particularly in such an egregious case as this

[Wanted Man]

The way I read it is that it is a declaration of two separate wars: one on the government of Libya and another one on its people.

[Nolan]

Marxists do however. Failing to distinguish between a government and its citizenry (and then further down through the classes) is unforgivable. Particularly in such an egregious case as this

Of course, but I don't see any reason to believe that anyone has done that.

Imperialism is always a war on the people, at least on the working class (and peasantry if that applies).

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

This is going to be a big mess-it could explode in the face of the intervening powers and undermine their strength or backfire against the Libyan people. Granted, I've read a lot that say there are large sectors of the Rebel forces which are stringently anti-American, including those who fought for al qaeda and other insurgent forces during the Iraq war.

Granted, Gaddafi himself is responsible for bloody expansionist wars (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_War) (granted they got their asses handed to them), imperialistically supported bourgeois tyrants around Africa (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Taylor_%28Liberia%29#Civil_war), .... a few actually (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idi_amin#International_relations), ... in fact quite a lot (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-B%C3%A9del_Bokassa#Foreign_support) (though they were even less competent than he), and attacked unarmed innocent civilians of another nation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockerbie_bombing). So this is just a case of a couple of big Imperialist countries squishing a small Imperialist country.

[MarxSchmarx]

So like I've always had this vague problem with authoritarian leftist criticisms of humanitarian military intervention. Of course there are ulterior motives, and absolutely there is hypocrisy.

But let's say a socialist worker's government committed to expanding their gains abroad was installed in America. Wouldn't this government have to pick and choose which struggles to support? Would this lead to charges of hypocrisy? Even Maoist China abandoned certain movements.

Moreover, if one believes as most authoritarian leftists do that governments should have a monopoly on force, then isn't some intervention, however problematic from the perspective of international law and anti-colonialism, that genuinely results in preventing genocide, preferable to sitting idly by as in Rwanda, even if it isn't practiced everywhere consistently? Intervening to oust an asshole and a maniac and a traitor to the anti-imperialist struggle like Qadaffi would seem like a "broken clock is right twice a day" kind of thing if one were an authoritarian socialist or social democrat to me.

[ComradeOm]

Of course, but I don't see any reason to believe that anyone has done thatGood. Oh wait...

Imperialism is always a war on the people, at least on the working class (and peasantry if that applies)

Hmmm. So an attack on government forces, because it is "imperialist", is also an attack on the Libyan people. Even though the missiles aren't falling on the rebel positions. So simply attaching this label allows you to effectively ignore all the differences between state and citizens and focus on a single "Libyan people"

[Il Medico]

I don't support foreign intervention. I highly doubt ,many people buy the 'protecting people' excuse for it either. Even my highly conservative father understands that this is about protecting interest of involved nations. That said,I'm not excatly a big fan of Gadaffi or his whole 'killing lots of people to stay in power' thing. I want the rebels to win obviously, as does I think pretty much everyone here. If the French, British, and Americans bombing gadaffi's forces helps to that end, I'm not exactly gonna lose sleep over it.

[Wanted Man]

Were all you people in diapers during the Iraq War or something (probably yes?)? Obviously it's impossible to "bomb Gaddafi's forces" without killing civilians. Do you lose any sleep over that? No, because their lives are worth less apparently.

[Omsk]

48 casualties in Libya,civilians too.
Just as they joyfully pronounced that in the strikes against Yugoslavia,the civilians casualties were minimal,in the end,it turned out that more civilians died.Much more.
Yugoslav 462 soldiers killed. (some in barracks,some in civil)
114 special police.
1200 civilians.
They bombed important strategic positions as kindergartens,ski-centers,gero-homes.
These idiots bombed even the Albanian refugees,the same refugees they 'came to protect'. 70 people died.
They bombed the Avala toranj for no reason,the state TV,3 kindergartens,2 schools.
And on the personal account,they bombed an appartment block next to my own home,for no reason.A lot of people died,i still remember the explosion.

[The Douche]

There are two positions you can take on this, for intervention, or against intervention. It should be blatantly obvious which one is the communist position.

[Ligeia]

Were all you people in diapers during the Iraq War or something (probably yes?)? Obviously it's impossible to "bomb Gaddafi's forces" without killing civilians. Do you lose any sleep over that? No, because their lives are worth less apparently.

Not only that but they won't only bomb government forces.
Missiles are also falling on civilian facilities.


Hours after the attacks, sources in Libya have reported that three medical facilities were bombarded. Two were hospitals and one a medical clinic.These were civilian facilities.
Al-Tajura Hospital was hit as was Saladin Hospital in Ain Zara. The clinic that was bombed was also located in the vicinity of Tripoli, the Libyan capital. Not only where these civilian structures, but they were also all far away from the combat zone.

source (http://alexandravaliente.wordpress.com/2011/03/20/breaking-news-libyan-hospitals-are-being-attacked-humanitarian-mission/)

[ComradeOm]

Were all you people in diapers during the Iraq War or something (probably yes?)? Obviously it's impossible to "bomb Gaddafi's forces" without killing civilians. Do you lose any sleep over that? No, because their lives are worth less apparently.And were you or anyone else bleating about killing civilians when it was Gaddafi's planes that were conducting the bombing raids? Do you really care so little about the blood that would have flowed had his forces taken Benghazi?

No, it is those who react with knee-jerk anti-Americanism that do not value Libyan lives. This sham of an anti-imperialist critique is Western-centric both in its, ironic, obsession with Western actions (to the point where we can now apparently ignore the civil war and reduce the equation to 'the West vs Libya') and an implicit assumption, most markedly held by idiots who uphold Gaddafi's regime as "quasi-socialist", that a broken down despotism is the best that Libyans or other Arab/African states should aspire to

So people can call me whatever they want but to insinuate that I care nothing for Libyan lives - when I am apparently one of the few paying more attention to them than the motivations of London and Paris - is nothing less than rank hypocrisy


There are two positions you can take on this, for intervention, or against intervention. It should be blatantly obvious which one is the communist position.Is it the one that lines up behind Washington or the one that supports Gaddafi?

[The Douche]

Is it the one that lines up behind Washington or the one that supports Gaddafi?

Did you support Saddam? Do you support the Taliban?

[ComradeOm]

Nope. I find that there's very little about these tyrannies that recommend themselves to me. I also find that they don't suddenly become worth defending when their state interests clash with those of the West

[Wanted Man]

And were you or anyone else bleating about killing civilians when it was Gaddafi's planes that were conducting the bombing raids? Do you really care so little about the blood that would have flowed had his forces taken Benghazi?

Umm, yes to the first question and no to the second. I don't expect people to remember everything I say on this forum, because it's ultimately not that important; but yes, I was in fact railing against the fucking idiots who apologised for Gaddafi, and I have always maintained that the Libyan people have both the right and the duty to overthrow his regime.

In consideration of that, the rest of your post is not worth responding to because I agree with the premises (that there's more than just Gaddafi and the west, and that it's idiocy to consider Libya socialist, quasi- or otherwise), just not your conclusion that the intervention is good because it only hurts the government (which is demonstrably false).

It's also a bit difficult to understand how one can be a "kneejerk Anti-American" while focusing only on "London-Paris". Unless the White House has recently been moved to London, California and the bombings are being launched from Paris, Tennessee.

[PhoenixAsh]

Arab League expresses concern about the intervention

[The Douche]

Nope. I find that there's very little about these tyrannies that recommend themselves to me. I also find that they don't suddenly become worth defending when their state interests clash with those of the West

So opposing imperialism in Iraq is different from supporting Sadam? And opposing imperialism in Afghanistan is different from supporting the taliban? But opposing imperialism in Libya is the same as supporting Quadaffi? Why?

Why are you an anti-imperialist on the question of Iraq or Afghanistan, but pro-imperialist on the question of Libya?

[khad]

And were you or anyone else bleating about killing civilians when it was Gaddafi's planes that were conducting the bombing raids?
Already more people were killed in a day than in a week of air attacks by the government. You have to be hard pressed to convince me that there was deliberate targeting of civilians when you hear deaths in the range of 4-8 per day from supposed "massacres from the air," and it later turns out in rebel statements that many of those killed were armed rebels.


(AGI) Algiers - The death toll of Muammar Gaddafi's air raids on Benghazi is of at least 8 fatalities. The news was broadcast on Al-Jazeera. A witness reported to the pan-Arab TV network that the victims were in the Dinar district and were probably insurgents. The Georgian army managed to kill some 200 people in a night by mere shelling in their campaign of ethnic cleansing against South Ossetia. THAT is what deliberate targeting of civilians looks like.


Do you really care so little about the blood that would have flowed had his forces taken Benghazi?There has been no evidence of mass reprisals. The rebels cried about being scared of retributive mass killings, "massacres" at Brega and Zawiyah as the government forces were advancing on them, but after the battles these fears have not materialized. The rebel press has had plenty of time to spin some legend, but even they have not done so.


So people can call me whatever they want but to insinuate that I care nothing for Libyan lives - when I am apparently one of the few paying more attention to them than the motivations of London and Paris - is nothing less than rank hypocrisyYou are the rank hypocrite. You say that you care for Libyan lives, but the case has always been throughout history that the firepower of foreign interventionists kills more.

[ComradeOm]

In consideration of that, the rest of your post is not worth responding to because I agree with the premises (that there's more than just Gaddafi and the west, and that it's idiocy to consider Libya socialist, quasi- or otherwise), just not your conclusion that the intervention is good because it only hurts the government (which is demonstrably false)I'd obviously have preferred if intervention had not been necessary but it is if this revolt is not to be crushed. And as far as I'm concerned that is that


So opposing imperialism in Iraq is different from supporting Sadam?Of course. I opposed the invasion of Iraq for reasons that had to do with the invasion itself, not out of any love for a repressive dictatorship. Which has very much been my point above - there is far more to these scenarios than some artificial dichotomy in which you either support imperialism or dictatorship. Because frankly that's a lose-lose scenario for any self-proclaimed communist to be caught in - as the embarrassing apologism of others on this forum should make clear


But opposing imperialism in Libya is the same as supporting Quadaffi? Why?Because if there was no intervention then Benghazi would be occupied by now and a popular revolt snuffed out. This might just be me, but I do consider the quashing of this revolt by an unrepresentative dictatorship to be a Bad Thing. If Western intervention is required to prevent it, well so be it. This is the biggest difference with Iraq where there was no such pressing need

So here I am weighing up whether the preservation of the revolt is worth the inevitable price of Western intervention. I've decided that it is. What does puzzle me is why so few forumites have reached the same position. Do you really support the Gaddafi regime as it sets out to destroy the opposition movement? Or do the words "anti-imperialism" really exert such a hold over you that you would condemn Benghazi just to spite the Western powers?

I suppose that the question that I'm reaching for is why does the presence of Western warplanes suddenly make an unpalatable regime (assuming that you're not one of the 'quasi-socialist' cranks) worth defending? Because if the Western powers had not acted, if they had continued to support Gaddafi, then they would have condemned a popular revolt to inevitable defeat and effectively sanctioned the continuation of an anti-democratic government. You would really support this?


There has been no evidence of mass reprisalsAnd I suspect that none will emerge until the fighting is over. Assuming of course that the rebels win. But then it takes a special sort of mind to assume that reprisals would not follow a Gaddafi victory. I'm sure that he's the magnanimous and forgiving sort... :rolleyes:

I am curious though khad, where does your contempt for the rebels come from? Is it the gall they have in challenging one of your darling corrupt dictatorships?


...the case has always been throughout history that the firepower of foreign interventionists kills moreMore? More than what? More than the numbers killed by vengeful states throughout history? Madness

[Wanted Man]

I'd obviously have preferred if intervention had not been necessary but it is if this revolt is not to be crushed. And as far as I'm concerned that is that

Sure, but as soon as the intervention materialises, that also has its political consequences. The intervention may have actually turned the revolt into a civil war along regional lines. Bombings by both the coalition on the government and by Gaddafi on the rebels are likely to kill hundreds more.

The end result will probably be either the same as in Iraq in 1991, that the regime is "punished" but allowed to stay in power and take revenge on the opposition, or some kind of Yugoslavia-style dismantling of the country into two different, approximately equally oppressive, exploitative and murderous states that will both take bloody revenge on their respective oppositions.

The third alternative, of course, is that the independent struggle of the Libyan people somehow gets strengthened despite, or perhaps even because of, the imperialist intervention. That would be unprecedented looking at recent history, and it seems like a very naive thing to expect. Yet it is the only way one could "credibly" cheer the intervention or be ambivalent about it. So this position is based on a lot of wishful thinking and a whole bunch of unlikely ifs and buts.

EDIT: and actually, another possibility is that the no-fly zone is too late to prevent all cities (except perhaps Benghazi) from falling into government hands. Then the revolt will still be snuffed out unless the coalition decided to commit to a full-scale bombing campaign or even the unlikely and bloody ground invasion. Would you support that just to spite one of many tinpot dictators?

[ComradeOm]

Who said I'm "cheering" anything? As I've said, this intervention is not what I would have liked. Ideally the rebels would have been strong enough to put the dictatorship to flight on their own. However we are here and it is now; there is no point crying over what could have been. Intervention is needed to save the revolt from destruction, as a result it has my grudging support

The best case scenario is that Gaddafi's regime crumbles and a more progressive state is established. Worst case scenario is, as you note, protracted civil war with ultimate victory for the establishment. But then this is the gamble inherent in every revolution or rising. I do not consider it to be too late or too fanciful to predict a rebel victory. Even if I did, I would not simply write off and condemn a movement that has struggled to abolish a repressive dictatorship

Edit: In fact, let's look at the alternatives to non-intervention. This will not take long as there is only one: Gaddafi crushes the revolt

[The Douche]

there is far more to these scenarios than some artificial dichotomy in which you either support imperialism or dictatorship.

You are the one creating this false dichotomy, not me. You are saying "euther you support Ghadaffi or the intervention", no, I support the notion of allowing Libyans to decide the fate of their nation, outside the influence of US imperialism.


If Western intervention is required to prevent it, well so be it.

So you are pro-imperialism. That is what you are saying here. You think that this popular revolt, now that the conditions of said revolt will be dictated by western powers, will produce a government which will help the people of Libya anymore than Ghadaffi did? Do you think that the imperialists will just attack Ghadaffi, not hurt civilians, not hurt infrastructure, and then simply walk away and let the Libyans form whatever government they please? Are you really that naive?


What does puzzle me is why so few forumites have reached the same position.

Because I don't approach this issue as a "forumite", I approach it as a communist, and furthermore, as somebody who may in fact be ordered to go enforce western imperialism in that nation, and so I will always oppose imperialism, under any circumstances.


Do you really support the Gaddafi regime as it sets out to destroy the opposition movement?

I never said this, nor have any posters in this thread, nor have most of the parties who have been accused of holding this position.


I suppose that the question that I'm reaching for is why does the presence of Western warplanes suddenly make an unpalatable regime (assuming that you're not one of the 'quasi-socialist' cranks) worth defending?

Why is your arguement based on a false dichotomy?

[ComradeOm]

You are the one creating this false dichotomy, not me. You are saying "euther you support Ghadaffi or the intervention", no, I support the notion of allowing Libyans to decide the fate of their nation, outside the influence of US imperialismWhich, as I've pointed out a number of times now, is effectively supporting Gaddafi. There are no two ways around this - if there is no intervention then Gaddafi crushes the rising. Period. You perhaps consider this to be a good thing?

But since this has come up below, I might as well ask it here: Out of curiosity, what do you think would have happened had there been no intervention in the past few days? Do you believe that Benghazi would still hold out? Do you wish that it hadn't?

[Edit: Really though, this is too good. Suddenly we've reduced it to "Libyans" and "US imperialism". No mention of the brutal campaign of state violence currently being waged against the rebels for daring to oppose the regime. So which Libyans are you talking about? I'm beginning to think that the Left Communists were right all along]


So you are pro-imperialism. That is what you are saying here. You think that this popular revolt, now that the conditions of said revolt will be dictated by western powers, will produce a government which will help the people of Libya anymore than Ghadaffi did? Do you think that the imperialists will just attack Ghadaffi, not hurt civilians, not hurt infrastructure, and then simply walk away and let the Libyans form whatever government they please? Are you really that naive?No. I am however running short of alternatives. We have a) intervene and prevent the destruction of the revolt, and b) don't intervene and allow the revolt to be crushed. Now all the bleating in the world about "allowing Libyans to decide the fate of their nation" is not going to change this scenario. Thanks to Gaddafi and his mercenaries the Libyan people do not have the freedom to decide their own destiny - hello, dictatorship here - and attempts to do so have been met with unrestrained violence from the state

Yet its easier for you and others to rail against the one thing that is preventing the crushing of the revolt than to accept that this intervention is necessary. At least others here are honest, and reprehensible, enough to express their contempt for the rebels and their admiration for the dictatorship

And no, I have no illusions as to the price that must be paid to the Western powers. Of course they are not acting out of altruism. Whatever the price however it is worth it to be rid of a dictatorship. Any successor government would struggle to be worse than the current one. Besides, my words in the above post still apply - these are some of the risks inherent in any revolt


Because I don't approach this issue as a "forumite", I approach it as a communist, and furthermore, as somebody who may in fact be ordered to go enforce western imperialism in that nation, and so I will always oppose imperialism, under any circumstancesSince you bring it up, aren't you in the army or some such? Seems a strange position to be lecturing people about imperialism from

As for the use of the term "forumite", it seems apt given that RevLeft is the only place that I've seen people stand up (metaphorically before you go splitting hairs) and defend the Gaddafi dictatorship

[The Douche]

Which, as I've pointed out a number of times now, is effectively supporting Gaddafi.

False dichotomy.


I'm beginning to think that the Left Communists were right all along

The left-com position would be against Ghadaffi, and against imperialism, your's is against Ghadaffi and for imperialism.


intervene and prevent the destruction of the revolt

What do you expect this revolt to produce? Especially now that it is going to be controlled by the imperialists.


Whatever the price however it is worth it to be rid of a dictatorship. Any successor government would struggle to be worse than the current one.

Absurd, utterly absurd. If you don't realise that all government is a dictatorship of some sort (a class dictatorship) then you are a fool. I honestly cannot see how you can say "the government created by western imperialism will be better than Ghadaffi's", and use that as an excuse to justify imperialist intervention. That is what people said about the invasion of Iraq as well you know. You have some kind of perverted faith in imperialism.


Since you bring it up, aren't you in the army or some such?

Which is why it is vitally important to oppose imperialism. Maybe if people didn't think like you do, millions of Iraqis and Afghans would still be alive?


Seems a strange position to be lecturing people about imperialism from

The difference being that you support imperialism and I actively work against it.


I've seen people stand up (metaphorically before you go splitting hairs) and defend the Gaddafi dictatorship

No, you've just created that image yourself cause it justifies your pro-imperialist position.

[Amphictyonis]

Declaring a no fly zone is essentially an act of war but seeing the US controlled UN security council ordered it it's a 'humanitarian' effort. I have mixed feelings on the subject.In the end some US friendly facade of "democracy" will be implemented. Cheaper oil for the advanced capitalist nations. A parasitic economy full of structural adjustments installed by the World Bank/IMF. US corporations sent in to exploit cheap labor. Yea us? Look to the US trying the same thing in South America (Venezuela). Why not declare a no fly zone over Palestine when Israel was bombing them? The USA would also use brutality to subjugate any forming mass movement against the state.If it came down to it and the entire system in the US was about to be overthrown I think they might use the military against US citizens. I wouldn't but it past them (especially if it was a socialist revolution in the US).

[ComradeOm]

False dichotomy.Yes, so you've said. You've not however pointed out why it is this or how your position (ie, non-intervention) does not provide Gadaffi with a carte blanche to destroy the revolt. I ask again: what do you think would have happened had there been no intervention in the past few days? Simple question but it remains at the heart of the matter


The left-com position would be against Ghadaffi, and against imperialism, your's is against Ghadaffi and for imperialismOh I wasn't referring to this particular case but rather the tendency for certain 'anti-imperialism' stances to mutate into base nationalism. Its pretty marked in the language of both yourself and others in this thread


Absurd, utterly absurd. If you don't realise that all government is a dictatorship of some sort (a class dictatorship) then you are a foolDon't be a moron. If you can't tell the difference between Gadaffi's dictatorship and, say, a liberal democracy then feel free to fuck off into irrelevancy. No wonder you can't produce a coherent analysis if all you can see are identical shades of black. That sort of 'more revolutionary than thou' wankery is completely out of place here

Hell, I bet you didn't even support the rebels in the first place. Anything that isn't 100% ideologically pure gets no sympathy for you. In your eyes they are no doubt just as bad as the regime that they seek to overthrow


I honestly cannot see how you can say "the government created by western imperialism will be better than Ghadaffi's"You really don't see how a democracy, even a bourgeois one, is better than a repressive dictatorship? And you were talking of naivety earlier...

Here's the thing: this isn't some discussion about Spain or Kronstadt, or a hypothetical forklift scenario. People are dying because an entrenched dictator does not want to relinquish his position of power. A popular rising has taken place that will (hopefully) topple his regime and (hopefully) introduce a more accountable state structure. Its not sexy and its not October 1917 but it is a progressive move to end a dictatorship that people are sick of. This is not a bad thing and if you consider it to be such then I suggest that you seriously reconsider how you justify calling yourself a socialist or communist or whatever


The difference being that you support imperialism and I actively work against itFrom the inside, yeah?


No, you've just created that image yourself cause it justifies your pro-imperialist position.Do you think that I was making that quasi-socialist shit (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2051798&postcount=101) up?

[PhoenixAsh]

Here is the situation:

1). Brutal authorative dictatorship which is also propaganda victim of biased information and information gathering and giving.
2). Opposition working towards some form of freedom in burgeoisie democracy but hand in hand with tribalism/monarchy and imperialism and sprinkled with a racist undertone here and there (unknown if structural).
3). Supporting the coalitions imperialist ambitions disguised as humanitarian intervention


So...yeah...I can not in any good conscious support anybody right now...for none
correspond with my views and all violate essential tennents of my believe....or are utterly devided by this conflict.

So I can choose to support the workers.....

Supporting workers who are divided between Gadaffi and Opposition...and threatened by all three powerbrokers in this scenario.

There is NO choice that is valid. There is NO absolute and there is NO group which can be considered support worthy or unified (in case of the support worthy workers).

And I rips me apart...


>>>



Journalists just accused the US of running airsupport for the rebel forces. US rep said he would not "exactly call it" as such...

[PhoenixAsh]

When asked the question; are we coordinating with opposition forces?

THe spokesperson said: not at this time.

[Raubleaux]

ComradeOm, you have really backed yourself into an untenable position. You claim we are blinded by some kind of "anti-imperialist tunnel vision" that is preventing us from looking beyond the notion of opposing the UN bombing. In reality, however, you are the one who is afflicted with tunnel vision. You are letting your conviction that Qaddafi is some kind of evil dictator that must be overthrown at any cost blind you to the material consequences of the position you support.

You seem to enjoy counterfactuals and hypothetical scenarios, so here is one for you to consider: what do you think would happen if your beloved rebels overthrew the Qaddafi government? Do you honestly think they will establish something better? The "rebels" in Libya are a disorganized mess with very strong reactionary tendencies.

It sounds to me like you would be happy if the rebels won and established a bourgeois democracy. I thought we were leftists here? Since when do we support bourgeois democracy? Do you know what bourgeois democracy would actually entail for a resource-rich African country like Libya? All you need to do is look around the continent! Look at Nigeria. That's basically what you want -- for Libya to be transformed into Nigeria. And that is the best case scenario!

Another even more horrific outcome could be that the reactionary tribal and religious loyalties of the rebel leaders leads to the breakup of Libya into a collection of backward mini-states (a la Yugoslavia) that will be even more easily dominated by international oil companies. In this case, not only would there be a massive collapse in the standard of living but also a return to feudalism or monarchy in some of the more conservative areas.

I'm sorry if reading this gives you a heart attack, but I absolutely support Gaddafi defeating the rebels because the outcomes that involve the rebels winning are awful. Unlike you, I do not have a love for bourgeois democracy that blinds me to the objective conditions of Libyan workers. I can see that any alternative involving the victory of this rebellion will be a reversal for them.

That is not to say that Gaddafi is a communist or that I "support Gaddafi." What needs to happen in Libya is the creation of a genuine working class movement to oppose Gaddafi from the left. This rebellion does not support Libyan workers.

[Raubleaux]

Here are some stats about Nigeria, for those who think that a transition to bourgeois democracy in Libya would be a "progressive" change like ComradeOm

Life expectancy at birth:
total population: 47.56 years

Infant mortality rate:
total: 91.54 deaths/1,000 live births

Death rate:
16.06 deaths/1,000 population (July 2011 est.)

School life expectancy (primary to tertiary education):
total: 9 years

Here are the corresponding statistics for Libya:

Life expectancy at birth:
total population: 77.65 years

School life expectancy (primary to tertiary education):
total: 17 years

Death rate:
3.4 deaths/1,000 population (July 2011 est.)

Infant mortality rate:
total: 20.09 deaths/1,000 live births

But then again I'm sure people wake up in Nigeria every day thanking god they don't live in a dictatorship like the Libyans.

[synthesis]

You really don't see how a democracy, even a bourgeois one, is better than a repressive dictatorship?

I find it absurd that this sort of claim would be made on a revolutionary leftist forum. Is the Russian working class better off now than they were thirty years ago?

[khad]

I find it absurd that this sort of claim would be made on a revolutionary leftist forum. Is the Russian working class better off now than they were thirty years ago?
It seems that some anarchists, despite their lack of theoretical sophistication, can at least agree on a number of the basic principles of radical leftism.

Trotskyists, on the other hand, are an entirely different species altogether. It seems that just about every trotskyist group has been in unmitigated error in cheering on capitalist imperialism.

[Rusty Shackleford]

The dynamic of NATO/US imperialism being actively involved in Libya as of 2 days ago has shattered any hope of a better future for Libyans.

sure the Government may be toppled...
sure Benghazi might be saved...


but what will come of it?

NATO/US forces have thrown their lot into it, along with reactionary arab leaders(the Arab League). They will get what they want by force of bombs or money.

Anti-intervention is not pro-Qadhafi. Intervention will impact the libyan working class and the greater arab working class in a negative way. how can a 3rd war in the region be humanitarian? 3 wars in a decade!

2001- Afghanistan
2003- Iraq
2011- Libya

not to mention the '06 Israeli war in Lebanon and the '08-'09 Operation Cast Lead in Gaza.

Drone bombings in Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia
Ethiopian incursion into Somalia

[Luís Henrique]

Sure, but as soon as the intervention materialises, that also has its political consequences. The intervention may have actually turned the revolt into a civil war along regional lines. Bombings by both the coalition on the government and by Gaddafi on the rebels are likely to kill hundreds more.

If so, the demoralisation of the intervention will be remarkable. This is not 2001 or 2003; there is significant unrest in the imperialist center as of now. Protests in Ireland, UK, Portugal, Greece, that are certainly not small stuff. Heck, even Wisconsin, of all places, is seeing significant unrest. The chance that these protests - which all have the same causes as the unrest in the Middle East in general, and Libya in particular: the exhaustion of neoliberal policies - being enhanced by a political or even military fiasco in Libya are quite real.

And then the civil war along regional lines may turn into something much more dangerous: global unrest along class lines.


The end result will probably be either the same as in Iraq in 1991, that the regime is "punished" but allowed to stay in power and take revenge on the opposition, or some kind of Yugoslavia-style dismantling of the country into two different, approximately equally oppressive, exploitative and murderous states that will both take bloody revenge on their respective oppositions.This is certainly a possibility. But neither Iraq nor Yugoslavia were having a popular revolt against neoliberal policies. The Shia and Kurd revolts had long been quelled before the invasion of Iraq. The Kosovar uprising against Belgrade was certainly not linked to opposition to Yugoslav neoliberalism. And Afghanistan did not have even anything similar.


The third alternative, of course, is that the independent struggle of the Libyan people somehow gets strengthened despite, or perhaps even because of, the imperialist intervention. That would be unprecedented looking at recent history, and it seems like a very naive thing to expect. Yet it is the only way one could "credibly" cheer the intervention or be ambivalent about it. So this position is based on a lot of wishful thinking and a whole bunch of unlikely ifs and buts.Yes, it would be quite unprecedented. A closer look however shows that this intervention is most certainly a mistake from the imperialist standpoint, which is a rare thing. Normally imperialist interventions involve a good degree of knowledge and calculation. Concerning this one, if I may quote a class enemy,


I think the coalition has done extraordinarily well over the last 48 hours to really turn the tide of the conflict away from an imminent victory by Gaddafi in Benghazi. Now Gaddafi is on the defensive both politically and militarily. But one of the gambles that Britain, France and the United States, and indeed the Arab League, have taken is not having an agreement on what the mission is. Is the coalition trying to protect civilians in harms way, or in essence trying to overthrow Gaddafi? The coalition has intervened in a civil war on behalf of one of the protagonists. They have got to straighten out exactly what they are trying to accomplish.

The second gamble is: who are the rebels? Is there any common doctrine that the rebels espouse in terms of the type of government they would like to set up? Should Gaddafi fall and the rebels take over, will that government be friendly towards Italy, France, Britain, the United States, or even the moderate Arab states? No-one really knows. So it is an extraordinary situation that a coalition has gone to war on behalf of a movement who they literally don't know.

As of now, we read that


US politicians are raising concerns about President Barack Obama's decision to participate in the military action, led by the Republican Speaker of the House of Representatives, John Boehner. "The administration has a responsibility to define for the American people, the Congress and our troops, what the mission in Libya is," he said. Howard McKeon, the chairman of the House armed services committee added: "I am concerned that the use of military force in the absence of clear political objectives for our country risks entrenching the United States in a humanitarian mission whose scope and duration are not known."


EDIT: and actually, another possibility is that the no-fly zone is too late to prevent all cities (except perhaps Benghazi) from falling into government hands. Then the revolt will still be snuffed out unless the coalition decided to commit to a full-scale bombing campaign or even the unlikely and bloody ground invasion. Would you support that just to spite one of many tinpot dictators?Indeed. The onslaught continues in Misrata, and I have no reason to believe the people of Az Zawiya feel comfortabla after the storming of the city by Gaddafy.

But this is a different problem: do we think that the intervention is too much, or that it is too little (and too late)?

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

False dichotomy.

A dichotomy is only false when we are able to point what the third option is.

As of now, I haven't seen this. I have only seen the left stuck into that dichotomy - or stuck with their heads into the sand, denying reality, as it seems to be the position of the "left communists". And might I say, this is because all of us are looking into Libya, not into the general situation.

The point of a proletarian opposition to war is not pacifism, but, as Lenin would say, turning imperialist war into civil war.

Libya already has its civil war. Now how does the left in the coalition countries turn this war into a civil war in their countries, instead of messing with the civil war of other people?

Let me give you a suggestion. Next time people take to the street in London (Madrid, Paris, New York, Toronto, Rome), make the point that Libyan rebels first took to the streets for exactly the same reason: to oppose the implementation of neoliberal policies. And ask how comes the armed power of your own State is being used to support the Libyan rebellion against neoliberal policies, but at the same time is used against you, to support such neoliberal policies?

I will concede you that you won't probably get a civil war, but I would argue it would be a step in the right direction.

Luís Henrique

[daleckian]

Am I the only one who sees any correlation with 1950's Iran? in the 1950s, socialist Mohammed Mossadgh was leader of Iran, and generally, there were a few protests instigated against his administration by the Eisenhower administration, and these began to snowball, and eventually, the CIA got directly involved, calling on the Iranians to "respect the will of the people or else". After Mossadgh was ousted in a anti-left, pro-monarchist (hint: look at the flag the Libyan rebels use) rebellion, he was duly replaced with the autocratic Shah.

Sort've how Hamid Karzai's regime worked the afghan monarchy back into the afghan constitution, I see the same thing happening in Libya.

[pranabjyoti]

You really don't see how a democracy, even a bourgeois one, is better than a repressive dictatorship? And you were talking of naivety earlier...
Ya, the present "democratic" Iraq is now far "better" than it was under "dictator" Saddam Hussein! Comparing the very basic statistics of Libya, I myself would like to live in "dictatorship" of Gaddaffi than present "democratic" India.
Can anybody, who are supporting the imperialist attack on Libya had ever said a single world against "operation Green Hunt" going on in India. It's death toll already crossed the number of "atrocities" done by air attack of Gaddaffi forces. And what about bombing and air attack on Palestinian people by Israel and sending of troops of Bahrain by Saudi Arabia, probably the most "democratic":lol: country in this world and US pet.

[Kléber]

It seems that some anarchists, despite their lack of theoretical sophistication, can at least agree on a number of the basic principles of radical leftism.

Trotskyists, on the other hand, are an entirely different species altogether. It seems that just about every trotskyist group has been in unmitigated error in cheering on capitalist imperialism.
No to imperialist intervention in Libya! (http://www.wsws.org/articles/2011/mar2011/pers-m19.shtml)

[synthesis]

The point of a proletarian opposition to war is not pacifism, but, as Lenin would say, turning imperialist war into civil war.

I thought it had more to do with "internationalism" and "workers of the world" and all that, but I guess we can agree to disagree.

[MarxistMan]

Hi all, watch this latest comments on how the Libyan Agression was planned months ahead:



R1IK-Q9quqk



.






http://theredphoenixapl.org/2011/03/19/stop-the-u-s-war-against-libya-and-bahrain/

(reprint)

The International Action Center calls on all anti-war and social justice activists to call Emergency Response STOP THE U.S. WAR AGAINST LIBYA AND BAHRAIN actions in their areas on Friday, March 18 or Saturday, Marcy 19, or to mobilize support for any already existing anti-war demonstrations called to mark the anniversary of the Iraq War, with this statement and signs to STOP THE U.S. WAR AGAINST LIBYA AND BAHRAIN, as well as to intensify the mobilization for the April 9th and 10th Anti-War demonstrations in New York and San Francisco called by the United National Antiwar Committee.

On March 17, 2011, Washington showed its true intentions by pushing through a U.N. Security Council resolution that amounts to a declaration of war on the government and people of Libya.
A U.S. attack is the worst possible thing that could happen to the people of Libya. It also puts the unfolding Arab revolutions, which have inspired people across North Africa and Western Asia, in the gravest danger.
The resolution goes beyond a no-fly zone. It includes language saying U.N. member states could “take all necessary measures” … “by halting attacks by air, land and sea forces under the control of the Gadhafi regime.”(CNN.com, Mar 17)
The new resolution not only calls for attacks on Libyan aircraft and air defenses, but authorizes the strafing and bombing of ground forces as well. The U.S. and French governments immediately announced that they were ready to go. Britain and Italy are aiding. In essence the former colonial powers have begun an armed attack on the Libyan government and its people, backing one side of a civil war.
No matter how one feels about Libya today and the role of the Gadhafi government; regardless of how one evaluates the Libyan opposition, a U.S.-led war or intervention in Libya is a disaster for the Libyan people, and for peace and progress around the world.

BAHRAIN EXPOSES THE LIE ABOUT “PREVENTING ATTACKS ON CIVILIANS”
The U.S. and its allies are repeating over and over the lie that they are trying to “prevent attacks on civilians” and are acting from humanitarian motives. But nobody should be fooled. Consider these “humanitarians” and how they react to Bahrain.
The U.S. Fifth Fleet is based in Bahrain, which is an absolute monarchy. Its people have been valiantly trying to change their government for weeks. They had some initial success. The king responded with deadly repression and later with hints at reform.
On March 14, however, hours after Secretary of Defense Gates visited Bahrain, the Bahraini government commenced a brutal crackdown, backed up by Saudi Arabian troops. Helicopters, tear gas, rubber bullets, and live ammunition were used, killing and injuring many people. Nearly all of Bahrain’s security forces are foreign mercenaries.
Unlike the Libyan rebels, the Bahraini people have absolutely no arms. But there has been no talk of a no-fly zone over Bahrain, let alone attacks on the murderous Bahraini and Saudi armies.

NO BLOOD FOR OIL
This is because the real motivation for the U.S. and its allies in both Bahrain and Libya, and indeed the whole region, is to control the OIL! It is Washington’s main strategic interest and a primary financial interest for U.S. big business.
This is true even though the U.S. is not directly dependent on imported oil from Libya. Oil is a worldwide commodity, and any country which imports oil must deal with a world market, no matter from which individual country or countries they import the oil.

Of even more importance to the U.S. and Europeans is who controls the flow of oil. A military presence or a reliable puppet in Libya would give Washington –and to a lesser extent the European imperialists — control of the oil spigot to Europe and also establish a military presence in North Africa from which to influence or prevent the development of the revolutions, especially in Egypt and Tunisia.http://theredphoenix.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/050419-n-5313a-049.jpg?w=294&h=412 (http://theredphoenix.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/050419-n-5313a-049.jpg)


ARAB LEAGUE “VOTE” FRAUD
Not only a demonization campaign against the Libyan leader, but every form of fraud and propaganda is being used to push for this intervention, including a supposed “vote” by the Arab League supporting the latest U.N. resolution. Left unsaid is the fact that only 11 of the 22 members of the League even attended the meeting, which was held behind closed doors. Two of these 11 attending members, Syria and Algeria, made clear that they were completely opposed to military intervention in Libya.
Meanwhile the corporate media has ignored a resolution by the African Union, representing 53 countries, which adamantly rejected a no-fly zone or other intervention.

WHAT ABOUT GAZA?
The U. S. blocked any UN action, even a toothless resolution, during the massive Israeli bombardment of Gaza in 2008 and also during the Israeli bombing and attempted invasion of Lebanon in 2006, as well as the continued bombardment of Gaza as recently as this week!.
It is important that peace-loving and progressive people around the world develop a consistent approach opposing ALL U.S. intervention. This is the only way to avoid becoming just an echo of the U.S. State Department and Pentagon.
U.S., French, British, Italian hands off Libya!

NO to the U.S. supported attack on the people’s movement of Bahrain!

U.S. Out of Arab and African Lands!

[ComradeOm]

It sounds to me like you would be happy if the rebels won and established a bourgeois democracy. I thought we were leftists here? Since when do we support bourgeois democracy? Do you know what bourgeois democracy would actually entail for a resource-rich African country like Libya? All you need to do is look around the continent! Look at Nigeria. That's basically what you want -- for Libya to be transformed into Nigeria. And that is the best case scenario!Its fairly clear that bourgeois democracy for Libya would be a progressive step up from what is a corrupt, failing and anti-democratic dictatorship

But thanks for proving my point. The best that Africans and Arabs can hope for is a 'Nigeria'. Any experiment in creating a better society is doomed to fail without a strong dictator to keep them in check. Libyans and Egyptians and Syrians should be happy with their dictators; I can't for the life of me understand why they've risen up in protest against them. They're like children really :glare:


I find it absurd that this sort of claim would be made on a revolutionary leftist forum. Is the Russian working class better off now than they were thirty years ago?And the Czechs and the Poles and the Hungarians and the Latvians, etc, etc?

What I find absurd is this support for a regime that is crushing a popular revolt against an unrepresentative state. Its a demonstration of just how little elements of the left understand the slogans, and indeed core principles, of socialism. Cheering on tinpot dictatorships has become an unshakable habit for many

[synthesis]

And the Czechs and the Poles and the Hungarians and the Latvians, etc, etc?

They were subjects of an empire. What's your point?


What I find absurd is this support for a regime that is crushing a popular revolt against an unrepresentative state. Its a demonstration of just how little elements of the left understand the slogans, and indeed core principles, of socialism. Cheering on tinpot dictatorships has become an unshakable habit for many

I guess we might be on different pages here. Your argument, essentially, is that people shouldn't oppose acts of imperialism committed by their government? Please correct me if I'm wrong.

[Luís Henrique]

Comparing the very basic statistics of Libya, I myself would like to live in "dictatorship" of Gaddaffi than present "democratic" India.

I think you don't understand what living in Gaddafy's Libya is like.

Comparing the "very basic statisitics", one would prefer living in Saudi Arabia than, for instance, Argentina. Comparing the very basic knowledge we have about each society is structured, however, I would say living in Argentina is a better take, even to those unacquainted to a cooler weather.


Can anybody, who are supporting the imperialist attack on Libya had ever said a single world against "operation Green Hunt" going on in India. It's death toll already crossed the number of "atrocities" done by air attack of Gaddaffi forces.

Probably, but considering that the population of India is slightly bigger than that of Libya, I would say that Gaddafy's onslaught is much more murderous than anything going on in India nowadays. Not, of course, to downplay the threat that the Indian State presents to common people, but perspective is a good thing.


And what about bombing and air attack on Palestinian people by Israel and sending of troops of Bahrain by Saudi Arabia, probably the most "democratic":lol: country in this world and US pet.

Well, I don't know of anyone here who supports the occupation of Palestine; and the logic of anti-imperialism some exhibit here would imply supporting Bahrain and Saudi Arabia tyrannies if the West would use force against them to stop the repression of popular movement there.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

Am I the only one who sees any correlation with 1950's Iran? in the 1950s, socialist Mohammed Mossadgh was leader of Iran, and generally, there were a few protests instigated against his administration by the Eisenhower administration, and these began to snowball, and eventually, the CIA got directly involved, calling on the Iranians to "respect the will of the people or else". After Mossadgh was ousted in a anti-left, pro-monarchist (hint: look at the flag the Libyan rebels use) rebellion, he was duly replaced with the autocratic Shah.

No, I think you are not the only one making such correlation.

Obiously, however, you miss the fact that Mossadegh was something like a centre-left reformist, and was democratically elected, while Gaddafy is a far-right third positionist, whose entitlement to power is mere brute force.

Luís Henrique

[Lenina Rosenweg]

I will have to agree with a previous post by Shiva on another thread that there is a strong possibility that the intervention in Libya won't go well for imperialism.I may ger some shit fior this but I think the intervention has more of a short term political motivation. It doesn't have a political objective. Is it "overthrow Qaddafi" or "help the revels" or "humanitarian assistance"? It seems to have been motivated by geopoloitics. If Qaddafi wins, it woukd look bad for Western hegemony. If the rebels fight off Qaddafi at Benghrazi, without Western help, it would also look bad.

Imperialism and interventionism has its own logic.

I do not feel the rebellion was staged, its not a "color revolution", its a very real revolution which is being hijacked by imperialism.

[RadioRaheem84]

Its fairly clear that bourgeois democracy for Libya would be a progressive step up from what is a corrupt, failing and anti-democratic dictatorship


Oh man, this is such a pro-war 'leftist' Hitchens like argument.

[The Douche]

The notion that western imperialism is "supportting anti-neoliberal rebellion" is just absurd. The imperialist powers are securing a foothold in yet another arab nation and yet another oil producing nation.

I can't believe that it is such a confounding idea to so many on this website that it would be advocated that citizens of their country have the right to determine the fate of their country without imperialist forces.

Will you trots be out in the streets with American flags, like the pro-interventionists I saw in DC on saturday?

[RadioRaheem84]

The US media is giving a lot of attention to the pro-interventionist Libyan-Americans.

Are there anti interventionist voices among the Libyans?

[Dire Helix]

The US media is giving a lot of attention to the pro-interventionist Libyan-Americans.

Are there anti interventionist voices among the Libyans?

There are. I saw a news report today on Russian TV that showed many Libyans being firmly against the bombings.

Pro-Gaddafi or not I find it hard to believe that most Libyans would support such an action against their country contrary to what Western mass media want us to think.

[black magick hustla]

this is a tragedy. i don't think there is much to argue beyond that. in one side there is qadaffi and its murderous state, and in the other side there is the rebellion, which is a mess and a lot of it is parcelled around islamist and tribalist lines. of course workers and youth are paying with their blood, in the same way we all pay when there are civil wars. i don't think there is much communists can do about this except sit tight. of course you can try to go off the idea that "we must take a side" and try to look for the good guys but in my opinion this shit is just a bunch of folks getting walked to the slaughterhouse and there is nothing good about it from any side. also anybody who supports the american state bombing is a traitor.

[Rjevan]

Its fairly clear that bourgeois democracy for Libya would be a progressive step up from what is a corrupt, failing and anti-democratic dictatorship
That's true but imperialism rarely shows up to boost bourgeois democracy. Otherwise the best we could hope for to advance socialism is that the USA (or any other imperialist power) invades as many "undemocratic countries" as possible. But that's not how it works, their goal isn't the creation of a free, independent and equal capitalist partner but the conquest, oppression and ruthless expolitation of the Libyan people and resources.


What I find absurd is this support for a regime that is crushing a popular revolt against an unrepresentative state. Its a demonstration of just how little elements of the left understand the slogans, and indeed core principles, of socialism. Cheering on tinpot dictatorships has become an unshakable habit for many
It's no support for the Gaddafi regime but for Libyan independence. If this means Gaddafi will stay for the next time it sure sucks and won't bring the Libyans any closer towards socialism in the near future. But neither will an imperialist invasion and colonialisation. I can't understand why some comrades here still think it's all about the rebels in a struggle for democracy and freedom against the reactionary dictatorship of Gaddafi. That's how you could see the situation not long ago and there can be hardly a question that communists should have supported the rebels back then (although the rebels aren't a pure democratic force, as malador just mentioned). A successful democratic revolution carried out by the Libyan people would undoubtedly be a progressive step.

But situations change and require reevaluation. It's no longer the rebels (now supported by a humanitarian imperialist coalition hardly worth a mention) vs. Gaddafi. It's an imperialist coalition (using the rebels as a welcome pretence) vs. Libya, the Libyan people. A victory of the first forces won't result in and a free and liberated democratic Libya, it won't mean a victory of the rebels and of democracy. The rebels will effectively lose together with the rest of the Libyans because they will find themselves in yet another self-service store for said imperialist powers. It means a consolidation of imperialism in general and of its grip over North Africa in particular.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

'Lenln' interviewed at the New Left Project (http://www.newleftproject.org/index.php/site/article_comments/a_humanitarian_intervention):


Q: The professed rationale for the intervention in Libya is of course a humanitarian one, as is to be expected given the way Western powers (if not all states) portray themselves. The work of writers such as Noam Chomsky, Mark Curtis, yourself and a host of others has, however, shown that Western foreign policy tends to have as its primary concern the power and privilege of domestic elites. What, then, is the real motive of those backing the intervention in Libya? What, fundamentally, do you think they are seeking to achieve?

I think there are various motives. One is to re-establish the credibility of the US and its allies by appearing to side with an endangered population and thus partially expunge the ‘Iraq syndrome’ as well as efface decades of arming and financing dictatorships to keep the local populations under thumb and permanently endangered. But a more fundamental motive can be inferred from the context: the region is experiencing a revolutionary tumult, and the revolution in Libya is no less genuine than those in Tunisia and Egypt (and the uprisings in Bahrain and Yemen). The thrust of this revolution is not just anti-dictatorship, it’s also anti-imperialist, against the IMF and alliances with Israel. So I would hypothesise that the US and its allies have been desperate to find a way to halt this revolutionary process somehow and, where they can’t do that, shape it in a direction more favourable to continued American hegemony in the region. The former regime elements in the leadership of the Libyan rebellion have been more open to an alliance with the US than other revolutionary movements partly because of the particular history and nature of the Qadhafi regime, whose legitimacy continued to rely somewhat on his past standing as a regional opponent of imperialism. This has given the US and EU a unique opportunity to stamp their authority in the process, even if they can’t control it.

That said, it’s a gamble on the part of the US: there’s no guarantee they can control this revolt, and the political forces, particularly in the east of Libya, are not favourable to imperialism. There’s an assumption that because the transitional council has called for a no-fly zone, that must be a demand shared throughout the revolutionary movement. I’m not so sure. The transitional council has little real authority over the movements it is trying to represent. They have more or less admitted that while in theory local revolutionary councils are supposed to send delegates, this has not really happened. The revolution is not a centralised univocal movement, and the transitional council is not the Viet Minh. It is ideologically disparate, organisationally disarticulated, and spatially dispersed. So, while the revolutionaries will undoubtedly try to take advantage of any possible breathing space and turn this intervention to their advantage, there are millions of people whose views have not been canvassed in this campaign and could thus turn against it very quickly if it doesn’t go well. Perhaps the best outcome the US and EU can achieve from their perspective is a de facto partition, between a ‘pro-Western’ east and a rump dictatorship in the west of Libya. The UN resolution seeks a negotiated outcome to the conflict based on bolstering the position of the insurgency to produce a stalemate. Given that Qadhafi would be unlikely to cede power in that circumstance, partition looks like a very plausible outcome. And that would be very bad for Libya, given the regional and ‘tribal’ divisions, partially rooted in the colonial history of Cyrenaica, which Qadhafi has deliberately exacerbated with his policy of underdeveloping the east. It could lead to a degeneration of the revolution and a civil war. Divide and rule is not exactly an unfamiliar strategy in the annals of imperialism.

Q: Some will argue that even if the belligerent states have nefarious motives, if it leads to the downfall of Gaddafi or the saving of life then it is justified - these kinds of outcomes being more important than whatever motives may lead to them. What do you make of such arguments?

I think you have to take such arguments seriously, but their proponents all too often do not. Taking them seriously means trying to judge whether or not the nature of the powers supposedly bringing about this deliverance will affect how they behave, and thus the outcome. We’re being asked to bet on the idea that either the interests of the imperialist states will coincide with those of the revolution - which, given their counter-revolutionary posture in the region is vanishingly unlikely - or that they will, quite unintentionally, produce a genuinely free Libya. What if they don’t do that? What if, as I’ve suggested, the coalition of states involved in the bombing actually works to prevent a revolutionary victory by creating a stalemate? What if the air war escalates and creates massacres? There can be all sorts of restrictions applied, ‘rules of engagement’, but these are subordinate to the military logic, and tend to be ‘relaxed’ when things don’t go according to plan. Recall that weeks into the war on Yugoslavia in 1999, also fought ostensibly on a humanitarian pretext, the US started to expand the bombing into a war on the civilian infrastructure, including a notorious massacre in a television station. And that was a short, relatively low-intensity war. In the parts of Libya that Qadhafi controls, there are millions of people who would potentially suffer if such a tactic was deployed, and bitterly oppose the intervention. And this relates to the question of civil war again - if these civilians blame the revolutionary leadership for visiting this upon them, they may become willing executioners of the counter-revolution.

These are fairly huge risks that we’re being asked to take with the lives and well-being of Libyans by endorsing military intervention by the imperialist states, and they’re plausible enough to demand a serious accounting in the war stakes. But I haven’t seen anyone who favours intervention conduct such an audit seriously.

Q: Is there an alternative approach that states outside of Libya could realistically have taken, or be taking, that would be better?

States in the region were already intervening in various ways. Egypt has been supplying weapons and training soldiers for some weeks. The regime in Egypt is still a military one and a capitalist one, and it will pursue its own interests. But it isn’t an imperialist state, and its efforts may involve trying to position Egypt as a leading power in a new regional configuration of forces that are more independent of Washington. But I don’t think we should invest our hopes in that, as the Egyptian military leadership hasn’t yet broken with its backers, and I tend to think we should avoid state-centric answers. Just because states tend to have all the guns doesn’t mean they provide a clean short-cut to a revolutionary outcome. I think we should look to the revolutionary forces in the Middle East. Volunteers from surrounding states have already been joining the Libyan revolution (eg:http://english.ahram.org.eg/News/7689.aspx), and people have made comparisons to the Spanish civil war. That’s a model of solidarity and ‘interventionism’ that has a proud history on the Left.

One way we could help in this would be to build practically relevant solidarity movements with the revolutions, all of them, raising money and political support. We could pressure our governments to release Qadhafi’s frozen funds to the revolution, to let them purchase whatever weapons they need. But we should not allow them to try and determine the nature and pace of this revolution, which is for the people of the region to decide, which is why we really have to argue against any reliance on the false ‘aid’ and promises of the ‘West’.

[Luís Henrique]

Will you trots be out in the streets with American flags, like the pro-interventionists I saw in DC on saturday?

I can't speak for the "trots" and I don't think they are a monolithic bloc that will have a unified position about this.

And of course, me and my tendency don't have any ability to spark whatever demonstration in DC or any other American city.

But I certainly wouldn't support or propose going to the streets in support of the intervention. Nor would I support or propose going to the streets under slogans of "hands of Libya".

But if I had any weight on the American left I would rather see protests asking why intervention against Libya and no intervention against Wisconsin, for instance. Something like, "down with Gaddafy, down with Scott Walker", or "Why not bomb Walker, it is closer, it is cheaper, and it will save more civilian lives".

This could even, after all, put the intervention into some trouble, while "hands off Libya" will more than likely just reassert the left's place in American politics: marginal, isolated, and insignificant.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

i don't think there is much communists can do about this except sit tight.

This, again, rests on the false assumption that the Libyan issue has to do exclusively with Libya, not with capitalism as a global system.

Luís Henrique

[Invader Zim]

This thread is littered with the false comparisons between the current western intervention in Libya and the 2003 invasion of Iraq. The two are not the same and the shrill attempts to suggest that they are suggests a very flawed interpretation of these events.

The reason that Britain and France are conducting this intervention strikes me as entirely self-centred. They want the current regime to be replaced by the rebels who they hope will offer more favourable oil contracts if they successfuly come out of this civil war victorious. They also gain political victories at home; they are after all standing up for poor, under armed rebels and civilians who will soon be destroyed under the boot of a brutal dictator. The flailing Conservative Party in the UK getting a hammering in the polls and desperately needs something to pick it up, and a popular foreign policy move will probably do precisely that for them. Indeed political preservation may well be a very significant factor in this, after all, David Cameron does not want to be the Prime Minister who goes to the next election as the man who let a pro-democratic revolution be destroyed by a brutal dictatorship. It doesn't make for good press.

So yes, the intervention is not anything like as alturistic as it is being presented in the western media. But Om is right. The situation is either the west supports the revolution or it will be crushed. It seems a lot of people here want to ignore that, trying to maintain anti-imperialist rhetoric while desperately attempting to maintain a pro-revolution position. Sorry but you can't have it both ways. Either you oppose intervention and hold defacto support for the current regime or you support imperialist intervention to prevent the destruction of the popular revolution against the regime.

This is a really shitty position with no good outcome.


But neither will an imperialist invasion and colonialisation.

The assumption being that this will happen, and an assumption grounded in the false comparison between the current situation in Libya and the situation in Iraq in 2003. It simply won't happen. The western powers involved, following the disasters that have been Iraq and Afganistan, will not wish to repeat this same error. To do so spells electoral suicide and no sane politican with any instinct for career-preservation is going to do that in the current political climate. Indeed the UN made it abundently clear what these power's policy is when they made it explicit that this intervention's mandate does not extend to occupation. Rather they want to support the revolution in the hope that by doing so they can buy a pro-western attitude from them should they successfuly topple Gaddafi. This isn't a positive outcome either, but it isn't anything remotely similar to the nonsense you are peddling.

But, if I'm proved wrong in the next couple of weeks/months, you can accept my admission of wrong-headedness in advance.

[ComradeOm]

They were subjects of an empire. What's your point?Are the people of these nations better off now than they were thirty years ago? If they are then perhaps it is possible to go from decrepit dictatorship to functional liberal democracy


I guess we might be on different pages here. Your argument, essentially, is that people shouldn't oppose acts of imperialism committed by their government? Please correct me if I'm wrong.No, my argument is that leftists should not support the crushing of a popular revolt by a repressive dictatorship. I'm not the one obsessed with Washington and I've made it very clear that I only grudgingly support Western intervention. My focus, unlike almost everyone else in this thread, is on Libya and the rebels in Benghazi


Oh man, this is such a pro-war 'leftist' Hitchens like argument.Then why don't you engage with it instead of employing an association fallacy? How would you feel about the triumph of Gaddafi over a popular revolt?

In fact the same question can be asked of every person in this thread because its the one thing that everyone - save the tankists - have ignored. Its almost as if people are embarrassed to acknowledge the plight of the rebels and the fate that non-intervention would visit upon them


I can't believe that it is such a confounding idea to so many on this website that it would be advocated that citizens of their country have the right to determine the fate of their country without imperialist forces.Read this sentence again because you're surprisingly close to realising just what 'anti-imperialism' actually means. It is not just about planes and bombs but about 'citizens of a country having the right to determine the fate of their country'. This is what the rebels were doing - trying to wrest control of Libya and its future away from a narrow and corrupt elite. Gaddafi has no intention of surrendering his personal power and has resorted to violence to defend his privileges

I can't believe that so many on this website are willing to overlook this basic reality and resort to a nationalist analysis that pits 'Libya vs the West'. As if these were monolithic blocks and Gaddafi was now protecting the self-determination of the Libyan people!

To quote Parnell: "No man has the right to fix the boundary to the march of a nation. No man has a right to say to his country: 'Thus far shalt thou go, and no further'". That includes Gadaffi, it includes his foreign mercenaries and it includes those idiots in this thread who would define just what the Libyan people should aspire to

(Incidentally, did you answer my questions from the previous post? I may have missed your take on whether the quashing of the revolt would be a good or a bad thing)


That's true but imperialism rarely shows up to boost bourgeois democracyThat's a fair point. I want to make clear however that I do not think that Western intervention will suddenly make everything better and things will work out just fine*. As I've said, the involvement of the Western powers automatically reduces the potential for a 'happy ending'. However the potential remains and its potential that every revolt gambles on. If we were to simply dismiss any uprising on the basis that it probably won't change anything for the better then we'd be doing a very poor job as communists. Certainly we, sitting here on the internet, have no moral right to judge (as idiots above have been doing above with crooked statistics) whether or not such potential progress is worth the risk: the Libyan people have already decided this by taking up arms

And this is what I'm defending: the right of the Libyan people to determine their own fate without being crushed by a brutal dictatorship

*To be fair of course, this is not the message coming from Western governments either. This is not Iraq and nobody is committed to 'building democracy' or whatever


But situations change and require reevaluation. It's no longer the rebels (now supported by a humanitarian imperialist coalition hardly worth a mention) vs. Gaddafi. It's an imperialist coalition (using the rebels as a welcome pretence) vs. Libya, the Libyan peopleI strongly disagree with this sentiment. Not least because Gadaffi was perfectly willing to do business with imperialists before this whole affair. No, the Western intervention is no excuse to abandon any analysis of the internal workings of Libyan society; it is no excuse to suddenly pretend that class divisions no longer exist and that this is a conflict between a monolithic West and a monolithic Libya. Certainly not when the threat of destruction is still hanging over Benghrazi

And this is what really annoys me - the automatic flight from any real analysis on the Libyan revolt as soon as the West starts rattling sabres. Its as if people care more about the sexier 'big picture' than the actual rebels on the ground. Its depressing when you see even anarchists lining up to support a dictatorship crush a popular revolt

[daleckian]

This thread is littered with the false comparisons between the current western intervention in Libya and the 2003 invasion of Iraq. The two are not the same and the shrill attempts to suggest that they are suggests a very flawed interpretation of these events.

The reason that Britain and France are conducting this intervention strikes me as entirely self-centred. They want the current regime to be replaced by the rebels who they hope will offer more favourable oil contracts if they successfuly come out of this civil war victorious. They also gain political victories at home; they are after all standing up for poor, under armed rebels and civilians who will soon be destroyed under the boot of a brutal dictator. The flailing Conservative Party in the UK getting a hammering in the polls and desperately needs something to pick it up, and a popular foreign policy move will probably do precisely that for them.

http://www.amren.com/ar/2005/02/PEARSsml.jpg

[Invader Zim]

http://www.amren.com/ar/2005/02/PEARSsml.jpg
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_nouprOuzjXU/SyTBd_NvvyI/AAAAAAAAAB4/wXO9OPHwLrE/s400/Strawman_motivational.jpg

[Dire Helix]

Are the people of these nations better off now than they were thirty years ago? If they are then perhaps it is possible to go from decrepit dictatorship to functional liberal democracy

Hungary, Poland and the Baltic states are "functional liberal democracies" in the same way that Gaddafi`s Libya is a socialist state. Fascist kleptocracies would be a more fitting description.

[black magick hustla]

This, again, rests on the false assumption that the Libyan issue has to do exclusively with Libya, not with capitalism as a global system.

Luís Henrique

of course it has to do with world capitalism, what is your point? it was world economic meltdown that triggered what is happening in the middle east and what is happening in lybia is nothing short than decomposing capitalism leashing out. my point is that the class in that area is not strong enough to assert itself as a class, so for now the only "feasable" class action is to survive. reactionary tribalist and islamist militias, with a vague veneer of bourgeois democracy are not politically working class.

[Kléber]

Will you trots be out in the streets with American flags, like the pro-interventionists I saw in DC on saturday?
Every Trotskyist group is against the imperialist intervention, as all socialists should be.

WSWS (ICFI): No to imperialist intervention in Libya! (http://www.wsws.org/articles/2011/mar2011/pers-m19.shtml)

SW (ISO): Nothing humanitarian about US intervention
(http://socialistworker.org/2011/03/21/nothing-humanitarian-about-us-intervention)
SA (CWI): Libya: No to Western Military Intervention (http://www.socialistalternative.org/news/article13.php?id=1564)

USFI: Gaddafi out! No to imperialist military intervention! (http://internationalviewpoint.org/spip.php?article2042)

IDOM (IMT): Support Libyan revolution, Oppose imperialist aggression! (http://www.marxist.com/support-libyan-revolution-oppose-imperialist-aggression.htm)

If anyone did support imperialism, they wouldn't be a real Trotskyist (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1938/09/liberation.htm).

[bricolage]

The Alliance for Workers Liberty, a Trotskyist group in the UK has pretty much come out in support of intervention; (http://www.workersliberty.org/story/2011/03/20/libya-no-illusions-west-%E2%80%9Canti-intervention%E2%80%9D-opposition-abandoning-rebels)

But what issue of principle should make us demonstrate against the one thing which might prevent untold slaughter, prevent Qaddafi’s immediate bloody victory, and therefore a crushing defeat for the wave of revolutions?
Other Trots don't like them though (mainly because they put out things like this) so I'm sure someone will have a moan about calling them Trotskyist.

[Luís Henrique]

of course it has to do with world capitalism, what is your point?

My point is that instead of trying to find solutions for the situation in Libya - where anyways none of us have any influence - we better help that situation by struggling against capitalism where we are.


my point is that the class in that area is not strong enough to assert itself as a class, so for now the only "feasable" class action is to survive.Well, it will have to learn the difficult way.


reactionary tribalist and islamist militias, with a vague veneer of bourgeois democracy are not politically working class.But evidently if the feasible action is to survive, then what it has to do now is to understand which option gives it a better (or less bad) chance of survival.

As for us, we would help them more if we addressed our own struggles against capitalism.

Luís Henrique

[Raubleaux]

Its fairly clear that bourgeois democracy for Libya would be a progressive step up from what is a corrupt, failing and anti-democratic dictatorship

Do I even need to respond to this? You are not a leftist, ComradeOm, you are a liberal. You don't look at this situation through the lens of class exploitation; you look at it through the lens of bourgeois "rights" and "representation." You don't even have the vocabulary of a leftist.

You seem to think that a bourgeois democracy actually "represents" the people somehow. This is a not how a leftist views the state. To quote Lenin:

"... the state is an organ of class rule, an organ for the oppression of one class by another; it is the creation of 'order', which legalizes and perpetuates this oppression by moderating the conflict between classes."

In other words, the "democracies" you love so much are just as much dictatorships as the Gaddafi regime -- they are dictatorships of the bourgeoisie. The state serves the class interests of capital, not some liberal notion of "the rights of the people."

The Libyan state, by contrast, serves the interest of a corrupt bureaucracy and incorporates some quasi-socialist elements. This bureaucratic dictatorship has been moving increasingly towards liberalization of property rights in recent years.

The proper response to this is for Libyans to build up organizations of the working class, not engage in some misguided rebellion to establish a "democracy" on the backs of U.S. and French cruise missiles. These rebels don't represent Libyan workers. You keep making this bald assertion that they are a "popular revolt," as if the political character of this rebellion was somehow leftist. It isn't.

By the way, there are plenty of people out in the streets supporting Gaddafi -- some of them even volunteering to be human shields. Especially in Tripoli and the western portions of the country, the Gaddafi government is far more popular than the rebels. Where do those people fit in to your bourgeois ideal of "popular revolt" and "representation"?


But thanks for proving my point. The best that Africans and Arabs can hope for is a 'Nigeria'. Any experiment in creating a better society is doomed to fail without a strong dictator to keep them in check. Libyans and Egyptians and Syrians should be happy with their dictators; I can't for the life of me understand why they've risen up in protest against them. They're like children really :glare:

As I've said already, the Libyans currently enjoy the best standard of living in Africa thanks to the state control of oil wealth, provision of jobs, education, health care etc.

When Gaddafi is overthrown, what will be established is a bourgeois democracy, which you readily admit. The consequences of bourgeois democracy in Libya will be a disaster for Libyan workers. The social safety net will be destroyed, leading to a decline in living standards. The full neoliberalization of capital will lead to the rapid growth of inequality and the rise of a new oligarchy of billionaires aligned with the imperialist powers.

In other words, like I said before, it is going to start looking like Nigeria. But for some reason, in your estimation, the farce of having "political parties" (controlled by the rich) and "elections" (rigged by the rich and the imperialists) is a perfectly fine trade-off for a rapid decline in the living standards of Libyan workers.

This inequality will lead to even more political turmoil, forcing your new bourgeois state to either become completely dictatorial like Saudi Arabia or it will be an unstable political basket case like the countries of sub-Saharan Africa.

[Raubleaux]

Are the people of these nations better off now than they were thirty years ago? If they are then perhaps it is possible to go from decrepit dictatorship to functional liberal democracy

Ask a black kid living in the slums of Detroit and fears police brutality on a daily basis what it feels like to live in a "functional liberal democracy." Ask the 45,000 people who die every year because they can't afford to purchase health care if their democracy is either "liberal" or "functional." Ask the 15,000 people who overdose on painkillers and kill themselves because the can't cope with the stress that this economy places on their family and marriages. Ask the 3.5 million homeless.

[Jose Gracchus]

I don't care for Raubleaux's Stalinist boilerplate on how "all class regimes are dictatorships so the amount of arbitrary killing by the state security apparatus and inability to organize workers really doesn't matter LOL", BUT ComradeOm, do you have any evidence that these purported democratic forces are still operative in Libya? What evidence do you have this self-appointed council won't become a Mubarak-style authoritarianism, only wearing suits for Western sensibilities? It is, after all, composed almost entirely of former Gaddafi lackeys anyway. Where is your evidence that it has any popular support in Western Libya? Have you considered this intervention itself cows the public, and gives a pretext for Gaddafi to gather popular support and shore up his regime?

You seem to think that simply because it is said this council is democratic and will herald liberal democracy in Libya if the West deposes Gaddafi. I think that's an unjustified assumption, and one you should shore up. I wish Gaddafi had been toppled by his own, I really did - and Weeks 1-2, when there was unrest in working-class neighborhoods and fighting even in Tripoli, it looked realistic. But now it seems there's no popular support outside Benghazi, and that is tribal sheiks butthurt over being shut out since Idris was thrown out on his ass. I think you need to substantiate these claims.

[PFay]

Here's my take on the war preparations:

theclearview.wordpress.com/2011/03/22/diplomatic-slight-of-hand/

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

InformCandidate-there's a lot of opposition in West Libya too. Consider the cities of Misrata and Az Zawiya (spelling?) which still have some rebels. Even tripoli had protests for a couple days until gaddafi's men went after them. I think the protests had a following more or less everywhere except a few areas.

Of course, Gaddafi has some support too, even in the East. So it's a mixed bag. The problem is that Gaddafi has called all of the protesters terrorists, and denied that they have any legitimate claims whatsoever. This means any victory by Gaddafi in the east would have led to a bloody crackdown. We can only hope that a rebel victory wouldn't have the same effect.

[B0LSHEVIK]

I like the way people here act AS IF Qaddafi isnt a tool of the imperialist West already anyways. Also, the Arab League was for a no-fly zone, but not for a broad intervention as it now seems may take place. Given the history of NATO intervention, this is a cause of concern IMO. I think its important too to not forget that Libya has the largest reserves of oil on the African continent. Besides, is this UN police action designed to aide the pro-democracy forces while simultaneously turning its back on Bahrain while Saudi troops pour into the country to help crush pro-democracy forces opposing 2 minority-controlled kingdoms?

We just have to wait and see what happens in Libya I guess.

[Jose Gracchus]

InformCandidate-there's a lot of opposition in West Libya too. Consider the cities of Misrata and Az Zawiya (spelling?) which still have some rebels. Even tripoli had protests for a couple days until gaddafi's men went after them. I think the protests had a following more or less everywhere except a few areas.

Of course, Gaddafi has some support too, even in the East. So it's a mixed bag. The problem is that Gaddafi has called all of the protesters terrorists, and denied that they have any legitimate claims whatsoever. This means any victory by Gaddafi in the east would have led to a bloody crackdown. We can only hope that a rebel victory wouldn't have the same effect.

Is there any evidence for any of this? Where are the crackdowns and mass graves in Tripoli and retaken towns, already? You think we would have heard about it considering the bonus to the imperialists and the rebels.

Pretty sad, even an Establishment paper like The New York Times is able to report this:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/22/world/africa/22tripoli.html?_r=1&hp

[Amphictyonis]

If the French, British, and Americans bombing gadaffi's forces helps to that end, I'm not exactly gonna lose sleep over it.

I think the Dr has misdiagnosed this patient. It happens from time to time. No one is perfect.

EDIT-China is reporting massive civilian casualties. Putin is condemning the US for it's actions. They understand this is no "humanitarian" effort.

[Amphictyonis]

http://www.amren.com/ar/2005/02/PEARSsml.jpg

Bringing "democracy" (capitalism) to the globe. From Kipling to Keynes to Bush and now a man of color- Obama. Strange world. I wonder if the US government plans on importing a bunch of Christian priests to convert the "savages" to Christianity?

Take up the White Man's burden--
Send forth the best ye breed--
Go bind your sons to exile
To serve your captives' need;
To wait in heavy harness,
On fluttered folk and wild--
Your new-caught, sullen peoples,
Half-devil and half-child.

Take up the White Man's burden--
In patience to abide,
To veil the threat of terror
And check the show of pride;
By open speech and simple,
An hundred times made plain
To seek another's profit,
And work another's gain.

Take up the White Man's burden--
The savage wars of peace--
Fill full the mouth of Famine
And bid the sickness cease;
And when your goal is nearest
The end for others sought,
Watch sloth and heathen Folly
Bring all your hopes to nought.

Take up the White Man's burden--
No tawdry rule of kings,
But toil of serf and sweeper--
The tale of common things.
The ports ye shall not enter,
The roads ye shall not tread,
Go mark them with your living,
And mark them with your dead.

Take up the White Man's burden--
And reap his old reward:
The blame of those ye better,
The hate of those ye guard--
The cry of hosts ye humour
(Ah, slowly!) toward the light:--
"Why brought he us from bondage,
Our loved Egyptian night?"

Take up the White Man's burden--
Ye dare not stoop to less--
Nor call too loud on Freedom
To cloke (1) (http://www.wsu.edu/%7Ewldciv/world_civ_reader/world_civ_reader_2/kipling.html#1) your weariness;
By all ye cry or whisper,
By all ye leave or do,
The silent, sullen peoples
Shall weigh your gods and you.

Take up the White Man's burden--
Have done with childish days--
The lightly proferred laurel, (2) (http://www.wsu.edu/%7Ewldciv/world_civ_reader/world_civ_reader_2/kipling.html#2)
The easy, ungrudged praise.
Comes now, to search your manhood
Through all the thankless years
Cold, edged with dear-bought wisdom,
The judgment of your peers!

[Il Medico]

I think the Dr has misdiagnosed this patient. It happens from time to time. No one is perfect.

EDIT-China is reporting massive civilian casualties. Putin is condemning the US for it's actions. They understand this is no "humanitarian" effort.
Like I said, I don't support the intervention, nothing good ever comes from such things. The situation in Libya isn't black and white, west vs Libya, it a complex situation with no good outcomes. With out support the rebels seem likely to be crushed in bloody slaughter by an oppressive dictator clinging to power, with it the revolution will most likely be co-opted by foreign interest, not to mention the needless bloodshed that comes with that. Still, the west intervening is a fact, there isn't much any of us can do about it. So I'm just glad they're 'supporting' the rebels instead of Gaddfi, it could easily be the other way around.

[PhoenixAsh]

Like I said, I don't support the intervention, nothing good ever comes from such things. The situation in Libya isn't black and white, west vs Libya, it a complex situation with no good outcomes. With out support the rebels seem likely to be crushed in bloody slaughter by an oppressive dictator clinging to power, with it the revolution will most likely be co-opted by foreign interest, not to mention the needless bloodshed that comes with that. Still, the west intervening is a fact, there isn't much any of us can do about it. So I'm just glad they're 'supporting' the rebels instead of Gaddfi, it could easily be the other way around.

I agree with you on the major part of your post...except that we can not do anything about it.

First we can speak out against it. Cnstruct clear arguments and analysis. which are also constructed...not as to fullfill some self masturbation function within the revolutionary left but ias also aimed at changing minds and opinions of people who do not share our ideological views or lingo.

Second we should oppose support or action by our own governments by organising demonstrations and rallies and getting information and opposing views out there.

Third we can protest at embassies of participtaing countries to make our dissent heard.

Claiming there is nothing you can do about it is, realistically, true. But it also endorses a selfdefeating attitudde of victimisation as the weaker party.

[Amphictyonis]

Like I said, I don't support the intervention, nothing good ever comes from such things.
Thats not what you said and using the term "intervention" implies it's a humanitarian effort which we all know isnt true. "Intervening to save the people!"

Sadam was "an evil dictator" (Using such terms does paint a black and white picture of morality as the US state has murdered more people than 50 Sadams)). Did you have the same mixed feelings concerning the invasion of Iraq? I'm not sure people understand what implications this has....the US will now be in the middle East for a generation to come. All of this was set in motion after the end of the cold war. We shouldn't let them paint this as anything but neo-imperialism. Obviously it's a tad more camouflaged than historical examples of imperialism. I can't support my tax dollars being spent to bomb civilians in a humanitarian effort. How Orwellian can a situation get? War to keep the peace?

[PhoenixAsh]

Thats not what you said and using the term "intervention" implies it's a humanitarian effort which we all know isnt true. "Intervening to save the people!"

I think its more or less the context which is added to the word intervention. It not so much as implies humanitarian efforts. But it implies its something else from war.



Sadam was "an evil dictator" (Using such terms does paint a black and white picture of morality as the US state has murdered more people than 50 Sadams)). Did you have the same mixed feelings concerning the invasion of Iraq?

Not directed at me...I know...but I am going to answer it for myself.

No. I was opposed to the invasion in Iraq and in Afghanistan. Yet...Saddam was a brutal dictator and needed to go. Non-support for one does not automatically entail support for the other. That is a very burgeoisie attitude of either with me or against me.



I'm not sure people understand what implications this has....the US will now be in the middle East for a generation to come. All of this was set in motion after the end of the cold war. We shouldn't let them paint this as anything but neo-imperialism. Obviously it's a tad more camouflaged than historical examples of imperialism. I can't support my tax dollars being spent to bomb civilians in a humanitarian effort. How Orwellian can a situation get? War to keep the peace?

Sometimes there is no other realistic option. That, however, is not the case here. And your analysis is completely correct.

[Il Medico]

Thats not what you said and using the term "intervention" implies it's a humanitarian effort which we all know isnt true. "Intervening to save the people!"

I don't support foreign intervention. I highly doubt ,many people buy the 'protecting people' excuse for it either....
The word intervention implies that outside powers are intervening in the internal affairs of Libya. That is excatly what is happening.


Sadam was "an evil dictator" (Using such terms does paint a black and white picture of morality as the US state has murdered more people than 50 Sadams)). Did you have the same mixed feelings concerning the invasion of Iraq? Uh, no. I was like 12 and didn't care in the least. Had I had the politics I do now, I would not have supported the war, nor would I have supported the Bathe regime. Oppressive dictators are not 'good', oppressive imperialist power are not 'good'. Not supporting one does not entail supporting the other. There is no 'good' in a situation like this, only varying degrees of bad.

[The Douche]

I like the way people here act AS IF Qaddafi isnt a tool of the imperialist West already anyways. Also, the Arab League was for a no-fly zone, but not for a broad intervention as it now seems may take place. Given the history of NATO intervention, this is a cause of concern IMO. I think its important too to not forget that Libya has the largest reserves of oil on the African continent. Besides, is this UN police action designed to aide the pro-democracy forces while simultaneously turning its back on Bahrain while Saudi troops pour into the country to help crush pro-democracy forces opposing 2 minority-controlled kingdoms?

We just have to wait and see what happens in Libya I guess.

So because Ghadafi was a piece of shit its ok that imperialist powers bomb the shit out the country and build another puppet government there?

Also, the Arab League vote was done w/o all members present, and was not unanimous.

[Devrim]

Also, the Arab League vote was done w/o all members present, and was not unanimous.

Who really cares what the Arab league says? It's not as if it represents anything except aging despots anyway.

Devrim

[The Douche]

Who really cares what the Arab league says? It's not as if it represents anything except aging despots anyway.

Devrim

I certainly don't, I was just stating that in response to that user's comment about the Arab League.

[ComradeOm]

What evidence do you have this self-appointed council won't become a Mubarak-style authoritarianism, only wearing suits for Western sensibilities?Because if that were its primary composition then we would not be witnessing a popular revolt. This is not a coup and it is not a small 'palace revolution' - it is a mass revolt against the Gaddafi dictatorship. You talk of "no popular support outside Benghazi" when much of Eastern Libya is under rebel control. This area would be much greater if it were not for the offensives waged by Gaddafi's foreign mercenaries. The broad base of support enjoyed by the rebels speaks for itself. Perhaps they are risking their lives for another dictatorship?


In other words, the "democracies" you love so much are just as much dictatorships as the Gaddafi regime -- they are dictatorships of the bourgeoisie. The state serves the class interests of capital, not some liberal notion of "the rights of the people."You're a fool, both for mouthing slogans that you do not understand and then compounding this by failing to read what I've actually said. The two are related

Most obviously, anyone who denies that there are real structural and class differences between a repressive dictatorship and a liberal democracy is being wilfully ignorant. There's no excusing that level of self-denial. Usually I wouldn't bother explaining why this is mistaken (the differences should be obvious to any child) but let's briefly do this. In the Gaddafi regime, and indeed any such dictatorship, the state is primarily coercive. That is, it does not rely on the agreement of the wider population but draws support from a narrow base and employs force to keep the rest in check. To varying degrees of course. In contrast, the most notable feature of a Western democracy is its hegemonic nature. The state invites participation in state structures (in a controlled fashion of course) and relies heavily on the myth of "the rights of the people". To simplify of course

Two very basic models of how the state operates in relation to the rest of society and a difference that's actually quite important in understanding the current crisis

Incidentally, that Lenin quote most certainly does not mean what you think it does. Its a basic restatement of the role of the state; it most certainly is not an excuse to simply treat all bourgeois states as the same. No, for Lenin "the forms of domination of the state may vary: capital manifests its power in one way where one form exists, and in another way where another form exists". The dictatorship of the bourgeoisie could never be truly democratic (and who here is suggesting that?) but there are clearly differences between the various bourgeois states. Again, blindly obvious


The proper response to this is for Libyans to build up organizations of the working class, not engage in some misguided rebellion to establish a "democracy" on the backs of U.S. and French cruise missilesSure, because Gadaffi is such a big fan of working class organisations, right? He'll have no problem with allowing the emergence of a mass working class opposition to his despotism? (If of course any workers want to revolt against his "quasi-socialist" state). I'm sure that we can trust him to respond reasonably to any such challenge to his rule, no? Oh wait... is this before or after he finishes crushing the current revolt?


These rebels don't represent Libyan workers. You keep making this bald assertion that they are a "popular revolt," as if the political character of this rebellion was somehow leftist. It isn't.Leaving aside the specifics of the political composition of the revolt (which only you have unfettered access to) it is quite clearly false to state that this revolt is not popular. Are you suggesting a tiny clique of conspirators have seized control of numerous towns, installations and cities? That they are acting without any popular support whatsoever? You probably are and more fool me for asking :rolleyes:


Ask a black kid living in the slums of Detroit and fears police brutality on a daily basis what it feels like to live in a "functional liberal democracy." Ask the 45,000 people who die every year because they can't afford to purchase health care if their democracy is either "liberal" or "functional." Ask the 15,000 people who overdose on painkillers and kill themselves because the can't cope with the stress that this economy places on their family and marriages. Ask the 3.5 million homeless.And ask the few hundred million US citizens who enjoy living stands far beyond those of the average African worker. You do like statistics so do some digging and tell me just how the average Libyan wage (in US Dollars) compares to that of any Western nation. Then you can perhaps contend that living in a corrupt dictatorship is no worse than a Western liberal democracy

[khad]

And ask the few hundred million US citizens who enjoy living stands far beyond those of the average African worker. You do like statistics so do some digging and tell me just how the average Libyan wage (in US Dollars) compares to that of any Western nation. Then you can perhaps contend that living in a corrupt dictatorship is no worse than a Western liberal democracy

Libya $14,400 (highest in Africa)

Now for the 10 most democratic African nations according to the Democracy index:

Mauritius $12,100
South Africa $10,000
Cape Verde $3,800
Botswana $13,300
Namibia $5,400
Lesotho $1,600
Benin $1,500
Mali $1,200
Mozambique $900
Senegal $1,600

I'd say that Libya has done quite well for a nation that in 1950 was mostly nomadic and still practiced slavery. Your demand for a comparison with Western nations is flawed, since people like you (especially people like you) grew fat for centuries off the exploitation of colonies, leaving former colonies to play catch up for the half century since liberation.

[Rafiq]

I'm beginning to think that the Left Communists were right all along]



1. We are always right.

2. We opposes all bourgeois and imperialist elements in this situation, including from both sides, the rebels and the state.

That does not mean, however, that we support the Gadaffi regime to use worker's as cannon fire in the name of Nationalism or even 'Anti Imperialism'.

[Rafiq]

Here are some stats about Nigeria, for those who think that a transition to bourgeois democracy in Libya would be a "progressive" change like ComradeOm

Life expectancy at birth:
total population: 47.56 years

Infant mortality rate:
total: 91.54 deaths/1,000 live births

Death rate:
16.06 deaths/1,000 population (July 2011 est.)

School life expectancy (primary to tertiary education):
total: 9 years

Here are the corresponding statistics for Libya:

Life expectancy at birth:
total population: 77.65 years

School life expectancy (primary to tertiary education):
total: 17 years

Death rate:
3.4 deaths/1,000 population (July 2011 est.)

Infant mortality rate:
total: 20.09 deaths/1,000 live births

But then again I'm sure people wake up in Nigeria every day thanking god they don't live in a dictatorship like the Libyans.


Why use Nigeria? I think that's a bit unfair....

Why not use a country like, say, Algeria, Egypt, or Tunisia (all of which suck, but are better than Nigeria).

By the way, I recognize intervention will end up with thousands, maybe even a million dead civilians, and fully oppose it. However, these types of arguments could easily be combatted.

Anyway, let me lay it out like this:

In my opinion, we should oppose all bourgeois and anti-worker elements to this situation. Think in terms of what is better for the workers in Libya.

1. We could cheer on Intervention, thus leading to thousands of civilian and worker casualties.

2. Support Gadaffi against opponents, leading to workers fighting and dying in the name of Nationalism.

3. Try our best locally to stop intervention at all costs, whilst opposing both the Libyan State and the Imperialist forces.

[khad]

Why use Nigeria? I think that's a bit unfair....

Why not use a country like, say, Algeria, Egypt, or Tunisia (all of which suck, but are better than Nigeria).

Libya $14,400 (highest per capita income in Africa)
Algeria $7,000
Egypt $5,400
Morocco $4,000
Tunisia $7,900

Libya 77.65 years (highest life expectancy in Africa)
Algeria 74.5
Egypt 72.66
Morocco 75.9
Tunisia 75.01

And for the 10 most "democratic" African states...

Mauritius 74.48
South Africa 49.33
Cape Verde 70.7
Botswana 58.05
Namibia 52.19
Lesotho 51.63
Benin 59.84
Mali 52.61
Mozambique 51.78
Senegal 59.78

[ComradeOm]

I'd say that Libya has done quite well for a nation that in 1950 was mostly nomadic and still practiced slavery. Your demand for a comparison with Western nations is flawed, since people like you (especially people like you) grew fat for centuries off the exploitation of colonies, leaving former colonies to play catch up for the half century since liberation.Whereas patronising idiots (guess who) think it ludicrous that an African or Arab nation actually aspire to Western living standards. As for "playing catch up", you are suggesting that Gadaffi's Libya is currently on course to reach or surpass Western living standards? Delusional

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

This assumption that all African countries are dirt poor, and that because Libya isn't dirt poor its system deserves respect, seems pretty reductionist. Why not compare it to other Med. Sea countries or Middle East countries?

[khad]

Whereas patronising idiots (guess who) think it ludicrous that an African or Arab nation actually aspire to Western living standards. As for "playing catch up", you are suggesting that Gadaffi's Libya is currently on course to reach or surpass Western living standards? Delusional
Too bad because of imperialist brits like you, Libyans will never know.


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.

[Omsk]

This assumption that all African countries are dirt poor, and that because Libya isn't dirt poor its system deserves respect, seems pretty reductionist.
Well,the living standard is horrible,in the majority of them,and that is 100% because of imperialism and colonialism,so this is the fault of the imperialistic powers that exploited the continent,in their brutal decimating conflicts and personal agendas (like the many colonial purges and slaughters) not to mention the thousands of African's taken from their homes,imprisoned and enslaved,taken to the 'free America',the 'defender of democracy and rights of all people'
Bah,these people have suffered the damage that can't heal in the times nears,the damage caused by the wretched capitalists and imperialists goes deep,Libya was lucky it managed to escape from the claws of the imperialist's and capitalists,but the rest is highly questionable,and i am not wiling to discuss that matter.

[gorillafuck]

I'm beginning to think that the Left Communists were right all alongLeft communists would never out forward arguments in favor of intervention (aka war against Libya), the replacement of Qaddafi with a pro-western "liberal democracy", or the Libyan rebels. Those are the sorts of things a western marxist-leninist would dumbly accuse a left communist of supporting.

You on the other hand do seem to be supporting those things.

[Robocommie]

And ask the few hundred million US citizens who enjoy living stands far beyond those of the average African worker. You do like statistics so do some digging and tell me just how the average Libyan wage (in US Dollars) compares to that of any Western nation.

How the hell can you justify comparing the state of the Libyan economy to those of imperialist nations in the West? That's completely absurd, it asks the impossible of societies who are recovering from an arrested state of development.

How can someone with a Lenin avatar (assuming that's supposed to be Lenin) not appreciate the impact of imperialism?

[ComradeOm]

Too bad because of imperialist brits like you, Libyans will never know.Ohhh. A pity that I'm not a Brit. And have always been a firm anti-imperialist. Not that you'd know what the latter means :rolleyes:

But then this is the typical khad routine - throw some mud and slurs and hope against hope that no one notices the complete bankruptcy of your position. After four decades of autocratic rule Libya is far behind the West in terms of living standards (and yes, other nations have made up the gap in the same time). Gadaffi's 'record' only becomes slightly less appalling when compared to African nations that have suffered severely at the hands of Western colonialism. Yet you would have us believe that this is an economic dynamo that is racing to surpass Western living standards. Please, does anyone buy this? Tell me khad, do you believe that Libya is 'quasi-socialist' or a model worth emulating?


Left communists would never out forward arguments in favor of intervention, the replacement of Qaddafi with a "liberal democracy", or the Libyan rebels. Those are the sorts of things a western marxist-leninist would dumbly accuse a left communist of supporting.Clearly the hope that left communists would be capable of actually reading my posts was a vain one. I was referring to the accusation that supporting 'national liberation' struggles and the like is simply another form of nationalism. I brought this up due to the number of posters talking in terms of 'Libya v the West' as if these were monolithic entities. All of which I've explained above


How the hell can you justify comparing the state of the Libyan economy to those of imperialist nations in the West? That's completely absurd, it asks the impossible of societies who are recovering from an arrested state of development. I think its fairly obvious. There is no great universal law that states that some nations must remain indefinitely poor just because they lie outside Europe or North America. It is possible, if unfortunately uncommon, for nations to industrialise and to better their economies. It is of course exceedingly difficult to reach Western standards (although some countries have made it over the past century) but even reaching the modest levels of, say, Thailand would see a roughly five-fold increase in Libya's GDP. And this is a country with significant oil wealth

But then why should we be content to compare Libya to African nations as if this was some sort of expected norm? As if that this is the best that can be expected from an African nation? It is grossly patronising to assume that this is the best that African nations can aspire to. They can, and should, aim for a standard of living at least on par with Europe. If this is unachievable then it at least reveals the fundamental flaws within global capitalism

Ah, fuck it. Let's just wave it all away in the name of 'imperialism'. Who needs any sort of analysis or relevance when we can trot out slogans that we don't know the meaning of. Let the Arabs and Africans stew while we focus on the big picture :glare:


How can someone with a Lenin avatar (assuming that's supposed to be Lenin) not appreciate the impact of imperialism?And who says I don't? Just because I don't break out in protest songs at the very sight of a jet fighter. But then how can someone who claims to be a communist support the repression of a popular revolt by a corrupt dictatorship?

[manic expression]

Tell me khad, do you believe that Libya is 'quasi-socialist' or a model worth emulating?
Because of recent developments, what matters most is opposition to the imperialist invasion and subjugation of Libya. Whatever model there was in Libya will be replaced by the Afghanistan/Iraq model, and the people of Libya will suffer for it.


I think its fairly obvious. There is no great universal law that states that some nations must remain indefinitely poor just because they lie outside Europe or North America.
The tendency for that discrepancy isn't helped when bombs are loaded within Europe and North America and then dropped outside of Europe and North America.


But then why should we be content to compare Libya to African nations as if this was some sort of expected norm? As if that this is the best that can be expected from an African nation? It is grossly patronising to assume that this is the best that African nations can aspire to. They can, and should, aim for a standard of living at least on par with Europe. If this is unachievable then it at least reveals the fundamental flaws within global capitalism
Just so you know, this argument is directed toward absolutely no one. Someone pointed out that comparing Libya to imperialist countries is absurd, which is eminently reasonable.


And who says I don't? Just because I don't break out in protest songs at the very sight of a jet fighter. But then how can someone who claims to be a communist support the repression of a popular revolt by a corrupt dictatorship?
You may see the jet fighter, but you don't seem to see what its attack represents. Imperialism is attempting to take full control of Libya, suppress all traces of Libyan self-determination, create a vassal state in the region and steal its resources. And in the face of this, the most you can do is poo-poo protest songs and echo pro-invasion rhetoric.

[ComradeOm]

Because of recent developments, what matters most is opposition to the imperialist invasion and subjugation of LibyaNo! This is what I have been most vehemently arguing against in this thread. Intervention is no reason to simply drop all previous protestations, analyses and condemnation, and then substitute for these a very simplistic binary model. Rallying around a dictator who is in the process of crushing a revolt against his repressive state just because he is now aligned against the US and Europe is nothing short of perverse

This is vulgar imperialism: imperialism as a nationalist analysis that ignores class or subtleties and operates solely on the level of nationstates


Whatever model there was in Libya will be replaced by the Afghanistan/Iraq model, and the people of Libya will suffer for it.It is complete hypocrisy to claim that this stance is motivated by the suffering of the Libyan people when non-intervention will seal the fate of the rebels in Benghazi and restore the security of the anti-democratic Gaddafi regime


You may see the jet fighter, but you don't seem to see what its attack represents. Imperialism is attempting to take full control of Libya, suppress all traces of Libyan self-determination, create a vassal state in the region and steal its resources. And in the face of this, the most you can do is poo-poo protest songs and echo pro-invasion rhetoric.And this is exactly what I was talking about earlier. You talk of "Libyan self-determination", what Libyan self-determination? The Libyan people have no say in the future of their nation not because of Western bombs but because of the unrepresentative nature of the Gaddafi state. When there is an attempt to express this fundamental right through force of arms, you cheer on Gaddafi's foreign mercenaries as they set about crushing the revolt. This is not anti-imperialism and this is not supporting the right of all peoples to self-determination. The latter will only, can only, be assured when the Libyan people are free to assert it themselves

[manic expression]

No! This is what I have been most vehemently arguing against in this thread. Intervention is no reason to simply drop all previous protestations, analyses and condemnation, and then substitute for these a very simplistic binary model. Rallying around a dictator who is in the process of crushing a revolt against his repressive state just because he is now aligned against the US and Europe is nothing short of perverse

This is vulgar imperialism: imperialism as a nationalist analysis that ignores class or subtleties and operates solely on the level of nationstates
Imperialist invasion IS a reason to recognize a great shift in the conflict, and anything else is pure denial and self-serving nonsense. You want us to pretend as though nothing has changed since the imperialists entered the fray...that is laughable. What you fundamentally fail to understand is that opposing imperialist invasion means only opposing the greatest threat to the people of Libya.

You may ramble about subtlety all you like, you're missing the most important fact: imperialism is trying to subjugate Libya and steal its resources. Until you recognize that and oppose it like every sober-minded progressive on the face of the earth, you will be barking up the wrong tree, and likely barking with Washington-inspired rhetoric.


It is complete hypocrisy to claim that this stance is motivated by the suffering of the Libyan people when non-intervention will seal the fate of the rebels in Benghazi and restore the security of the anti-democratic Gaddafi regime
Yes, much better that more of Libya is bombed, that Libyans die by the hand of imperialism, that the same powers that gleefully raped Afghanistan and Iraq attack Libya, that imperialism buys itself a vassal state to funnel oil and intimidate the workers of Egypt and Tunisia and elsewhere. Much better...if you're on the imperialists' side.

And look at you, crying foul over "anti-democratic regimes" when you're excusing American, French and British bombs. Perhaps you can explain how pro-democratic those countries have been in the recent past. Perhaps you can tell us how imperialist invasions are democratic mechanisms. Perhaps you can explain why so many imperialist talking-points end up coming out of your mouth.


And this is exactly what I was talking about earlier. You talk of "Libyan self-determination", what Libyan self-determination?
Not being ruled from Washington, Paris and London. I thought this would be somewhat self-explanatory.


When there is an attempt to express this fundamental right through force of arms, you cheer on Gaddafi's foreign mercenaries as they set about crushing the revolt. This is not anti-imperialism and this is not supporting the right of all peoples to self-determination. The latter will only, can only, be assured when the Libyan people are free to assert it themselves
You can only guess as to what the objectives of the rebels are. Is there any indication that they would not be gladly bombing Tripoli into submission if the material and strategic situation was reversed? Your argument rests on nothing but your own sunny vision of the rebels, a silly glorification of a group whose only known association is with the biggest threats to the workers of the world today. Your argument also rests on an erroneous characterization of me as a Gaddafi supporter. In short, your argument is bogus.

The Libyan people will only be free to assert self-determination when they are free of imperialist domination. You are cheerleading the greatest obstacle to precisely that. That is why your position is divorced from materialism and all the principles of progress.

[khad]

I think its fairly obvious. There is no great universal law that states that some nations must remain indefinitely poor just because they lie outside Europe or North America. It is possible, if unfortunately uncommon, for nations to industrialise and to better their economies.
Indefinitely poor? Such rhetoric only betrays your imperialist agenda. Yes, you are a Brit, whose country plundered the entire world for resources and slaves for 4 centuries. Nations like yours kept half the world subjugated and underdeveloped to feed their economies and fuel their industrialization. Libya has had half a century to go from a largely desert nation of nomads to where it is today, and the results are impressive by any measure.


It is of course exceedingly difficult to reach Western standards (although some countries have made it over the past century) but even reaching the modest levels of, say, Thailand would see a roughly five-fold increase in Libya's GDP. And this is a country with significant oil wealthThailand? By bringing up Thailand you demonstrate that you were either smacked too many times in the head as a baby or have some vested interest promoting the Thai government. This is combined with your own bigoted perceptions of African poverty - Libya just has to be dirt poor because it's African, amirite?

Thailand's GDP is 263.77 billion
Libya's GDP is 62.36 billion

However, Thailand's population (67.7 million) is more than 10x that of Libya (6.4 million). To put it in terms you can comprehend, your argument is about as convincing as blaming Denmark for having a smaller GDP than Italy.

On the whole the average Libyan is much, much better off than his/her Thai counterpart.

Thai per capita income: $4700
Libyan per capita income: $14400

Thai life expectancy: 68.9 years
Libyan life expectancy: 77.5 years

[Rooster]

Indefinitely poor? Such rhetoric only betrays your imperialist agenda. Yes, you are a Brit, whose country plundered the entire world for resources and slaves for 4 centuries. Nations like yours kept half the world subjugated and underdeveloped to feed their economies. Libya has had half a century to go from a largely desert nation of nomads to where it is today, and the results are impressive by any measure.

Sorry to intervene but really, he said he wasn't British and why are you blaming him or anyone in Britain for things that happened in the past? Especially with that nation focused tone?


Thailand? By bringing up Thailand you demonstrate that you were either smacked too many times in the head as a baby or have some vested interest promoting the Thai government. This is combined with your own bigoted perceptions of African poverty - Libya just has to be dirt poor because it's African, amirite?

Thailand's GDP is 263.77 billion
Libya's GDP is 62.36 billion

However, Thailand's population (67.7 million) is more than 10x that of Libya (6.4 million)

On the whole the average Libyan is much, much better off than his/her Thai counterpart.

Thai per capita income: $4700
Libyan per capita income: $14400

Thai life expectancy: 68.9 years
Libyan life expectancy: 77.5 yearsAlso, while I am here, I don't see why bringing up these statistics should mean much. Especially per capita income. Going by this logic then Qatar or Luxembourg are the best place in the world to live.

[khad]

Also, while I am here, I don't see why bringing up these statistics should mean much. Especially per capita income. Going by this logic then Qatar or Luxembourg are the best place in the world to live.
ComradeOm himself said this


It is of course exceedingly difficult to reach Western standards (although some countries have made it over the past century) but even reaching the modest levels of, say, Thailand would see a roughly five-fold increase in Libya's GDP. And this is a country with significant oil wealth

But then why should we be content to compare Libya to African nations as if this was some sort of expected norm? As if that this is the best that can be expected from an African nation? It is grossly patronising to assume that this is the best that African nations can aspire to. They can, and should, aim for a standard of living at least on par with Europe. If this is unachievable then it at least reveals the fundamental flaws within global capitalismWhen someone makes an argument about standard of living, it is only natural to answer using standard of living data.

[Rooster]

ComradeOm himself said this



Look, you can flip your shit all you want, but perhaps you should learn to read. This is what ComradeOm said:


Ohhh. A pity that I'm not a Brit.


When someone makes an argument about standard of living, it is only natural to answer using standard of living data.

I'm pointing the fact that the average per capita that you're using to measure standard of living isn't a good indicator of perosnal and individual wealth. You can't read, ignore facts, you taunt people for being of such and such a nation and then you use a system of mearsurement that takes nations into account, not actual people.

[gorillafuck]

Clearly the hope that left communists would be capable of actually reading my posts was a vain one. I was referring to the accusation that supporting 'national liberation' struggles and the like is simply another form of nationalism. I brought this up due to the number of posters talking in terms of 'Libya v the West' as if these were monolithic entities. All of which I've explained aboveThe Libyan Rebels are anti-Qaddafi nationalists, and Qaddafi is a nationalist. That seems pretty obvious to me. I may not fully see what you're talking about, though...

Supporting this war is the same as supporting the Afghanistan or Iraq war.

[khad]

Look, you can flip your shit all you want, but perhaps you should learn to read. This is what ComradeOm said:
And if you know the first thing about British history, Ireland was formally a part of Britain at the height of its power, with plenty of compradors doing their masters' bidding. Those in that category are effectively British imperialists in my book.


I'm pointing the fact that the average per capita that you're using to measure standard of living isn't a good indicator of perosnal and individual wealth. You can't read, ignore facts, you taunt people for being of such and such a nation and then you use a system of mearsurement that takes nations into account, not actual people.It's a more accurate measure than the aggregate GDP figures that Om was using for his argument:


It is of course exceedingly difficult to reach Western standards (although some countries have made it over the past century) but even reaching the modest levels of, say, Thailand would see a roughly five-fold increase in Libya's GDP. And this is a country with significant oil wealth

Between aggregate GDP and per capita income (or GDP, that won't change much), the latter does represent a more accurate account of personal wealth, since that actually factors in the population of the countries in question.

Om was the one who introduced aggregate GDP as a measure of wealth, along with other such indicators, so unless you have anything to add, political illiterate, you can just wander off to the next thread because here your comments are completely off-topic.

[gorillafuck]

Aggregate GDP is a bs indicator.

[Rooster]

And if you know the first thing about British history, Ireland was formally a part of Britain, with plenty of compradors doing their masters' bidding. Those in that category are effectively British in my book.

Has Om been personally responsible for everything that Britain has done since the 16th century?


It's a more accurate measure than the aggregate GDP figures that Om was using for his argument:



Between aggregate GDP and per capita income (or GDP, that won't change much), the latter does represent a more accurate account of personal wealth, since that actually factors in the population of the countries in question.

Both of them are irrelevant. They do not take into account of any relation to production. And neither show the balance of wealth within a particular system, especially within a capitalist system, and if you're attempting to use PPP then that's filled with assumptions and estimates. If we are to use either figure then a great many of the libreal bourgeois countires come out on top. What does this mean to living standards?


Om was the one who introduced aggregate GDP as a measure of wealth, along with other such indicators, so unless you have anything to add, political illiterate, you can just wander off to the next thread because here your comments are completely off-topic.

I think the fact that you ignore facts and make gross generalisations about people and countries (Thailand = sex industry) needs to be addressed. I think you're more concerned with national chuavism, so maybe you should wander off to another thread where you can gloryify yourself talking about national outputs and power plants.

[khad]

Has Om been personally responsible for everything that Britain has done since the 16th century?
By trumpeting British imperialism today, he places himself in a long historical continuity of imperialist aggression by people who serve the British Crown.


Both of them are irrelevant. They do not take into account of any relation to production. And neither show the balance of wealth within a particular system, especially within a capitalist system, and if you're attempting to use PPP then that's filled with assumptions and estimates. If we are to use either figure then a great many of the libreal bourgeois countires come out on top. What does this mean to living standards?Take your own advice and learn to read.


It is of course exceedingly difficult to reach Western standards (although some countries have made it over the past century) but even reaching the modest levels of, say, Thailand would see a roughly five-fold increase in Libya's GDP. And this is a country with significant oil wealth

But then why should we be content to compare Libya to African nations as if this was some sort of expected norm? As if that this is the best that can be expected from an African nation? It is grossly patronising to assume that this is the best that African nations can aspire to. They can, and should, aim for a standard of living at least on par with Europe. If this is unachievable then it at least reveals the fundamental flaws within global capitalismOm first compared the GDP of Libya to Thailand, and then he compared the standard of living of Libya to Europe - European nations which have bourgeois capitalist economies measured with bourgeois capitalist indicators.

Om was the one making the comparisons. I merely supplied the relevant data.

[Il Medico]

And if you know the first thing about British history, Ireland was formally a part of Britain at the height of its power, with plenty of compradors doing their masters' bidding. Those in that category are effectively British imperialists in my book.


So, Comrade Om, a modern Irishman/woman is somehow responsible for British imperialism of the past and today? Imperialism, that their country was one of the first and longest effected victims of?

You honestly make no sense sometimes khad.

[khad]

So, Comrade Om, a modern Irishman/woman is somehow responsible for British imperialism of the past and today? Imperialism, that their country was one of the first and longest effected victims of?

You honestly make no sense sometimes khad.
Not every Irishman made off badly during the occupation. Those types are the same types who would cheer on as the British attack another nation.

[Robocommie]

Not every Irishman made off badly during the occupation. Those types are the same types who would cheer on as the British attack another nation.

Every occupation has its collaborators.

[Rusty Shackleford]

Every occupation has its collaborators.
without them, occupation would be impossible.

[Savage]

I was under the impression that this forum had a zero tolerance on Third-Worldism but obviously not as this thread seems to be a breeding ground moronism as well as being a cemetery for any productive discussion. If Comrade Om is an imperialist for living in Ireland than so to were Marx and Engels-but honestly I don't know why I'm bothering with this...

[Rusty Shackleford]

Om her/himself is not physically an imperialist(at least well leave that as granted) but is actively siding with imperialism. that is the argument being made by Khad.

For example:

Nouri Al-Maliki is living in a country dominated by imperialism, but his role as president of occupied Iraq and supporter of the US occupation makes him an imperialist running dog. Al-Maliki sides with imperialism.

Now, lets talk about a hypothetical, non kurdish, iraqi national who has lived in their country all their life. This hypothetical person has lived through 2 invasions but is actually in support of it and supports the opening up of formerly nationalized industry to imperialist companies and governments. This person is in no position of power but acts to legitimize imperialism in Iraq and is now considered to be sided with imperialism.


Just because an Irishman is Irish doesnt mean he is inherently an Irish Nationalist or against the crown.

[Amphictyonis]

The word intervention implies that outside powers are intervening in the internal affairs of Libya. That is excatly what is happening.


Intervention is a euphemism for war. Thats the way I see it. Thats all I'm saying :) Language is very important, it frames the way in which we interpret events.

[Devrim]

that is the argument being made by Khad.

Khad doesn't make arguments. He assumes a position, and then insults people who disagree with him.


Now, lets talk about a hypothetical, non kurdish, iraqi national who has lived in their country all their life

I'm confused by this. Why 'non-Kurdish'?. Do you think that all Kurds through their linguistic backgrounds are either complicit in imperialism, or anti-imperialist? Why does it matter to your argument?

Devrim

[Luís Henrique]

If we are going to talk about GDP, here is something to ponder:

http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=wb-wdi&met=ny_gdp_pcap_cd&idim=country:LBY&dl=en&hl=en&q=libya%20gdp%20per%20capita

I think this does a lot to explain why there is a revolt in Libya nowadays.

Oh, and if we are going to compare Libya to other countries, we should compare it with other oil exporting countries.

Are we going to hail UAE or Saudi Arabia now?

Luís Henrique

[Invader Zim]

Indefinitely poor? Such rhetoric only betrays your imperialist agenda. Yes, you are a Brit, whose country plundered the entire world for resources and slaves for 4 centuries. Nations like yours kept half the world subjugated and underdeveloped to feed their economies and fuel their industrialization. Libya has had half a century to go from a largely desert nation of nomads to where it is today, and the results are impressive by any measure.

Thailand? By bringing up Thailand you demonstrate that you were either smacked too many times in the head as a baby or have some vested interest promoting the Thai government. This is combined with your own bigoted perceptions of African poverty - Libya just has to be dirt poor because it's African, amirite?

Thailand's GDP is 263.77 billion
Libya's GDP is 62.36 billion

However, Thailand's population (67.7 million) is more than 10x that of Libya (6.4 million). To put it in terms you can comprehend, your argument is about as convincing as blaming Denmark for having a smaller GDP than Italy.

On the whole the average Libyan is much, much better off than his/her Thai counterpart.

Thai per capita income: $4700
Libyan per capita income: $14400

Thai life expectancy: 68.9 years
Libyan life expectancy: 77.5 years

In regards to the life expectancy what is your source? Both the CIA World factbook and the UN offer alternative statistics, neither of which suggest that Thai life expectancy is that low of that Libyan life expectancy is that high.

Furthermore, the statistics you have provided do not actually tell us what the majority of Libyan workers are actually earning. Libya may well have a relatively high GDP per capita. But this provides us with a mean average income which provides us with a misleading picture. The reality is that chances are very few Libyans earn $14,400 p.a., the high incomes of the more affluent sections of society create a misleading 'average' income. This is true of all such statistics, in the UK for example, we are often told that the average British individual earns around £25,000 p.a., the reality is however that only a third of the population (if that) earn an income of that magnitude or higher. To be meaningful the statistics you have provided need to be accompanied with a note of the wealth gap between rich and poor, or potentially a modal income?

[Rafiq]

I don't think the CIA world factbook and the UN are very trustworthy sources,

just sayin..

[ComradeOm]

First things first: Fuck you khad. Generations of my family have suffered at the hands of British imperialism. You accuse me of "getting fat" when ancestors of mine were forced to emigrate during the Great Hunger? You accuse me of being a "British imperialist" when everyone in my family have had first hand experiences of actual British imperialism during the Troubles? I bet you've never been through a British Army checkpoint or had to leave school due to a Loyalist bomb scare. How many of your childhood friends were forced from their homes during Loyalist pogroms? Yet you have the gall to sit behind a glowing screen and accuse me of being no better than a tout? You don't have a clue what you're talking about

Usually I'm an advocate for attacking the argument and not the poster but you're a fucking waste of time


Imperialist invasion IS a reason to recognize a great shift in the conflict, and anything else is pure denial and self-serving nonsense. You want us to pretend as though nothing has changed since the imperialists entered the fray...that is laughable. What you fundamentally fail to understand is that opposing imperialist invasion means only opposing the greatest threat to the people of LibyaThis is insane, simply insane. The "greatest threat to the people of Libya"? In what sort of bizarre world is the violent repression of a popular revolt not the "greatest threat to the people of Libya"? Have you really forgotten who it was shelling Libyan cities a week ago?

This so-called 'anti-imperialist' stance isn't about Libya, not really. Its about the West and the knee-jerk reaction in the opposite direction. Comparisons with Iraq or Afghanistan or any other such war flow freely because you don't actually care about the specifics of Libya. Frankly I can't see another reason as to simply sweep a popular revolt under the carpet and act as if it never happened


Not being ruled from Washington, Paris and London. I thought this would be somewhat self-explanatory.So you would support any regime, no matter how murderous or anti-democratic, if they were in opposition to "Washington, Paris and London"?

But then your position is perfectly natural when anti-imperialism has been reduced to such a simplistic and vulgar shell. Sure who cares about the actual class dynamics of Libya when we can rail against the US? Which is a fair enough approach but not one that should ever be considered communist, never mind Marxist


Your argument also rests on an erroneous characterization of me as a Gaddafi supporterYou can correct the 'error' by answering the simple questions that I've posed to others, with no reply: Do you believe that the anti-Gaddafi revolt would have been crushed without foreign intervention? Do you believe that this would have been a good thing?

There are no two ways about this: non-intervention would have seen Benghazi taken and the revolt crushed. Support for non-intervention is support for Gaddafi in the face of a popular revolt. The case of Spain 1936 has already been raised in another thread


The Libyan people will only be free to assert self-determination when they are free of imperialist dominationLike at any point in the past four decades? Were the Libyan people (note: not the narrow elite) free to determine their own future before Western intervention began? Because those being shot at by Gaddafi's foreign mercenaries might disagree with this sentiment. And of course if Gaddafi was an agent of imperialism before 19 March then you'd have to wonder what all this fuss was about

[RadioRaheem84]

Oh please, Comrade Om. The left hawkish pov is tiresome. Supporting intervention for humanitarian purposes by the West is not a leftist position. You might as well have supported intervention in Iraq considering that regime was ten times worse than the one in Libya and a popular uprising would've been less imminent due to the massive stronghold Hussein had over his people.

Members of some of the opposition groups claiming to represent the uprising are already meeting with Western diplomats in fancy French hotels. Apparently, they're trying to get first dibs on whatever will come about of the revolt, exploiting the real grievances workers fighting in the streets have toward the regime.

A lot of the rhetoric coming from you sounds a lot like the rhetoric pro-war hawks like "leftist" Norman Geras or liberal Nick Cohen were spouting off. They were simply supportive of the Iraq war for "humanitarian" reasons and did not trust the US led coalition.

Nearly the same argument.

[Os Cangaceiros]

It's weird to remember that Libya only has a population about one third of NYC's metro area.

[Robocommie]

I don't think the CIA world factbook and the UN are very trustworthy sources,

just sayin..

If you can't trust the UN and CIA to provide statistics then you sure as hell can't trust them to intervene in Libyan affairs.

[khad]

All I have to say is that if your ancestors truly suffered at the hands of British imperialism, you would not be cheering the conquest of yet another nation by British imperialists. Fucking disgrace.

[ComradeOm]

Oh please, Comrade Om. The left hawkish pov is tiresome. Supporting intervention for humanitarian purposes by the West is not a leftist positionIs it a leftist position to support a repressive and anti-democratic dictatorship as it sets about destroying a popular opposition movement using foreign mercenaries? If so then I am not a leftist; I'm a Marxist

I've been asking for alternatives since the beginning to this thread but I am simply not willing to write off the rebels in order to participate in a spot of flag burning. If there is no intervention then Benghazi falls and the Gaddafi regime is victorious over its internal opposition. What is the alternative to this?


Members of some of the opposition groups claiming to represent the uprising are already meeting with Western diplomats in fancy French hotelsYou expect them to find Western diplomats in soup kitchens?


A lot of the rhetoric coming from you sounds a lot like the rhetoric pro-war hawks like "leftist" Norman Geras or liberal Nick Cohen were spouting off. They were simply supportive of the Iraq war for "humanitarian" reasons and did not trust the US led coalitionA lot of the arguments against me here boil down to the same guilt by association. Which is pretty revealing in itself. There's also been a lot more references to Iraq than Benghazi from almost everybody but myself

Edit:

All I have to say is that if your ancestors truly suffered at the hands of British imperialism, you would not be cheering the conquest of yet another nation by British imperialists. Fucking disgraceSo instead of acknowledging that I might know something about the hardships of imperialism you've decided to call me a liar? You are one classy guy khad. A real credit to this site

[manic expression]

This is insane, simply insane. The "greatest threat to the people of Libya"? In what sort of bizarre world is the violent repression of a popular revolt not the "greatest threat to the people of Libya"? Have you really forgotten who it was shelling Libyan cities a week ago?
It's a civil war. Violent repression will happen one way or the other. Is there any indication the rebels wouldn't gleefully shell Tripoli if they had the chance to? Not at all, and so your attempt to make the rebels into some picture of moral perfection is absurd. But regardless, now it's a civil war exploited by imperialist interests to put all of Libya in chains. The ONLY interest the imperialists have is to stomp out all semblance of Libyan self-determination and steal resources from its people. That. Is. It.


This so-called 'anti-imperialist' stance isn't about Libya, not really. Its about the West and the knee-jerk reaction in the opposite direction. Comparisons with Iraq or Afghanistan or any other such war flow freely because you don't actually care about the specifics of Libya. Frankly I can't see another reason as to simply sweep a popular revolt under the carpet and act as if it never happened
Of course it's about Libya and "the West". "The West" is bombing Libya.

Your "popular revolt" (a label you haven't justified, and probably can't) was being swept under the carpet by the facts on the ground. They were losing, desperate. So they called for the imperialists to save them from destruction, and here we are. Effectively, they are now a vassal of the US, UK and France.

WHATEVER THE CHARACTER OF THE REVOLT WAS IS NOW IRREVERSIBLY CHANGED. Trying to sweep that under the carpet and throwing garlands on the rebels will never change that plain, naked fact.


So you would support any regime, no matter how murderous or anti-democratic, if they were in opposition to "Washington, Paris and London"?
Of course not.


But then your position is perfectly natural when anti-imperialism has been reduced to such a simplistic and vulgar shell. Sure who cares about the actual class dynamics of Libya when we can rail against the US? Which is a fair enough approach but not one that should ever be considered communist, never mind Marxist
This is not a vulgar shell, this is an inherent "shell". The only person who's blatantly ignoring class dynamics for a myopic rose-tinted ideal that has no bearing on the situation today is you. You're refusing to see the objectives, methods and character of the imperialist invasion. You're refusing to see the relationship between the most lethal threats to the workers of the world and your precious rebels. You're refusing to look at this objectively because you already threw your hat in with a rebellion that was doomed until the French, British and American cavalries came over the hill. That's why you're in denial here.


You can correct the 'error' by answering the simple questions that I've posed to others, with no reply: Do you believe that the anti-Gaddafi revolt would have been crushed without foreign intervention? Do you believe that this would have been a good thing?
Yes, it most likely would have been crushed without the imperialist invasion. I do not hold that this would have been a "good thing", no. Even though the rebels are an unknown quantity (and anyone who says otherwise is kidding themselves), Gaddafi's fall to a rival Libyan force wouldn't bring an automatic objection from me. However, that dichotomy has been thrown out the window...it is now Libya vs imperialism and its allies. The fact that you cannot see this just goes to show how you've lost sight of what's at stake.


There are no two ways about this: non-intervention would have seen Benghazi taken and the revolt crushed. Support for non-intervention is support for Gaddafi in the face of a popular revolt. The case of Spain 1936 has already been raised in another thread
So you support the revolt in this comparison? That means Franco, in case you didn't notice. Oh, right, I'm sorry...the comparison means you support the "intervention"...just like the Condor Legion and the Italian forces in Spain, right? Awesome comparison, if I do say so myself.


Like at any point in the past four decades? Were the Libyan people (note: not the narrow elite) free to determine their own future before Western intervention began? Because those being shot at by Gaddafi's foreign mercenaries might disagree with this sentiment. And of course if Gaddafi was an agent of imperialism before 19 March then you'd have to wonder what all this fuss was about
:laugh: You're one to decry "foreign mercenaries"! Who the hell do you think is dropping bombs on Libya as we speak? What else can we call the rebels who are only fighting because the imperialists backed them? What perfect hypocrisy. You have shown absolutely no understanding of the situation. That's about as polite as I can put it.

At any rate, the situation of Libya, in the past four decades, was that of a country free from the oppression of imperialism. That much is undeniable. You're now cheerleading a monumental step backwards for the people of Libya. Just look over to Afghanistan and Iraq...shining examples of what you're supporting. Libya is threatened with that horrifying prospect, and all you can do is clap your hands for imperialist bombs. Shameful.

But we're not supposed to look at what the imperialists have done during their last few invasions, we're supposed to talk about the Spanish Civil War. Much more applicable than the recent and ongoing rap sheet imperialism is accumulating. Yeah, that's the ticket! :lol:

[Invader Zim]

I don't think the CIA world factbook and the UN are very trustworthy sources,

just sayin..

What? You think that the CIA and the UN have a bizarre need to slant basic statistical data about a country? What possible purpose do you think that altering the stated life expectancy of Thailand up by a couple of years?


The left hawkish pov is tiresome.

Well it isn't a hawkish position, most of his comments have been statements of fact. The popular uprising against, what is arguably, a fascist (regime with a lengthy history of collaboration with the West) will undoubtedly be crushed without military intervention by at least one major power on its behalf. That is a sad an inescapable fact.

So that leaves leftists in a tricky position of:

A. Supporting imperialist intervention to at least give the Libyan people the possibility of having a new and more progressive regime.

B. Rejecting such an intervention because there is a possibility that an equally unpleasant regime will be installed by the Western power.

The assertions, for those in camp B, that a new regime will be pro-Western doesn't really go very far. Not because it is untrue, undoubtedly such a regime would be maliable to the interests of its western backers, but because Gadaffi is already pro-Western and already using his position to oppress and steal from the Libyan people while lining his own pockets and those of his western imperialist backers. Why do you think the Libyan people are trying to overthrow him?

I'm not saying I side with either camp, from where I'm standing it looks like both positions are both equally shit. But those in camp B are making some fucking stupid arguments. I mean come on, rejecting intervention because the new regime will be exploit the Libyan people to enrich its Western backers when Gadaffi who is in control (and who has been doing the exact same thing for decades) is utterly ridiculous. You're suggesting that it is terrible to contemplate the possibility of the west replacing Gadaffi because his replacement may be a pro-western Quisling, but Gadaffi is already with a pro-western Quislingmaliable to his backers desires. He has spent the last ten years trying his level best to put his regime on as positive terms with the USA as possible. So I guess I'm saying the complaint doesn't make any sense.

[RadioRaheem84]

Is it a leftist position to support a repressive and anti-democratic dictatorship as it sets about destroying a popular opposition movement using foreign mercenaries? If so then I am not a leftist; I'm a Marxist

I've been asking for alternatives since the beginning to this thread but I am simply not willing to write off the rebels in order to participate in a spot of flag burning. If there is no intervention then Benghazi falls and the Gaddafi regime is victorious over its internal opposition. What is the alternative to this?I used to support the exact same pro-war liberal-left hawkish shit about Iraq. Iraq was in a much worse case scenario as no viable opposition to Saddam had emerged due to years of sanctions and anti-leftist repression at the hands of the Baathists, armed to the teeth by the West.

Being anti-intervention is not being pro-Ghadafi and you're using that as an excuse to accuse others and give yourself some room to play leftier-than thou.

You complain about foreign mercenaries but do not realize that US and French planes are foreign too and create much more havoc than anything Ghadafi may have in store for the rebellion.

The solution is for the rebellion to gather strength in numbers and have a real coherent movement that will not be hijacked by opportunist Western boot-licking reformers who want first dibs on the new "republic" that will form after Ghadafi is ousted.

[RadioRaheem84]

The assertions, for those in camp B, that a new regime will be pro-Western doesn't really go very far. Not because it is untrue, undoubtedly such a regime would be maliable to the interests of its western backers, but because Gadaffi is already pro-Western and already using his position to oppress and steal from the Libyan people while lining his own pockets and those of his western imperialist backers. Why do you think the Libyan people are trying to overthrow him?


Utterly ridiculous, the US in 2002 helped oust a much more progressive government of an oil rich nation in favor of a pro-Western junta. You think that the US, will intervene to somehow make Libya more progressive, even when their biggest complaint is that Ghadafi is not enough of a puppet?

Why do you think they're even intervening there but not in Yemen or Bahrain or Saudi Arabia on behalf of the people?

Ghadafi has become a quisling for the West, but not one that would totally satisfy their appetite and certainly they do not want a real progressive nation to form which will totally use the proceeds of the oil rich land to go directly to the people.

Where did you come up with your analysis? It is massively shitty, comrade.

If they weren't happy with progressivism in Venezuela, they certainly wouldn't be happy with it in Libya.

They're willing to let Ghadfi go if it means to strategically preserve the oil fields and keep a progressive movement from taking them. They would undoubtedly prefer a liberal style bourgoise democracy in order to trade with over a dictator.

[manic expression]

So that leaves leftists in a tricky position of:

A. Supporting imperialist intervention to at least give the Libyan people the possibility of having a new and more progressive regime.

B. Rejecting such an intervention because there is a possibility that an equally unpleasant regime will be installed by the Western power.
That isn't the choice at all. One must only look to imperialism's recent "conquests" to see what brand of oppression it is capable of wreaking. Supporting the imperialist invasion isn't tantamount to "a possibility (for) an equally unpleasant regime", it's tantamount to supporting the whole-scale rape, pillage and plunder of the entire country and an imperialist stranglehold on the region. A quick look at Afghanistan and Iraq will confirm this. That is why the imperialist outrage must be fully opposed by all progressives.

[Invader Zim]

Utterly ridiculous

Only if you've been living in a cave for the past ten years, and not been watching Gadaffi backing the US, i.e. in its "war on terror", etc.


You think that the US, will intervene to somehow make Libya more progressive, even when their biggest complaint is that Ghadafi is not enough of a puppet?

You over-estimate the degree of western, and in particular US, intervention. The US has been leaving it as long as possible before staging an intervention, presumably because it was reticent to do so. And even now it has, this intervention has been a perfunctory token when compared other recent US military adventures. It has not invested troops, and probably won't. Rather it is happy to sit back and destroy Gadaffi's armour and air power from afar as possible and level the playing field. It is a cheap and easy way for Obama and, more to the point, Cameron to appease their voters. It srikes me that is a far more realistic goal than going to the trouble of replacing a pro-western dictator with a slightly more pro-western dictator - which is essencially your argument.


That isn't the choice at all. One must only look to imperialism's recent "conquests" to see what brand of oppression it is capable of wreaking. Supporting the imperialist invasion isn't tantamount to "a possibility (for) an equally unpleasant regime", it's tantamount to supporting the whole-scale rape, pillage and plunder of the entire country and an imperialist stranglehold on the region. A quick look at Afghanistan and Iraq will confirm this. That is why the imperialist outrage must be fully opposed by all progressives.

What imperialist 'invasion', what "whole-scale rape, pillage and plunder of the entire country"? As noted, thus far the Western intervention has been utterly perfunctory, when compared what you call 'imperialism's recent "conquests"'. So lets get this right, your entire argument has its foundations on what is thus far an assumption of events which haven't actually occured and with little indication that they ever will actually occur. As I've noted before the situation in Libya in 2011 is not the same situation as in Iraq in 2003 so why bother making the comparison until it becomes apt?

[ComradeOm]

Being anti-intervention is not being pro-Ghadafi and you're using that as an excuse to accuse others and give yourself some room to play leftier-than thouShow me the alternative. This is not an unreasonable request yet it is one that has been constantly ducked. Show me how you can prevent Gaddafi from crushing the revolt without invoking Western intervention. I do not welcome the latter, I did not call for the latter but I recognise that it is the only possible way in which Benghazi is saved. And I am not willing to write off a popular revolt against a coercive kleptocracy


The solution is for the rebellion to gather strength in numbers and have a real coherent movement that will not be hijacked by opportunist Western boot-licking reformers who want first dibs on the new "republic" that will form after Ghadafi is ousted.Yeah, and this is supposed to happen before or after Gaddafi marched triumphantly into Benghazi? Or do you honestly believe that the city would not have fallen and that the revolt could have survived without Western intervention?


You complain about foreign mercenaries but do not realize that US and French planes are foreign too and create much more havoc than anything Ghadafi may have in store for the rebellionOf course I recognise the price of Western intervention. I mention foreign mercenaries to show the idiocy that is running rife in the pro-Gaddafi camp. Apparently we must support Gaddafi against the Western powers because the former represents the self-determination of the Libyan people. Yet he only remains in power because the purchased aid of foreign soldiers was able to overcome attempts to oust him by the Libyan people!

[RadioRaheem84]

It srikes me that is a far more realistic goal than going to the trouble of replacing a pro-western dictator with a slightly more pro-western dictator - which is essencially your argument.

No. Wrong. Oh so, terribly wrong. The US would gladly give up all their dictators if these nations opted for liberal bourgoise democracies ala Poland, Chile, etc.

Ones where the shadow of dictatorship still looms in the halls of power and neo-liberalism is the rule of the day.

The US here is trying to guide the revolt by weakening Ghadafi, calling off diplomatic relations and aiding a group of liberals to spearhead (hijack) the rebellion.

[RadioRaheem84]

Show me the alternative. This is not an unreasonable request yet it is one that has been constantly ducked. Show me how you can prevent Gaddafi from crushing the revolt without invoking Western intervention. I do not welcome the latter, I did not call for the latter but I recognise that it is the only possible way in which Benghazi is saved. And I am not willing to write off a popular revolt against a coercive kleptocracy

Yeah, and this is supposed to happen before or after Gaddafi marched triumphantly into Benghazi? Or do you honestly believe that the city would not have fallen and that the revolt could have survived without Western intervention?

Of course I recognise the price of Western intervention. I mention foreign mercenaries to show the idiocy that is running rife in the pro-Gaddafi camp. Apparently we must support Gaddafi against the Western powers because the former represents the self-determination of the Libyan people. Yet he only remains in power because the purchased aid of foreign soldiers was able to overcome attempts to oust him by the Libyan people!

I still do not see how this argument could not have been made for Iraq!

You are seriously arguing like a pro-liberal hawk.

And you keep conflating anti-interventionism with being pro-Ghadafi.

You're also trying to pull people into a corner by saying that there is no other way as Ghadafi is too strong and US guns are needed to weaken him.

The exact same argument was made for the Iraq situation and at least much more lucidly because the situation seemed more dire for a viable opposition movement against Hussein.

You insist that Ghadafi can crush a whole movement that has just begun and yet foolishly cheer French planes as if they offer relief to the rebels.

Get this through your thick head, Western intervention will not help a popular movement in the slightest.

[manic expression]

Show me the alternative.
Revolutionary defeatism. It's a pretty cool idea.


This is not an unreasonable request yet it is one that has been constantly ducked. Show me how you can prevent Gaddafi from crushing the revolt without invoking Western intervention. I do not welcome the latter, I did not call for the latter but I recognise that it is the only possible way in which Benghazi is saved. And I am not willing to write off a popular revolt against a coercive kleptocracy
So to save this "popular revolt" against a "coercive kleptocracy", you'd cheerlead for the most blood-soaked military forces in the world today, forces that care only for their pocketbook and nothing for the people of the world? Your priorities are clearly not on the side of the masses here.

[RadioRaheem84]

Exactly, manic. Hasn't the opposition to Ghadafi just begun early this year and Comrade
Om expects victory within the first fight or month?

If not, he cries for US planes to deliver relief, knowing full well the history of Western intervention and intentions.

[Invader Zim]

No. Wrong. Oh so, terribly wrong. The US would gladly give up all their dictators if these nations opted for liberal bourgoise democracies ala Poland, Chile, etc.

Ones where the shadow of dictatorship still looms in the halls of power and neo-liberalism is the rule of the day.

The US here is trying to guide the revolt by weakening Ghadafi, calling off diplomatic relations and aiding a group of liberals to spearhead (hijack) the rebellion.

Ok, so let's actually analyse what you have said.

1. You deny that the US would have a problem replacing Gadaffi with a bourgeois liberal democratic state.

2. Yet responded with disbelief that the US would allow a progressive state, provided it was maliable to US interests, be installed. Has it not occured to you that you have contradicted yourself. A a bourgeois liberal democratic state, however reactionary, would still be more progressive than the current regime.


and aiding a group of liberals to spearhead (hijack) the rebellion.

What you seemingly fail to grasp is that without intervention there won't be a rebellion to hijack, spearhead or otherwise; that's Om's whole point. So your position is based on an even more ludicrous set of assumptions than Manic's. You assume that this uprising will actually survive without help. I'm sorry, but have you been paying attention to what has been happening in Libya over the past few weeks?


So to save this "popular revolt" against a "coercive kleptocracy", you'd cheerlead for the most blood-soaked military forces in the world today, forces that care only for their pocketbook and nothing for the people of the world? Your priorities are clearly not on the side of the masses here.

Nice sounding rhetoric, but I can't help but notice that you haven't actually addressed his request; what is the alternative to letting the uprising be crushed, precisely? I'm genuinely interested.

As for Om's "priorities" not being with "the masses". This is an odd assertion given that Om wishes to see the preservation of what ostensably is an uprising by "the masses" which is on the verge of beind stamped down by a hated despot. I'm not quite sure I follow your line of reasoning. Surely if his priorities were not with the Libyan masses he would support the west taking a passive-aggressive line against the uprising by allowing it to be crushed under a tyrant's boot; which is precisely what they did to the Republic in 1937.

[manic expression]

Nice sounding rhetoric, but I can't help but notice that you haven't actually addressed his request; what is the alternative to letting the uprising be crushed, precisely? I'm genuinely interested.
This is revealing, I think. You say it as if "we" decided to "let" the uprising be crushed. That's false...the imperialists have calculated it in their material interests to invade and oppress Libya. That is the incontrovertible fact here. We can either support or oppose that act of blatant oppression. And again, whatever character the rebellion had is now gone. It is indebted to the imperialists, and is under their thumb to boot. This is now Libya vs imperialism and its allies...nothing less.

As to the alternative (the alternative being what we as revolutionary socialists can do), revolutionary defeatism is the answer. Imperialism is far and away the greatest threat to the people of Libya. You have repeatedly brushed aside the importance of imperialism's recent crimes, and so you do not recognize the nature of the invasion. Opposing imperialism is the first and foremost task of all progressives today.


As for Om's "priorities" not being with "the masses". This is an odd assertion given that Om wishes to see the preservation of what ostensably is an uprising by "the masses" which is on the verge of beind stamped down by a hated despot. I'm not quite sure I follow your line of reasoning. Surely if his priorities were not with the Libyan masses he would support the west taking a passive-aggressive line against the uprising by allowing it to be crushed under a tyrant's boot; which is precisely what they did to the Republic in 1937.
It's all very quite simple. Om's priorities are not with the masses because he is cheering an invasion by forces that not only have no problem murdering millions for profit, but have done exactly that in the past decade. The rebellion is now primarily defined as a collaborator with imperialism and little more...his naked naivete in thinking the rebellion is anything else is the real problem here. Perhaps it is because he is too accustomed to parroting imperialist propaganda, I do not know, but the reality remains that his portrayal of the situation is out-of-touch with recent developments.

In the pro-imperialist mind, we are to imagine the rebels as knights in shining armor and cowboys with white hats facing down the satanic armies of Gaddafi. Back in reality, the imperialists who just saved the rebels from defeat will dictate terms to them, and the rebels will be in absolutely no position to object. This will be a death-knell for the rights of the people of Libya. Just ask Iraq and Afghanistan what happens in the next act, they've seen this play before.

And as for your Spain comparison, yes, Spain had rebels who collaborated with the most aggressive imperialists in the world...just like the people you're applauding. That's what makes this outrage all the more ludicrous.

[RadioRaheem84]

Ok, so let's actually analyse what you have said.

1. You deny that the US would have a problem replacing Gadaffi with a bourgeois liberal democratic state.

2. Yet responded with disbelief that the US would allow a progressive state, provided it was maliable to US interests, be installed. Has it not occured to you that you have contradicted yourself. A a bourgeois liberal democratic state, however reactionary, would still be more progressive than the current regime.Ridiculous Hitchean pro-war hawk argument that a shaky corrupt democracy is somehow better than dictatorship.

The argument goes on that if one were to agree that a liberal democracy, no matter how bourgoise, is preferable to dictatorship then one would also have to concede that it would've been impossible to achieve without US and Western guns.

I've seen these tired arguments before and they lead to the same clusterfuck bullshit.

It rests on the erroneous assumption that if one doesn't support intervention than one is pro-dictatorship. A stupid assertion that lobbied at people who were anti-Iraq War. Leaving those only option on the table to support is highly devious.


What you seemingly fail to grasp is that without intervention there won't be a rebellion to hijack, spearhead or otherwise; that's Om's whole point. So your position is based on an even more ludicrous set of assumptions than Manic's. You assume that this uprising will actually survive without help. I'm sorry, but have you been paying attention to what has been happening in Libya over the past few weeks?The opposition toward Ghadafi has only just begun. It may take many months of fighting and mobilization to get a real movement going that is largely popular based. You keep thinking that one defeat equals the loss of liberty or something and that US planes need to bomb the hell out of Libya in order for them to succeed. They don't need that!

An intervention will put the rebellion squarely into the hands of preferred interests. The interests know this and that is why they pushed for swift action.

Seriously, try a little harder.

[Invader Zim]

This is revealing, I think. You say it as if "we" decided to "let" the uprising be crushed.

No, you clearly have misunderstood. There is no personal pronoun in my post to give you that impression.


That's false...the imperialists have calculated it in their material interests to invade and oppress Libya.

Wrong. As of yet there has been no invasion. Thus far the coalition forces have eschewed any ground invasion or occupation, and I see no reason to think that will change.


That is the incontrovertible fact here.

Clearly you are confused. To be a fact something must be true. Short of being able to read minds or predict the future you have no idea whether the coalition powers will choose to escelate their involvement in this conflict to the point of invasion and occupation. That is a prediction, not a fact.


We can either support or oppose that act of blatant oppression.

Certainly we can oppose an invasion and occupation of Libya, should that actually occur. But, as of yet, it has not. At the present time all the coalition has done is destroy a number of targets from the air in an attempt to remove Gadaffi's forces advantage over the insurgents. The act of "blatent oppression" you allude to hasn't actually happened. Your argument is entirely premature.


And again, whatever character the rebellion had is now gone.

"Character"? I guess the "character" of the Jewish, and other, resistance groups to Nazi Germany also "went" when they accepted aid from the Allied Powers. They were after all indebted to imperialists, so I guess the leftwing position would have been to oppose the imperialists and allow these groups to have been rounded up and exterminated. Right? Or how about the 'character' of the Irish Republican reistance to British colonial rule in the 20th century, which as I recall you heartily support. The IRA actively enlisted the aid of the Third Reich.


This is now Libya vs imperialism and its allies...nothing less.

Sorry, but your two dimensional analysis of this situation is bizarre as it is backwards. Your assumption that just because a beligured group accepts assistance from western power in a last ditch attempt to actually survive, in any form, somehow invalidates its cause is nothing less than mindless. You have no idea what kind of regime the uprising would have installed had it been successful without western intervention, and you also have no idea what kind of regime it will install having recieved allied aid. You base your entire position on tenuous assumption after tenuous assumption, and appeal to subjective drivel by complaining about the "character" of the rebellion?

Sure, accepting the aid of a western power will likely engender any newly installed regime to favour that power, which is a bad thing. But the fact is that you write off the Libyan people and their struggle against a vicious dictator because they accepted western military aid, as an alternative to being defeated and once again returing to life under a brutal dictator.


You have repeatedly brushed aside the importance of imperialism's recent crimes, and so you do not recognize the nature of the invasion.

There is no "invasion" and the western intervention in Libya is not remotely similar to any of either the USA or Britain's most recent military adventures in the Middle East. You are delusing yourself if you think otherwise.

[RadioRaheem84]

There is no "invasion" and the western intervention in Libya is not remotely similar to any of either the USA or Britain's most recent military adventures in the Middle East. You are delusing yourself if you think otherwise.Ridiculous. Operation Desert Fox then was a humanitarian effort to destabilize the Baathist regime in Iraq and help progressive forces? Bombing Panama was all about restoring democracy for the people?

Seriously, what are you smoking? Where is the intervention in places like Bahrain and Saudi Arabia on behalf of the people? The condemnation of the regimes there?

If you cannot see the blatant hypocrisy there and the intervention in Libya then you're just a huge joke.

Seriously, you're spouting textbook pro-war hawk arguments that I used to make. Play by play. If you do not even notice it then you need to pick up the book A Matter of Principle edited by Thomas Cushman. It's a collection of essays by "leftists" and "liberals" who supported the War in Iraq on humanitarian grounds. Same fucking arguments.

The intervention is not just bomb Ghadafi so rebels can storm into his palace and set up a progressive democracy. It's more like bomb Ghadafi, so rebels can storm his palace, and then set up a friendly shaky "democracy" that would be favorable to US political and economic interests. They're already appointing the stupid little Interim Council as the oppositions "leaders" in the media.

Seriously, where were you when the "left" pro-war arguments for Iraq were flowing? Calling for support of "Socialist" groups like the Iraqi Kurdistan Party, etc.

[manic expression]

No, you clearly have misunderstood. There is no personal pronoun in my post to give you that impression.
Then why are you saying it's our choice to "let" the rebellion fail? It isn't. It's our choice to defend Libya against imperialism...an option you are declining.


Wrong. As of yet there has been no invasion. Thus far the coalition forces have eschewed any ground invasion or occupation, and I see no reason to think that will change.
Bombings are an invasion, and ground troops are being used. Why are you making excuses for imperialist aggression?


Clearly you are confused. To be a fact something must be true. Short of being able to read minds or predict the future you have no idea whether the coalition powers will choose to escelate their involvement in this conflict to the point of invasion and occupation. That is a prediction, not a fact.
It is a fact that the imperialists have calculated it in their interest to invade Libya. Or are they doing this out of the goodness of their hearts?


Certainly we can oppose an invasion and occupation of Libya, should that actually occur. But, as of yet, it has not. At the present time all the coalition has done is destroy a number of targets from the air in an attempt to remove Gadaffi's forces advantage over the insurgents. The act of "blatent oppression" you allude to hasn't actually happened. Your argument is entirely premature.
An invasion is occurring. Imperialist oppression is occurring. You might not think cruise missiles and bombs and imperialist soldiers shooting at civilians all that big of a deal, but that's wishful thinking.


"Character"? I guess the "character" of the Jewish, and other, resistance groups to Nazi Germany also "went" when they accepted aid from the Allied Powers. They were after all indebted to imperialists, so I guess the leftwing position would have been to oppose the imperialists and allow these groups to have been rounded up and exterminated. Right? Or how about the 'character' of the Irish Republican reistance to British colonial rule in the 20th century, which as I recall you heartily support. The IRA actively enlisted the aid of the Third Reich.
More useless comparisons. This isn't an anti-fascist struggle, so the anti-Nazi resistance is out. The Irish Republicans were fighting British imperialism and so the situation is entirely different, and so that's out. The IRA reaching out to Nazi Germany isn't something I endorse, so that's out. Anything else you'd like to drag into this?


Sorry, but your two dimensional analysis of this situation is bizarre as it is backwards. Your assumption that just because a beligured group accepts assistance from western power in a last ditch attempt to actually survive, in any form, somehow invalidates its cause is nothing less than mindless. You have no idea what kind of regime the uprising would have installed had it been successful without western intervention, and you also have no idea what kind of regime it will install having recieved allied aid. You base your entire position on tenuous assumption after tenuous assumption, and appeal to subjective drivel by complaining about the "character" of the rebellion?
:laugh: And you have no idea what kind of regime the uprising WOULD HAVE INSTALLED (as in, before the invasion...as in, not in the world we're living in). So I guess that puts us right back where we started: you supporting imperialist aggression.


Sure, accepting the aid of a western power will likely engender any newly installed regime to favour that power, which is a bad thing. But the fact is that you write off the Libyan people and their struggle against a vicious dictator because they accepted western military aid, as an alternative to being defeated and once again returing to life under a brutal dictator.
Platitudes don't substitute for knowing what the rebels at all represent, explaining why imperialism is suddenly a force for good and justice when it's a machine for murdering workers, recognizing that the rebels are now imperialist vassals, remembering that these same forces you're cheering were hugs and smiles with Gaddafi a few months ago.


There is no "invasion" and the western intervention in Libya is not remotely similar to any of either the USA or Britain's most recent military adventures in the Middle East. You are delusing yourself if you think otherwise.
There is an invasion. It is only different from other imperialist invasions because Libya and the strategic situation is different. Imperialism does what it feels it needs to do.

[Luís Henrique]

Revolutionary defeatism. It's a pretty cool idea.

Indeed, excelent idea.

Revolutionary defeatism is about turning an external war into a civil war.

Now Libya doesn't need to turn an external war into a civil war; it already has a civil war (to which your position seems to be the exactly reverse of revolutionary defeatism: that the Libyans should put their differences aside and join to fight together - rebels and Gadaffyists - against foreign intervention. In other words, to turn a civil war into an external war...)

As for the US, UK, and France, they don't have, at this moment, a civil war. Are you trying to transform this foreign war, or military adventure, into a civil war? If so, you may be talking about revolutionary defeatism. But my impression is evidently that this is not what you are doing. More probably you are thinking of some peaceful demonstrations against the war (of the kind it is possible in London, New York, or Paris, but would have been dispersed with the use of anti-aerial artillery in Tripoli, under Gaddafy's "socialist" regime), in which probably people will display slogans such as "fuck the troops" or something like that. And... have you at least been able to put up such caricature of "revolutionary defeatism" at all?

Go for your own revolution, instead of trying to piss on other people's rebellions.

Luís Henrique

[RadioRaheem84]

Essentially supporting intervention is supporting imperialism.

The Western powers would not intervene into a situation that would not benefit their political and economic interests, otherwise they would be helping the people of Bahrain, Yemen, and Saudi Arabia.

Intervention (both military and diplomatic) strengthens the agents they want to lead the rebellion and has them steer the rebellion to meet their needs too, not the full needs of the people.

It's really simple. I don't understand why it's become such a complicated issue to debate.

Basically, the pro-interventionist arguments amounts to trusting that intervention will do nothing but benefit the struggle against Ghadafi.

[Luís Henrique]

Essentially supporting intervention is supporting imperialism.

"Supporting intervention" would be holding demonstration in favour of an intervention. Demanding congresspeople to vote in favour of intervention. Issuing newspapers, leaflets, and pamphlets defending an intervention. Now where is any of these?


The Western powers would not intervene into a situation that would not benefit their political and economic interests, otherwise they would be helping the people of Bahrain, Yemen, and Saudi Arabia.Of course they try to act in line with their interests. Sometimes they have to gamble - politics is not a perfect information game. They have many times tried to support dictators that were doomed because those dictators were their traditional allies. They could also let those dictators go, and try to deal with the opposition (maybe they did that to, let's see, Franco, Salazar, Marcos, Papadopoulos?) instead. Neither option is actually contrary to their interests in principle - making the wrong bet is, but they certainly cannot always see what the correct wager is.

Of course it is easier for them to intervene against Gaddafy. Intervening against Bahrain or Yemen would be opposed by Saudi Arabia; intervening against Saudi Arabia would set the whole region afire. And while the repression in these countries is certainly brutal, neither it reached the point it reached under Gaddafy, nor it did spark significant splits against their militaries - those countries are not (yet, we hope) in a civil war. And, of course, they don't need to prepare their public opinions against Gaddafy - they have demonised him enough in the past, while they have been consistently lying to their constituents about Saudi Arabia for more than half a century.

But tell me, are you asking for an imperialist intervention against Bahrain?


Intervention (both military and diplomatic) strengthens the agents they want to lead the rebellion and has them steer the rebellion to meet their needs too, not the full needs of the people.

Of course; this is their game. Whether it is going to work or not, nobody knows.


It's really simple. I don't understand why it's become such a complicated issue to debate.Perhaps because it is not really simple.


Basically, the pro-interventionist arguments amounts to trusting that intervention will do nothing but benefit the struggle against Ghadafi.Everybody knows it won't do just that, and that the intention is clearly to steer the revolution into the path they prefer. The idea that because of that the rebels should reconcile with Gaddafy and join him against the imperialists is completely unrealistic. Seriously, those people don't even have such option; they would be crushed if they tried.

Luís Henrique

[RadioRaheem84]

Everybody knows it won't do just that, and that the intention is clearly to steer the revolution into the path they prefer. The idea that because of that the rebels should reconcile with Gaddafy and join him against the imperialists is completely unrealistic. Seriously, those people don't even have such option; they would be crushed if they tried.


But why does being anti-interventionist translate into being pro-Ghadafi or reconciliation. It could just mean accept defeat this one time, regroup and fight again, build more strength. It could mean build a stronger more coherent underground base and prolong the war against Ghadafi. It doesn't have to end now. The US wants that. It wants an end to escalations that will favor them.

[Raubleaux]

Because if that were its primary composition then we would not be witnessing a popular revolt. This is not a coup and it is not a small 'palace revolution' - it is a mass revolt against the Gaddafi dictatorship. You talk of "no popular support outside Benghazi" when much of Eastern Libya is under rebel control. This area would be much greater if it were not for the offensives waged by Gaddafi's foreign mercenaries. The broad base of support enjoyed by the rebels speaks for itself. Perhaps they are risking their lives for another dictatorship?

ComradeOm, my problem with what you are saying is the fact that you keep making several bald assertions without backing any of them up. The main three:

1. You keep reflexively talking about what a "brutal dictatorship" the Gaddafi regime is, without any sense of nuance or understanding of the nature of the regime itself. You have a cartoon image of the Gaddafi government that sounds like you lifted it straight from the bourgeois media. For example, the Jamahariya system is actually very decentralized. Gaddafi is not all-powerful. One of his primary targets of attack is often the corrupt bureaucracy, which in many cases stymies his frequent attempts to reinvent the country (such as his attempt to have certain high positions in the Libyan government filled by popular elections with international monitors, or his plan to distribute oil wealth in the form of direct cash payments to Libyan citizens -- all these things were beat back by the technocrats).

The lack of formal structures of government is more of a defining feature of the Gaddafi regime than the all-powerful omnipresent government that you describe. This is one of the reasons it took Gaddafi's forces so long to gather themselves and retaliate after the rebellions initial attacks.

2. You keep insisting that the rebellion is a "popular revolt" and that they will apparently establish some kind of "more progressive" government than the Gaddafi regime. You do not know this. Nobody does. The rebellion is still very much a mystery. However, we do know that there are many reactionary elements in Eastern Libya: tribalism, Islamic fundamentalism, etc. I have seen zero evidence that this rebellion represents Libyan workers. I have seen nothing progressive. Where is the evidence? All we know is that they hail from a backward region of Libya and are currently allied with the imperialists.

3. You assume that the government that replaces the Gaddafi regime will be better. This one is just completely off base. If I had to predict, I would guess the new government will be very autocratic. Even if we generously assume that the rebels and the imperialists will establish a bourgeois democracy in Libya, it is readily apparent from looking at other "democracies" in Africa, Latin America, Asia etc. that this would be a disaster for Libyan workers. The oil wealth that currently funds the state's massive social welfare apparatus will be privatized, leaving the Libyans helpless in the onslaught of international capital. Libyan workers have no effective working class organizations or even the class consciousness to combat what will happen.

As I said earlier, my position would be for Libyans to build up organizations of the working class. A rebellion or revolution without class consciousness and the active participation of organized Libyan workers is not going to result in a change for the better. Gaddafi needs to be fought from the left.


Usually I wouldn't bother explaining why this is mistaken (the differences should be obvious to any child) but let's briefly do this. In the Gaddafi regime, and indeed any such dictatorship, the state is primarily coercive. That is, it does not rely on the agreement of the wider population but draws support from a narrow base and employs force to keep the rest in check. To varying degrees of course. In contrast, the most notable feature of a Western democracy is its hegemonic nature. The state invites participation in state structures (in a controlled fashion of course) and relies heavily on the myth of "the rights of the people". To simplify of course

Two very basic models of how the state operates in relation to the rest of society and a difference that's actually quite important in understanding the current crisis

First of all, I don't think it is necessary for you to be this rude or insulting in your posts.

Secondly, given your reading of Gramsci above, then the Gaddafi regime is a model "Western democracy."

[RadioRaheem84]

http://www.gmanews.tv/story/214598/world/libyan-rebels-seize-british-sas-troops-sunday-times

Seems like British troops are already on the ground in Libya setting a path for diplomats to meet with the rebels. The rebels were upset and captured the British special forces.

At the same time,

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2011/03/20/crack-sas-troops-hunt-gaddafi-weapons-inside-libya-115875-23002207/

It also seems like rebel troops are also working with British special forces.

Just who are these rebels?

[Ismail]

http://www.washington.edu/news/articles/uw-faculty-member-ali-tarhouni-named-finance-minister-by-libyan-opposition-1

Ali A. Tarhouni, a senior lecturer in the Foster School of Business at the University of Washington, has been named finance minister by the Libyan opposition national council. The group is arranging a transitional government in the event Moammar Gadhafi is ousted from power.

“Tarhouni understands the Western mentality,” opposition spokeswoman Iman Bugaighis told Reuters...

A native of Libya who for 40 years has opposed Gadhafi, Tarhouni returned to Libya in early March. He has taught at the UW since 1985.

In a Voice of America interview published March 16, Tarhouni urged the United States and the United Nations to establish a no-fly zone over Libya.

“Trust me,” Tarhouni said. “There’s no fear of Gadhafi and his forces. We know he’s gone. It’s just a question of hours, days, maybe months. The question is how many innocent lives he’s going to take with him.”Truly, a progressive regime is going to replace el-Qadhafi. :rolleyes:


"Character"? I guess the "character" of the Jewish, and other, resistance groups to Nazi Germany also "went" when they accepted aid from the Allied Powers. They were after all indebted to imperialists, so I guess the leftwing position would have been to oppose the imperialists and allow these groups to have been rounded up and exterminated. Right?Apparently Libya is the new Nazi Germany, invading other countries and subjecting them to genocide. I also like how you compare a collection of monarchists and neo-liberals (I've yet to see any notable left-wing sentiment among these people) with oppressed Jews facing the prospect of the Holocaust.


Or how about the 'character' of the Irish Republican reistance to British colonial rule in the 20th century, which as I recall you heartily support. The IRA actively enlisted the aid of the Third Reich.So did most Arab nationalist movements at the time struggling against British colonial rule. Those were anti-colonial movements, their leaders weren't actually fascists and they weren't Libya in 2011.

Maybe you could give me details on the rebels. Are they Pan-Africanist? Do they support the nationalization of oil or other industries? Do they condemn US imperialism? Is there anything in particular progressive about them? I mean at this rate you could defend US intervention in Iran by saying that the Jundallah is "fighting for self-determination against the fundamentalist regime." What would be the practical difference?

[manic expression]

Indeed, excelent idea.

Revolutionary defeatism is about turning an external war into a civil war.
Revolutionary defeatism is about opposing the imperialists of one's own country first and foremost. That is the alternative we must follow, it is the only alternative open to progressives.

[Invader Zim]

Then why are you saying it's our choice to "let" the rebellion fail?

I'm not, again please point to the personal pronoun you think I used to make such a statement. What we are discussing is an ethical conundrum. I don't think that you are going to actively participate in this issue in anyway, beyond lend your thoughts on the matter in discussion.


Bombings are an invasion

Clearly your perseption of events is divorced from reality.


It is a fact that the imperialists have calculated it in their interest to invade Libya.

No, that is not a fact. What however is a fact is that no invasion has yet occured. It is also a fact that your entire argument is grounded not in analysis of actual events, but on wild speculation of events which have not yet occured and may well never occur.


An invasion is occurring.

That is most certainly true, but just not in Libya.


More useless comparisons.

Hardly, you contended that a beliguered resistance group facing defeat in the face of the military might of an oppressive dictatorial regime loses "character" if it accepts aid from imperialist forces. I want to know if the same can be said of reistance groups to the Nazis, or indeed of the IRA who accepted aid from the Nazis. It's your argument just applied to an alternative historical scenario.


The IRA reaching out to Nazi Germany isn't something I endorse, so that's out.

But is the entire character of Irish republicanism "gone", after all that is the argument you have made in the case of Libyan resistance to oppression.


This isn't an anti-fascist struggle, so the anti-Nazi resistance is out.

Well you would be pushed to describe Gaddafi's regime as a fascist one, but only because Gaddafi's ideological proncouncements and actions have been thoroughly contradictory over the years. His regime has however been undoubtedly nationalistic, militant, anti-Semitic, politically oppressive, in favour of forced religious unity, and actively supported foreign fascist movements including the BNP in Britain.


And you have no idea what kind of regime the uprising WOULD HAVE INSTALLED (as in, before the invasion...as in, not in the world we're living in).

Again, there has been no invasion. Secondly, of course I don't know what kind of regime would have been installed, that's the whole fucking point. But chanses are it would have been less oppressive and more representative, making it a more progressive regime than Gadaffi's - hense the reason the Libyan people are tying to overthrow Gaddafi in the first place. There is little reason to suppose that even following the token intervention by western imperialist powers that a new regime would not be more progressive than the one it has replaced. The point is that, if you had the interests of the Libyan masses at heart you would appriciate the fact that there is an argument that they should be allowed to take that chanse.

Again, this not Iraq.

[Invader Zim]

Truly, a progressive regime is going to replace el-Qadhafi.

Progressive compared to what, Gaddafi, or your beloved Stalin and Hoxha?


Apparently Libya is the new Nazi Germany, invading other countries and subjecting them to genocide. I also like how you compare a collection of monarchists and neo-liberals (I've yet to see any notable left-wing sentiment among these people) with oppressed Jews facing the prospect of the Holocaust.

Given your fawning support for an anti-Semitic regime which repeatedly begged for military intervention by Western imperialist powers, your views on this matter aren't really worth the bandwidth they consume. Indeed it comes as no shock to me that you enter this thread playing down the oppressive nature of Gaddafi's regime.

[RadioRaheem84]

Progressive compared to what, Gaddafi, or your beloved Stalin and Hoxha?


Enough evading the issues. The opposition is clearly being taken over by Washington loving reformers who will most likely divvy up the oil between the Western powers far more than Ghadafi.

Stop acting like anyone who doesn't believe that Ghadafi = Hitler, is somehow in love with his regime.

[manic expression]

I'm not, again please point to the personal pronoun you think I used to make such a statement. What we are discussing is an ethical conundrum. I don't think that you are going to actively participate in this issue in anyway, beyond lend your thoughts on the matter in discussion.
Please. You said:

what is the alternative to letting the uprising be crushed, precisely? I'm genuinely interested.


Clearly your perseption of events is divorced from reality.Oh, OK, so there are no ground troops in Libya right now? Special forces aren't painting targets? That aside, bombings are an invasion. In order to drop bombs on another country, one must invade their airspace and drop explosives onto targets. What else would you call it? Freedom Frying?


That is most certainly true, but just not in Libya.Not just in Libya but elsewhere as well. And you cheerlead it because you care more about your "ethical conundrum" than the well-being and dignity of the people of Libya. It's precisely due to that that you applaud imperialism and its vassals as they attempt to put Libya in chains.


Hardly, you contended that a beliguered resistance group facing defeat in the face of the military might of an oppressive dictatorial regime loses "character" if it accepts aid from imperialist forces. I want to know if the same can be said of reistance groups to the Nazis, or indeed of the IRA who accepted aid from the Nazis. It's your argument just applied to an alternative historical scenario.Once more, you ignore class dynamics because you are accepting the capitalist mindset. That "dictatorial regime" is not an imperialist entity, and the entry of imperialism into the situation means the savage oppression and enslavement of the Libyan people, unless imperialism is defeated. That is the only objective of the imperialist forces here. Unless, of course, you actually think imperialist interests are good, and that they will bring freedom and justice to the world. Go ask Iraq and Afghanistan how that turned out.

Once again, I don't endorse what the IRA did with regard to the Nazis. However, did the IRA exist because of that collaboration? I think not. Did the Nazis ever drop bombs on Ireland? No, they didn't. It's unfortunate that you keep bringing up ridiculous examples to buffer a ridiculous argument.


But is the entire character of Irish republicanism "gone", after all that is the argument you have made in the case of Libyan resistance to oppression.Irish republicanism is larger than the IRA, it is an ideology, a cause. The rebellion in Libya is no such ideology, only a bunch of imperialist vassals who you know nothing about. Carry on with the absurd comparisons.


Well you would be pushed to describe Gaddafi's regime as a fascist one, but only because Gaddafi's ideological proncouncements and actions have been thoroughly contradictory over the years. His regime has however been undoubtedly nationalistic, militant, anti-Semitic, politically oppressive, in favour of forced religious unity, and actively supported foreign fascist movements including the BNP in Britain.Neat. So he's not a fascist. So your comparison is, once again, proven wrong. Neat.


Again, there has been no invasion. Secondly, of course I don't know what kind of regime would have been installed, that's the whole fucking point.Again, there has been an invasion, but thanks for being so honest as to admit you have absolutely no idea what you're supporting. I'm glad we've ironed that out.

Just to reiterate, you have absolutely no idea what you're supporting. That, really, is what this all comes down to.


But chanses are it would have been less oppressive and more representative, making it a more progressive regime than Gadaffi's - hense the reason the Libyan people are tying to overthrow Gaddafi in the first place. There is little reason to suppose that even following the token intervention by western imperialist powers that a new regime would not be more progressive than the one it has replaced. The point is that, if you had the interests of the Libyan masses at heart you would appriciate the fact that there is an argument that they should be allowed to take that chanse.:lol: "Chances are", indeed. You have no evidence for this impossible conclusion of yours, just some vague faith that Gaddafi is mean so therefore his enemies must be better. That is it.

I have the interests of the Libyan masses at heart, that's why I oppose an invasion from the greatest enemies to progress on the face of the planet. That's why I oppose the bombs and bullets of the most blood-soaked military forces in the world today. That's why I identify the class character of the imperialist "intervention" while you daydream about the fantasyland that's sure to result from imperialism's victory.

There is no longer any chance for whatever the rebellion was to pursue an independent program (and we don't even know what that would've been). Imperialism now controls the rebellion, it is calling the shots; and as we all know, imperialism is out for itself, and will murder millions to get what it wants. The Libyan people lose if imperialism wins. That is why all sober-minded progressives are opposing the imperialist invasion. That is why you are not among them, and instead are trying to tell us imperialism is the good guy.


Again, this not Iraq.No, and Iraq is not Afghanistan. If you didn't notice, that didn't help the people of those countries at all.

And on a lighter note, I find it downright comical that the same person who's been comparing Libya to Spain, Ireland and Nazi Germany is now saying that we shouldn't compare imperialism's ongoing actions with imperialism's ongoing actions in Libya. No, you see the Spanish Civil War and WWII are legitimate comparisons, but the present policies of the same governments that are bombing Libya are not! Truly hilarious hypocrisy. But if the shoe fits, the pro-imperialist "left" should wear it...especially if it's thrown at them.

[The Douche]

The fact that the phrase "turn imperialist war into civil war" has been flipped on its head is really leaving me confused.

I was always under the impression that the position being advocated there was, for instance, here in the US our government engages in an imperialist war against Iraq, and we (here in the US) are supposed to turn that into a civil war, at home, against the imperialist government.

So how is that not an arguement against intervention in Libya? Why is it being used by those who support, or are, at least, indifferent (which is possibly more saddening, really), towards intervention?

[graymouser]

Enough evading the issues. The opposition is clearly being taken over by Washington loving reformers who will most likely divvy up the oil between the Western powers far more than Ghadafi.

Stop acting like anyone who doesn't believe that Ghadafi = Hitler, is somehow in love with his regime.
There are inter-imperialist conflicts at work beneath the surface here. When Gaddafi made his peace with imperialism it was primarily the Italians who benefited, which is quite natural if you look at where Italy and Libya are on a map. The most aggressive in pushing for the no-fly zone was France, which lost out in the blood-for-oil conflict in Iraq; it's also worth considering that Sarkozy can thereby "make his bones" as an imperialist worth his salt. I wouldn't be surprised if the French and British make out in this thing as much or more than the United States, which would make Italy the real loser.

Anyway. The idea that this is OK because it's saving the rebellion is nonsense. If the imperialists save you, it's going to be at the cost of anything worth fighting for. Whereas with Egypt there was a really clear sense that the US puppet Mubarak was going down, and the self-determination of the Egyptian people was being won, with Libya any post-NFZ or post-occupation* government will likely be dictated by the west, with the same wonderful disastrous consequences as in Afghanistan, Iraq or Haiti (which has been under UN occupation).

It's also worth noting that the idea that Gaddafi is anti-imperialist is also nonsense. He already made his peace with imperialism, and any trace of anti-west action has been eradicated from his government for years.

What should we have done? Well, there are of course options. For instance, I think the Spanish Civil War offered a good template - if you want to save the revolution, go over there and fight with it. No? Well, then. Certainly you can't call yourself a communist and sit on your couch and root for fucking imperialist fighter planes while they bomb a country. (ETA: this is obviously not directed at Raheem, I was just quoting him as a jumping off point.)

* I'd have to assume there will be an occupation, with rhetoric about not doing the job half way and so on.

[duchetina]

This is the struggle between two regime,one is the UK and France which whant to do the same thing which US do in Iraq,take the oil,and the other is Gadaffi regime who whants to keep power,the bottom line is killing innocent people.

[RadioRaheem84]

Is there any actual information about the rebel groups and the reformers who wish to be put first in line to be the new rulers of Libya?

[Ismail]

Given your fawning support for an anti-Semitic regime which repeatedly begged for military intervention by Western imperialist powers,Anti-semitic? What?

Also although el-Qadhafi is not actively posing as an anti-imperialist (or at least not up until now again), this doesn't really mean much of anything. You don't support imperialism against those who aren't anti-imperialists. I don't see how people can back foreign interventions anymore, "humanitarian" or based on "national security."

[Ligeia]

Is there any actual information about the rebel groups and the reformers who wish to be put first in line to be the new rulers of Libya?

They've got an official english language website (not the rebel groups) with a little bit of info on some members of the transitional council:
http://ntclibya.org/english/

I've recently read an interview (link (http://www.revleft.com/vb/libya-newsfeed-p2057231/index.html#post2057231))where they stated that they don't really control the actual rebel group's actions. They are more about negotiating with the Alliance and setting up pre-governmental structures.

[Invader Zim]

Please. You said:
what is the alternative to letting the uprising be crushed, precisely? I'm genuinely interested.

Indeed, but that still doesn't alter the point. I'm not suggesting active involvement. Anyway, timefor you to actually address the point as opposed to derailing it.

The West doesn't stage an intervention and Gaddafi returns to power to oppress the Libyan people (you're prefered outcome), the West does stage an intervention and Gaddafi is ousted by his people and they install a new regime which will hopefuly be less reactionary than Gaddafi's but probably pro-Western (Om's prefered outcome). What is the third scenario? And if there isn't one, why do you suppose I can't think your position is utterly cretinous while not being at all happy with the latter?


Oh, OK, so there are no ground troops in Libya right now?

I didn't say that, there are presumably trools involved in extraction, placing targets as you suggested, intelligence gathering and presumably sabotage. But none of these add upto an invasion, and it is nothing short of willful dishonesty to suggest otherwise.


That aside, bombings are an invasion.

Since when? The Americans did not "invade" Hiroshima when they bombed it. The Nazis did not invade London. And I thought you were doing a history degree? You are aware that historical study requires intellectual honesty, right?


In order to drop bombs on another country, one must invade their airspace and drop explosives onto targets.

But clearly, in the context of this discussion, and the comparisons you were making between the West's recent imperial adventures, the intervention does not comprise an "invasion" and nor would it in any coherant discussion of the matter - which clearly you are incapable of.


And you cheerlead it

No, I don't. I just think your argument is fucking moronic, as noted I don't really have a position on this - both sides of this coin are shit.


because you care more about your "ethical conundrum" than the well-being and dignity of the people of Libya.

Coming from a person who is far more worried about their anti-imperialist credentials than the Libyan people?

Fuck off.

[RadioRaheem84]

They've got an official english language website (not the rebel groups) with a little bit of info on some members of the transitional council:
http://ntclibya.org/english/

I've recently read an interview (link (http://www.revleft.com/vb/libya-newsfeed-p2057231/index.html#post2057231))where they stated that they don't really control the actual rebel group's actions. They are more about negotiating with the Alliance and setting up pre-governmental structures.

So let me get this straight? The Interim Reformers are letting the people fight off Ghadafi's forces while they meet with foreign diplomats in fancy French hotels and advocate a bombing raid on Libya?

I know that the people actually fighting are huge mix of students, workers, etc. but the actual people getting in front of the camera and negotiations are opportunist fucks who need to step down.

They want first dibs on the new Libya and the West wants to give it to them.

[RadioRaheem84]

Since when? The Americans did not "invade" Hiroshima when they bombed it. The Nazis did not invade London. And I thought you were doing a history degree? You are aware that historical study requires intellectual honesty, right?

:laugh:

Lets not get too technical here. A bombing raid is meant to strategically destabilize the state or government being bombed. It's not meant to aid the people.

Hiroshima did nothing to aid the fight against fascism.

Also, the Brits have already sent in special forces on the ground to make way for snide diplomats to meet the rebels, and likewise take out key military targets.

[RadioRaheem84]

The West doesn't stage an intervention and Gaddafi returns to power to oppress the Libyan people (you're prefered outcome), the West does stage an intervention and Gaddafi is ousted by his people and they install a new regime which will hopefuly be less reactionary than Gaddafi's but probably pro-Western (Om's prefered outcome). What is the third scenario? And if there isn't one, why do you suppose I can't think your position is utterly cretinous while not being at all happy with the latter?


Lord, you are totally clueless. Hussien's Baathist regime was ten times the horrible regime that Ghadafi's is, yet I doubt you argued this much in favor of his ousting, even when his human rights record was ten times worse, his shunning of UN Resolutions and misappropriation of Iraqi Oil for Food money, etc.

The US intervention put the main opposition to Hussein's regime in control; the Kurds and the Shiites. Yet, the occupation killed millions, was a total corporate pillage, and did nothing to help the Iraqi people.

Same with Afghanistan.

Yet, these interventions "helped" the rebels though?

So in other words, what Iraq is now is better than what was under Saddam, going by your logic and anyone who agrees would have to concede that the outcome was only possible by US and UK guns.

A pro-Western banana/oil republic is better than a semi-pro Western nationalist regime?

[Invader Zim]

Lord, you are totally clueless.

Well, so you claim, but I don't see you addressing the issue or attempting to 'clue' me up. rather you seem to prefer inane commentary on irrelevent issues, hyperbolic misrepresentation of the situation, and flame-throwing. None of which either phase or impress me. If you have something to say that is actually worth reading, please do come out with it. Until then, grow up.


Hussien's Baathist regime was ten times the horrible regime that Ghadafi's is, yet I doubt you argued this much in favor of his ousting, even when his human rights record was ten times worse, his shunning of UN Resolutions and misappropriation of Iraqi Oil for Food money, etc.

Actually I was a young teenager back in 2003 and didn't produce - or have the necessary life experience or depth of education for that matter - any real class based analysis of the istuation and did indeed think his removal was the most positive outcome in the scenario. But I later came to a different conclusion as I got older and events in Iraq unfolded precisely as was predicted by patient comrades on this board. You may also note that I'm not arguing for Gaddafi's ousting - in fact I'm not arguing for anything, I have no 'correct' position on the matter. That is my whole point - your position is no more favourable than Om's.

But all this and Iraq are entirely irrelevent; the current situation is nothing like the situation was in Iraq. We aren't discussing an imperialist led invasion of Libya with the direct aim of regime change. We are discussing a home grown uprising against a brutal and unpopular dictator which requires backing from western powers, who thus far have been highly reluctant and invested the bare minimum, or it will fall.



The US intervention put the main opposition to Hussein's regime in control; the Kurds and the Shiites. Yet, the occupation killed millions, was a total corporate pillage, and did nothing to help the Iraqi people.

Killed 'millions'? :rolleyes: But anyway, you're right, the occupation in Iraq has proven to be a travesty of the highest order. But it seems increasingly unlikely that there will be an Iraq style occupation in Libya. So, until there is an occupation that destroys the infastructure of the country, your argument is baseless.

Indeed, the US and UK are not going to repeat the mistake of Iraq - and don't confuse that - it was a mistake. To repeat it would be both costly and would result in electoral suicide. My view is that they will do the very least they can to give a show of helping the uprising, which will not extend further than preventing its imminent destruction, and if the uprising does succeed they will encourage the rise of a government which will be as maliable to their interests as Gaddafi's was. But there is no guarantee that this government will be a "banana republic" as you suggested. Unlike in the case of Guatema, where the CIA actually staged a coup, this intervention is to support an uprising that already exists. The comparison is fallicious.




A pro-Western banana/oil republic is better than a semi-pro Western nationalist regime?

No, but you are saying that the reverse is true.

But your question is sensationalist drivel. You have no idea if there will be an occupation or the installation of a puppet regime akin to the one in Iraq. You are appealing to a reality which simply does not exist.




Also, the Brits have already sent in special forces on the ground to make way for snide diplomats to meet the rebels, and likewise take out key military targets.

Doubtless, but that still does not make the intervention an "invasion"; it simply isn't.

Now I've addressed your drivel, so why don't you tell me what the third scenario is?

[The Douche]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8401787/Libya-it-wasnt-supposed-to-be-like-this-in-free-Benghazi.html

An article about the rebels.

[Omsk]

Killed 'millions'?
What?1.000.000 is not enough?You want more?


So, until there is an occupation that destroys the infastructure of the country, your argument is baseless.
Nato swines always target the economy,there is proof of this in the striker against Yugoslavia,in which they destroyed a lot of factories and infrastructure.
They even shoot up ski-centers...Why in the name of....everything would you want to destroy a ski-center??
They targeted not only military complexes,but bridges (although no important troops in the mainland) and many other civilian targets.


Indeed, the US and UK are not going to repeat the mistake of Iraq
They repeated their mistakes from Yugoslavia in Iraq and Afghanistan,so i don't think this 'conflict' will be any different.

[RadioRaheem84]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8401787/Libya-it-wasnt-supposed-to-be-like-this-in-free-Benghazi.html

An article about the rebels.


Finally some info on the rebels.



The rebel's interim government is made up of professionals academics, businessmen and lawyers often educated in the UK or US who make all the right noises about democracy, human rights and the rule of law.


Seems like a group of bourgoise liberal reformers with ties to the West are taking charge and letting the people do their dirty work.

Rebels are starting to look less than admirable in my eyes.

[Os Cangaceiros]

^incidents like that don't suprise me at all. The level of "fifth column" paranoia in Benghazi must be extremely high.

Anarkismo (http://www.anarkismo.net/article/19112) has an article up condemning the intervention, reportedly from a Libyan anarchist.

[black magick hustla]

We condemn this intervention that will transform Libya into a real hell, even more than now. That intervention will also steal the revolution from the Libyans, a revolution that has cost them thousands of dead women and men so far

"revolution from the lybians". god fuck the platformists

[black magick hustla]

actually nvm, it was written by a lybian dude.

[graymouser]

But all this and Iraq are entirely irrelevent; the current situation is nothing like the situation was in Iraq. We aren't discussing an imperialist led invasion of Libya with the direct aim of regime change. We are discussing a home grown uprising against a brutal and unpopular dictator which requires backing from western powers, who thus far have been highly reluctant and invested the bare minimum, or it will fall.
Can I interest you in this bridge I'm selling? I also have quality beachfront homes in Arizona if that's more your style.

This is another war about control over oil. Like Iraq, it's not one with a clear dimension; then it was about French and Russian access versus American and British control of Iraqi oil. This is about the French and Brits getting priority on Libyan oil away from the Italians, who've been making out like bandits through their associations with Gaddafi. It's hardly been reluctant; the French particularly went out of their way to organize a summit to coordinate the attacks. And if Gaddafi doesn't fall, there will be tremendous pressure to "finish the job." The US aren't the only imperialists, y'know.

Now, as for the rebels - well, it sucks to be the people in the middle of a squabble over oil. That's always going to be true. Personally, I think that it did have the character of a national-democratic revolution similar to Egypt, but without the divisions within the military that helped things along both there and in Tunisia. But the fact is that a western intervention cannot bring about a stable democratic regime there. It would have no popular credibility, for one thing; for another, it's necessarily going to pick the people most amenable to neoliberal economic policies, which are what get us in these situations in the first place. So it's really no solution at all. Especially as a prolonged occupation will probably be necessary to get rid of the Gaddafi regime and those loyal to it.

An actual revolutionary solution would have been for the masses in Egypt and Tunisia to unite with the Libyan rebels to spread the revolution across the Maghreb. That would've required taking popular control over "their own" armed forces, coming to an agreement with the Libyan people, and building the seeds of a revolutionary pan-Arab nation. I'll admit that it wasn't exactly forthcoming, but no one three months ago would've said that what happened in Tunisia and Egypt themselves was possible.

For revolutionaries, armchair cheerleading the US/European/UN mission is unacceptable.

[RadioRaheem84]

Just what the hell does the rebels ranks compose of? Neo-Liberals, Monarchists, and what it appears, anarchists too?

Well the leadership, or the people who put themselves into leadership position seem to be pro-Western hacks, while the rank and file in the street seem to be (from what I have read) a hodge podge of monarchists, reactionaries, students and regular workers.

[4 Leaf Clover]

Lol , supposed "rebels" in Benghazi wave monarchy flags and call for the return of the king (any similarty with lord of the rings is coincidence). If you count that same are supported by NATO raids, can anyone on earth explain me why some leftists support this scum ?

[Luís Henrique]

The fact that the phrase "turn imperialist war into civil war" has been flipped on its head is really leaving me confused.

I was always under the impression that the position being advocated there was, for instance, here in the US our government engages in an imperialist war against Iraq, and we (here in the US) are supposed to turn that into a civil war, at home, against the imperialist government.

So how is that not an arguement against intervention in Libya? Why is it being used by those who support, or are, at least, indifferent (which is possibly more saddening, really), towards intervention?

Because there are no signs of anyone actually trying to turn the international war into a civil war in the imperialist countries, but there are many signs of people "demanding" that the people of Libya stop fighting their own oppressive government in order to make a united front with it against imperialist aggression.

No one is against you opposing intervention from the point of view of your countries. What I at least am against is that you are not effectively doing so, but nonetheless want the Libyans to submit to a murderous dictatorship in order to make the intervention unnecessary, so that you don't need to pretend to oppose it.

Luís Henrique

[synthesis]

Because there are no signs of anyone actually trying to turn the international war into a civil war in the imperialist countries, but there are many signs of people "demanding" that the people of Libya stop fighting their own oppressive government in order to make a united front with it against imperialist aggression.

No one is against you opposing intervention from the point of view of your countries. What I at least am against is that you are not effectively doing so, but nonetheless want the Libyans to submit to a murderous dictatorship in order to make the intervention unnecessary, so that you don't need to pretend to oppose it.

Luís Henrique

All these references to "the people of Libya" are beside the point. All the evidence I've seen indicates that the "opposition" is as oligarchic in character as the regime they oppose.

[The Douche]

but there are many signs of people "demanding" that the people of Libya stop fighting their own oppressive government in order to make a united front with it against imperialist aggression.


I have made no such demands. I consider myself to be opposed to both imperialist intervention and the Gadaffi government. But I will not support a group of rebels just because they oppose Gadaffi, it seems that there are some decent elements to the rebellion, but that the leadership are imperialist lackeys. So I see no reason to support that element, and if they play the leading role as it progresses then no, I see no reason to support such a rebellion.


What I at least am against is that you are not effectively doing so, but nonetheless want the Libyans to submit to a murderous dictatorship in order to make the intervention unnecessary, so that you don't need to pretend to oppose it.


I was in my nation's capital the day the bombing started, with hundreds of other anti-war military veterans/active duty troops, paticipating in a march/rally, and civil disobedience against the war in Iraq, and the intervention in Libya.

I want the Libyans to be free to decide the fate of their nation, free of US imperialist influence, not the "victory of Gadaffi". Please do not put words in my mouth or assume things about me.

[graymouser]

Lol , supposed "rebels" in Benghazi wave monarchy flags and call for the return of the king (any similarty with lord of the rings is coincidence). If you count that same are supported by NATO raids, can anyone on earth explain me why some leftists support this scum ?
The old Libyan flag just happens to have the pan-Arab and pan-African colors. Saying, oh this is a monarchist flag is inaccurate.

In any revolution, if you don't have a solid leadership, the people who come forward and claim that mantle will tend to be opportunists. That's almost a law of nature; it's why we need a party developed before the revolution starts. However, to attempt to paint the whole uprising with these colors is dishonest and unworthy of someone who calls themselves a communist.

[t.shonku]

The title should have been "War imposed on Libya" Libya is the victim here

[manic expression]

Indeed, but that still doesn't alter the point. I'm not suggesting active involvement. Anyway, timefor you to actually address the point as opposed to derailing it.
It is the point. You identify your own "ethic conundrum" with imperialist power. That is clear from your own wording. Do not blame me for noticing.


The West doesn't stage an intervention and Gaddafi returns to power to oppress the Libyan people (you're prefered outcome), the West does stage an intervention and Gaddafi is ousted by his people and they install a new regime which will hopefuly be less reactionary than Gaddafi's but probably pro-Western (Om's prefered outcome). What is the third scenario? And if there isn't one, why do you suppose I can't think your position is utterly cretinous while not being at all happy with the latter?No, the "West" stages an invasion and Gaddafi is ousted by imperialism. "His people" (aka the rebels) were beaten, and so any fall of Gaddafi is imperialism's conquest. That is what you are not understanding.

And "hopefully less reactionary" is nothing but faith in imperialism's friends. Any progressive knows better. Imperialism is not a progressive force in Libya, it has nothing but malice in store for its people. It has no problem murdering millions to fatten its pockets...why are you deluding yourself into thinking imperialism has any concern beyond that?

The best scenario? The defeat of imperialism by forces in Libya. That will save Libya from enslavement and be the most beneficial immediate outcome for progressive forces there.


I didn't say that, there are presumably trools involved in extraction, placing targets as you suggested, intelligence gathering and presumably sabotage. But none of these add upto an invasion, and it is nothing short of willful dishonesty to suggest otherwise.They are an invasion. If you send soldiers under arms into a sovereign country, that is an invasion. Is there a quota that you have to reach before it can be called an "invasion"?


Since when? The Americans did not "invade" Hiroshima when they bombed it. The Nazis did not invade London. And I thought you were doing a history degree? You are aware that historical study requires intellectual honesty, right?Yes, Hiroshima just blew up by itself. Those sly Japanese, detonating a nuclear bomb in their own city to make the US look bad. :lol: No, the US invaded Japan as the Nazis invaded Britain by sending warplanes into its airspace and dropping bombs on military and civilian targets. Invading airspace is an invasion. Applying a definition of "invasion" that's been outdated since the early 20th Century isn't what I'd call intellectual honesty.


But clearly, in the context of this discussion, and the comparisons you were making between the West's recent imperial adventures, the intervention does not comprise an "invasion" and nor would it in any coherant discussion of the matter - which clearly you are incapable of.See previous answers.


No, I don't. I just think your argument is fucking moronic, as noted I don't really have a position on this - both sides of this coin are shit.Then why are you supporting one of those sides?


Coming from a person who is far more worried about their anti-imperialist credentials than the Libyan people?Yes, I can sense your care and worry for the Libyan people as you applaud the bombs falling on their heads. I can hear your deep concern for the Libyan people when you applaud the violent entry of mass murderers into their affairs.


Fuck off.Unfortunately, you can't bring yourself to say the same to Obama, Sarkozy and Cameron.

[Luís Henrique]

All these references to "the people of Libya" are beside the point. All the evidence I've seen indicates that the "opposition" is as oligarchic in character as the regime they oppose.

See, this is exactly what I mean: you aren't opposing your countries' war efforts, you are opposing the Libyan rebellion - and therefore supporting Gaddafy.

You don't come here to talk against NATO or UN or France or the USA: you come here to talk against the Libyan opposition. This has absolutely nothing to do with "revolutionary defeatism".

Luís Henrique

[Amphictyonis]

Oh please, Comrade Om. The left hawkish pov is tiresome. Supporting intervention for humanitarian purposes by the West is not a leftist position. You might as well have supported intervention in Iraq considering that regime was ten times worse than the one in Libya and a popular uprising would've been less imminent due to the massive stronghold Hussein had over his people.

Members of some of the opposition groups claiming to represent the uprising are already meeting with Western diplomats in fancy French hotels. Apparently, they're trying to get first dibs on whatever will come about of the revolt, exploiting the real grievances workers fighting in the streets have toward the regime.

A lot of the rhetoric coming from you sounds a lot like the rhetoric pro-war hawks like "leftist" Norman Geras or liberal Nick Cohen were spouting off. They were simply supportive of the Iraq war for "humanitarian" reasons and did not trust the US led coalition.

Nearly the same argument.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2011/mar2011/madd-m24.shtml

[Nehru]

Intervention in Libya would be okay provided we have a socialist govt. that's intervening. Since none of the govts. intervening are socialist, we can only conclude that the intervention is based upon imperialist rather than humanitarian designs.

[synthesis]

See, this is exactly what I mean: you aren't opposing your countries' war efforts, you are opposing the Libyan rebellion - and therefore supporting Gaddafy.

You don't come here to talk against NATO or UN or France or the USA: you come here to talk against the Libyan opposition. This has absolutely nothing to do with "revolutionary defeatism".

Luís Henrique

Those two sentences weren't necessarily directly connected. Talking about "the people of Libya" is beside the point, because for the vast majority of them this is a lose/lose situation.


you are opposing the Libyan rebellion - and therefore supporting Gaddafy.

This sounds like some Fox News shit.

[ComradeOm]

But I will not support a group of rebels just because they oppose Gadaffi, it seems that there are some decent elements to the rebellion, but that the leadership are imperialist lackeys. So I see no reason to support that element, and if they play the leading role as it progresses then no, I see no reason to support such a rebellionAnd naturally you have no sympathy for the protesters in Tunisia, Egypt, Syria, Bahrain, etc?

How foolish of me to expect that popular protests against oppressive governments might find any support on a website supposedly comprised of the revolutionary left

[manic expression]

How foolish of me to expect that popular protests against oppressive governments might find any support on a website supposedly comprised of the revolutionary left
You're still calling the Libyan rebels "protestors"? What a joke.

[The Douche]

And naturally you have no sympathy for the protesters in Tunisia, Egypt, Syria, Bahrain, etc?

How foolish of me to expect that popular protests against oppressive governments might find any support on a website supposedly comprised of the revolutionary left

The protesters in Egypt and Tunisia had anti-imperialist tendencies. One of the big motivations in Egypt was that they wanted a firmer stance against Israel and in support of the palestinians. There was a group of Syrian demonstrators out in DC when I was there protesting the war in Iraq and Libya, they borrowed our megaphone and joined in our chants against intervention in Libya.

Fuck off to a liberal website if you're looking for people to support "humanitarian interventions".

[ComradeOm]

The protesters in Egypt and Tunisia had anti-imperialist tendencies. One of the big motivations in Egypt was that they wanted a firmer stance against Israel and in support of the palestinians. There was a group of Syrian demonstrators out in DC when I was there protesting the war in Iraq and Libya, they borrowed our megaphone and joined in our chants against intervention in LibyaWhereas the Libyan rebels are "imperialist lackeys" in accepting foreign aid when their revolt was on the verge of destruction? Its interesting how you can so nicely sever Libya from the rest of the Arab world, as if its revolt has nothing in common with those erupting elsewhere in the region. Or will you also consider the Syrian protesters to be worthy of contempt when Washington expresses displeasure at their brutal subjugation?


Fuck off to a liberal website if you're looking for people to support "humanitarian interventions"Have fun sharing the same platform as khad and other unreconstructed Stalinists


You're still calling the Libyan rebels "protestors"? What a joke.Well, yes. That's because, unlike yourself, I don't believe that the nature of their movement suddenly changes due to decisions in Paris or London

[The Douche]

Whereas the Libyan rebels are "imperialist lackeys" in accepting foreign aid when their revolt was on the verge of destruction?

No they're imperialist lackeys, because its what they are. They are fighting to form a pro-western (read: comprador) government.


Its interesting how you can so nicely sever Libya from the rest of the Arab world, as if its revolt has nothing in common with those erupting elsewhere in the region.

Please, it has been demonstrated that these are pro-western, pro-imperialist bourgeois Libyans who are exploiting the waves of arab unrest. Recently republicans and reactionary tea partiers in the US have called for "arab style protests", should we be supportting them to? Afterall, they want Obama out of office and Obama is a bad guy, right?


Or will you also consider the Syrian protesters to be worthy of contempt when Washington expresses displeasure at their brutal subjugation?


When you stand on the side of imperialism, communists are going to stand against you. Period. If the Syrians leave their movement to be guided by pro-imperialist forces then yes, communists must oppose them. Thats something that communists do, oppose imperialism.


Have fun sharing the same platform as khad and other unreconstructed Stalinists


I don't care about labels or about your petty secterianism. If have the correct position, the communist position, makes me a stalinist. Then I am a stalinist.

[ComradeOm]

No they're imperialist lackeys, because its what they are. They are fighting to form a pro-western (read: comprador) governmentSo you've written off a broad based popular revolt - which saw local rebels take control of much of the country before Gaddafi rallied his mercenaries for a counter-offensive - as some sort of narrow Western conspiracy? Sure. Leaving aside the crass and uniformed caricature, its clear that far from being some select group of "imperialist lackeys" this revolt enjoys significant support in Libya. If it didn't then we would not have reached the point of civil war

Yet you and others want to dismiss it as some irrelevancy or, when forced to actually confront its existence, as a somehow 'reactionary revolt', in order to focus on the really important thing: the actions of the West :rolleyes:


Recently republicans and reactionary tea partiers in the US have called for "arab style protests", should we be supportting them to? Afterall, they want Obama out of office and Obama is a bad guy, right?No, because they are not Arab protesters demonstrating against a corrupt dictatorship :confused:


When you stand on the side of imperialism, communists are going to stand against you. Period. If the Syrians leave their movement to be guided by pro-imperialist forces then yes, communists must oppose them. Thats something that communists do, oppose imperialism.Except that you don't have a clue what anti-imperialism means. It does not imply the support for brutal dictatorships and it is not an excuse to indulge in nationalist 'analysis'. The anti-imperialist position in Libya is support for a regime that is responsible to the people of Libya. By endorsing Gaddafi's suppression of the revolt (and with every post you move further into this territory) you are dismissing the very possibility of this eventuality. In the name of 'opposing imperialism' you write off the rights of the Libyan people to determine their own future

Yet you claim that this perverse reversal of anti-imperialism is somehow "the communist position"! No, this never entails supporting, however implicitly, bastions of reaction and repression


I don't care about labels or about your petty secterianism. If have the correct position, the communist position, makes me a stalinist. Then I am a stalinist.Yes you are. You had better get used to defending tinpot dictatorships because with any luck more of them are going to come tumbling down in the coming months

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

cmoney-where the heck is your proof that all of the rebels are fighting for a pro-Western "lackey" government? Because people under artillery bombardment were desperate for NATO help? Because they have some bourgeois people on their council (of course a lot of them were "defectors" from Gaddafi)? Sure, some might be, but it's a huge generalization you just made off of what seems to be weak evidence. Considering the obvious disorganization and heterogeneity of the rebels, it's quite silly to claim that there is a single thing that "They" are fighting for, unless that single thing is for Gaddafi to be gone.

There have actually been a lot of stories in the "Western" press that many of the rebels are in fact incredibly anti-American, and are often Islamic fundamentalists. They just happen to hate Gaddafi even more.

Also, while people are complaining about how the Rebels are pro-American and pro-British toadies, I found this Stalin-era Soviet agitprop art :P before you condemn many of the rebels for taking a pro-intervention position, realize that practical necessity and historical conditions make for strange bedfellows.

http://fineartamerica.com/images-medium/world-war-ii-soviet-poster-granger.jpg

[khad]

Have fun sharing the same platform as khad and other unreconstructed Stalinists
And you serve the British Crown. Truth hurts.

[Robocommie]

Have fun sharing the same platform as khad and other unreconstructed Stalinists

Weren't you the one complaining earlier about guilt by association?


That's because, unlike yourself, I don't believe that the nature of their movement suddenly changes due to decisions in Paris or LondonIs it at all clear what the nature of the movement is?


I don't care about labels or about your petty secterianism. If have the correct position, the communist position, makes me a stalinist. Then I am a stalinist.

Yaaay, welcome to the team, cmoney! :p

[The Douche]

Comradeom, I'm not going to entertain your unbridled bullshit anymore.

I have made my position explictly clear, against Gadaffi, against a pro-imperialist rebellion, and against imperialist intervention. That was my position in my first post in this thread:


There are two positions you can take on this, for intervention, or against intervention. It should be blatantly obvious which one is the communist position.

*notice I do not support Gadaffi, I oppose intervention

And that is still my position.

You, on the other hand, openly support the bombing of the Libyan people by imperialists. Go fuck yourself.

[RadioRaheem84]

The Hitchean, Blairite bullshit has gone too far. All of the general pro-war liberal-left BS arguments have been layed out by ComradeOm.

The Case for Liberal Democracy; It's not dictatorship, it' better than nothing.

Same arguments left liberal hawks were making when trying to sell the Iraq War to leftists.

[Raubleaux]

I just caught two long interviews with Gaddafi and Saif that were done by the BBC and Al-Jazeera. It is really interesting to watch these things in their entirety rather than the sound-bytes that get repeated. Saif is obviously much more eloquent in his defense of Libya than Gaddafi is (I think he destroys the Al-Jazeera reporter tbh) but notice the way he is VERY reluctant to say anything specific about his father. He is so obviously walking a tightrope between being against the rebellion and still hoping the imperialist countries will install him as the new leader one day.

YFigOpOBpxo

tEq-n6ciuxc

[Os Cangaceiros]

Isn't Saif the same clown who went on Libyan state TV in the early days of the unrest and spoke with the peculiar tone of a baffled feudal lord who didn't have the foggiest idea why the serfs were rebelling? And promised seas of blood if the revolt did not subside?

The ironic thing is that this rhetoric came from someone w/ the exquisite bourgeois pedigree that only a schooling at the London School of Economics can buy, and who analysts predicted would transition Libya into a more liberal state.

[ComradeOm]

I have made my position explictly clear, against Gadaffi, against a pro-imperialist rebellion, and against imperialist interventionAnd I have repeatedly stressed that non-intervention is effectively support for Gadaffi. It would allow him to crush the revolt and save his dictatorship. Renunciation of intervention is to condemn the Benghazi rebels. This is the bald reality

I have repeatedly challenged you to provide an alternative that would allow for the survival of the revolt without the interference of the West. I have repeatedly asked you whether you really think that Benghazi could have held out without such intervention. I have repeatedly asked whether you think that that the quashing of this popular revolt would be a good thing. To each of these questions you have responded with evasion and silence

So at least be honest and accept that you'd rather Gaddafi take his reprisals out on Benghazi just to spite the Western government


You, on the other hand, openly support the bombing of the Libyan people by imperialistsYour concern for "the Libyan people" would sound much more sincere if you didn't have such contempt for their efforts to overthrow 'their' dictatorial regime. That's what really annoys me about this - you, and others here, couldn't give a flying fuck about 'the Libyan people'. The only thing that concerns you is the West and the actions of the West. The people of Libya can be sacrificed on the alter of 'anti-imperialism' all so you can continue to wave placards and protest; all the while safe in the knowledge that your government isn't about to turn anti-aircraft cannons on you

And that really is nothing short of contemptible. You all roll out the tired old slogans (whose meaning you know nothing of) and the same tired old slurs. All the while ignoring the people who are dying for nothing more than a government that doesn't brutally and violently suppress dissent. Let the Africans and the Arabs be satisfied with their petty despotisms. I'm sure that they'll gladly suffer knowing that your mind is focused on more ideologically pure crusades

So yeah, I'm sorry if your appetite for my "bullshit" is waning. I can confidentially say however that this is nothing compared to the near-nauseating contempt that I feel for you and every other defender of the Gaddafi regime. Not desiring intervention is one thing, nobody wanted that, but self-professed communists supporting a tyrant, either explicitly implicitly, as he sets about brutally defending his position against a popular rising is nothing short of sickening


Is it at all clear what the nature of the movement is?Nope. You should remind others in this thread of this. I'm merely arguing that its nature did not suddenly change on 19 March. If it was worth supporting then then its worth supporting now. And I defy anyone, aside from the more unrepentant apologists of tyrants, to claim that they did not welcome the mass rising against Gaddafi before it was rescued from the brink of destruction

Hah. Perhaps the West should have just sat back and done nothing. Then you'd all be lamenting the destruction of a popular revolt and complaining that the West was happy to pander to dictators. Wouldn't that be something

Edit:

Isn't Saif the same clown who went on Libyan state TV in the early days of the unrest and spoke with the peculiar tone of a baffled feudal lord who didn't have the foggiest idea why the serfs were rebelling? And promised seas of blood if the revolt did not subside?That was back when he was the privileged son of a dictator. Now he's a daring freedom fighter bravely resisting the advances of Western imperialism. A week truly is a long time in politics

[synthesis]

ComradeOm, how do you know for sure that what comes after Qadaffi will be better than Qadaffi? What exactly have you learned about the nature of the revolt that makes you so certain of this? Links would be appreciated.

(Otherwise, it comes across as though you're supporting intervention for its own sake.)

[Gorilla]

And I have repeatedly stressed that non-intervention is effectively support for Gadaffi. It would allow him to crush the revolt and save his dictatorship. Renunciation of intervention is to condemn the Benghazi rebels. This is the bald reality

Did you support the previous no-fly zones over Iraq and Kosovo?

[sister harb]

Libyan uprising is confusing. As like in Bahrain.

Libya is important country to West. There has oil. The West want to get it by low price.

To the West it is just same who is in rule. Qaddafi or anyone else.

Why Egypt didn´t get so much interest in NATO countries? What there hasn´t? OIL?

[Robocommie]

Nope. You should remind others in this thread of this. I'm merely arguing that its nature did not suddenly change on 19 March. If it was worth supporting then then its worth supporting now. And I defy anyone, aside from the more unrepentant apologists of tyrants, to claim that they did not welcome the mass rising against Gaddafi before it was rescued from the brink of destruction

The problem is, you seem to be assuming that the fact that the UN has jumped on this thing doesn't change anything. You seem to be implying that the UN is effectively a neutral factor, which is rather odd to say the least. If you have some reason for believing that the rebellion has a generally progressive character, then fine, that's your opinion. Given that, if you believe that the rebellion can still find a way to achieve their own demands even with the UN and the major imperialist powers breathing down their necks, while sitting on major oil reserves, then fine, that's your opinion as well. There's nothing saying that these are in any way a given though, and in fact I'd say it's pretty damned optimistic of you to continue believing so. It certainly doesn't give you the high ground to scoff at everyone who disagrees.



Hah. Perhaps the West should have just sat back and done nothing. Then you'd all be lamenting the destruction of a popular revolt and complaining that the West was happy to pander to dictators. Wouldn't that be somethingI think we're all pretty well aware that the West has no problem pandering to or supporting dictators. In fact that's basically the point. Air strikes are NOT cheap, the sheer mass of ordnance being expended by the US alone is surely worth a king's ransom. If you take it as given that capitalist states only act in accordance with their self-interests, then surely you can't dispute that they're only getting involved because they're sure it benefits them somehow.

And if you accept that, then I have to ask you why you think the best interests of the Libyan people are lined up with the best interests of western empires?

[ComradeOm]

ComradeOm, how do you know for sure that what comes after Qadaffi will be better than Qadaffi? What exactly have you learned about the nature of the revolt that makes you so certain of this? Links would be appreciated.To put it bluntly, I am in no position to say with confidence what will come after Gaddafi. Anyone who claims to know exactly what the composition of the rebel movement is or what the future holds is simply lying. There are a number of promising factors that I consider though:


It would be hard to be worse than Gaddafi. Not impossible, true, but it would be very difficult for a regime to be worse. Leaving aside a protracted civil war, what exactly is the worst case scenario? A repressive dictatorship ruled by a corrupt despot which is happy to do business with the West? Yeah, Libya's already got that

This is a genuinely popular revolt. Its true of course that Gaddafi can rely on some support in the west of the country, but the rising against him was popular and (hah) largely spontaneous. Large parts of the country, including a number of sizeable towns and cities, came over to rebels in the first weeks of the rising. Until Gaddafi was able to regroup and consolidate his foreign mercenaries it did look as if he would be swept away by a tide of public anger

The above is doubly significant because this is a rebellion driven by the base, as opposed to a military coup or palace revolution. Its quite unlikely that the people are calling for a more corrupt dictator or a more repressive state. It also must be put in the context of the 'Arab Spring' in which ancien regime states are falling like dominoes as the Arab people move to take power from ailing kleptocracies

Finally, there are obvious inherent risks in any revolt. The future of such ventures is never clear and can lead to disaster. What continues to drive people to revolt though is the promise that they hold out; the potential that they contain. Its ironic, and depressing, that I have to state this on Revolutionary Left

So maybe the rebels will fail, maybe they'll give rise to another Gadaffi. I don't know. But I'm not going to sit here and instruct the Libyan people to go back into their homes and meekly surrender to state reprisals. Because not only do I lack the moral right to tell a popular movement to put down arms, I wouldn't be able to call myself a communist if I automatically shunned the risks and consequences inherent in any revolt. If there is the potential for the Libyans to create a better society for themselves then I cheer them on all the way

As for "intervention for its own sake", I have repeatedly stressed in this thread that I wish that intervention had never been necessary. I don't naively believe that the Western powers are acting out of altruism (although I suspect their motives are more complex than most would accept) and there will unquestionably be a price for their aid. The latter was necessary however if the revolt was to survive destruction at the hands of Gaddafi's mercenaries. I don't like the fact that it is but I'm forced to accept it. And since I'm not willing to simply drop support for the rebels, and align myself with a tinpot dictator as he crushes them, then accept it I do. With distaste


Did you support the previous no-fly zones over Iraq and Kosovo?No. My reluctant support for Western intervention is tied entirely to the plight of the Libyan rebels. This is a factor absent from the scenarios you've mentioned. I've dealt with this earlier in the thread but put simply Libya is not Iraq


The problem is, you seem to be assuming that the fact that the UN has jumped on this thing doesn't change anything. You seem to be implying that the UN is effectively a neutral factor, which is rather odd to say the leastHmmm? I've not mentioned the UN once. Nor have I ever pretended that the intervention of foreigners is anything but a necessary evil. See above

And no, I don't consider intervention to have irrevocably tainted the rebel movement to the point where its suppression would be a good thing. It certainly limits the potential of the revolt but by no means extinguishes it

As for "scoffing at everyone who disagrees", I feel perfectly entitled to take the moral high ground against anyone who suggests abandoning the Benghazi rebels to a dictatorship which is currently waging a violent war against its own subjects. And then pretending that this is "the communist position" :glare:


I think we're all pretty well aware that the West has no problem pandering to or supporting dictators. In fact that's basically the point. Air strikes are NOT cheap, the sheer mass of ordnance being expended by the US alone is surely worth a king's ransom. If you take it as given that capitalist states only act in accordance with their self-interests, then surely you can't dispute that they're only getting involved because they're sure it benefits them somehow.Actually I was going to make an in-depth thread focusing on the motivations of the Western powers, but to be honest I'm pretty worn out from this constant arguing. Short version:

The Western nations have limited material interests in Libya. They're certainly present of course but Libya, and its worth repeating this, is not Iraq. Its oil reserves are relatively small (what, 2-3% of global production?) and the West already gets its hands on it through state concessions to Western companies. This is not to underplay these material interests but Gaddafi is no Saddam and has proven to be perfectly willing to work with the West. One of the first stories to emerge in the Western media from Libya was the evacuation of hundreds of ex-pat oil workers from the country. It would have been perfectly possible for the West to continue working with Gaddafi without risking it all in an expensive war

More interesting to my mind is the indirect material interests. Namely, the domestic importance of the Libyan crisis in the West. We're used to dismissing talk of 'democracy and freedom' (correctly) as the fig-leaves of bloody imperialist campaigns abroad but these ideals do matter at home. In fact they're vital. As I noted earlier in the thread, the liberal democracies of the West are hegemonic states and they depend on a degree of popular support for their underlying (public) principles in order to legitimise their rule. What would be the reaction at home if a popular movement for democracy (as its been portrayed in the media) was crushed by an already notorious dictator? I'm not suggesting that there would be riots in the streets or anything but it would dent peoples' faith in liberalism and raise unpleasant questions about the self-serving nature of Western governments

(Usually of course the Western bourgeoisie don't care about their foreign dictators crushing revolts. Usually their direct interests outweigh any such PR objections - witness the length of time it took Washington to take a stance on Mubarak or the deafening silence over the killings in Bahrain - but Libya is a perfect storm. Gaddafi is a household name, this occurs in the narrative of popular revolts in the region and simple geography places Libya right on the borders of Europe. It cannot be ignored. Its notable as well that its the European powers, France and Britain, who have been pushing this intervention at the highest levels)

I believe that these fears over legitimacy, plus of course the potential of expanding influence in the country, outweighed the established interests in Libya. In short, London and Paris panicked when confronted by a crisis in their geopolitical backyard. This can be glimpsed in the deeply ambivalent US attitudes to the intervention, the limited nature of it (to date) and the surprising amount of criticism being levelled at it from within Western establishments. Again, the differences with Iraq are considerable

[black magick hustla]

See, this is exactly what I mean: you aren't opposing your countries' war efforts, you are opposing the Libyan rebellion - and therefore supporting Gaddafy.

You don't come here to talk against NATO or UN or France or the USA: you come here to talk against the Libyan opposition. This has absolutely nothing to do with "revolutionary defeatism".

Luís Henrique
this is a discussion forum, not an agitprop organ. we can and we should discuss what is happening there and we can talk and discuss how what is happening there is two factions of the boss class sending working people to skit each others' throats.

[Raubleaux]

Libyan "rebellion" promotes racist attacks against blacks:

YNA8z5G-Xmk

Also, if you google "libya lynching" you'll find Nazis posting on popular white supremacists websites are cheering the attacks on African "mercenaries" right along with ComradeOm. I tried to provide a link but apparently the name of the Nazi message board in question is censored on this site. I'm sure most of you know which one I'm talking about though.

These rebels were a violent rabble from the very beginning. They were lynching Africans and police officers way back in February before the (unsubstantiated) "brutal crackdown" by Gaddafi.

[Raubleaux]

Libyan rebel leader admits that Al-Qaeda is its front line fighting force in Adjabiyda (just like "insane Gaddafi" has been saying):


In an interview with the Italian newspaper Il Sole 24 Ore, Mr al-Hasidi admitted that he had recruited "around 25" men from the Derna area in eastern Libya to fight against coalition troops in Iraq. Some of them, he said, are "today are on the front lines in Adjabiya".
Mr al-Hasidi insisted his fighters "are patriots and good Muslims, not terrorists," but added that the "members of al-Qaeda are also good Muslims and are fighting against the invader".

Link (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8407047/Libyan-rebel-commander-admits-his-fighters-have-al-Qaeda-links.html)

Wikileaks reveals that Eastern Libya is a backwards region in which Islamic fundamentalism flourishes:


Family members with whom he is in regular contact told him during his visit that there were violent clashes between local extremists and GOL elements late last year. In one incident, extremists opened fire in proximity to a Benghazi hospital in connection with their attempts to secure medical assistance for a sick or injured comrade. In another, there was an explosion or an exchange of gunfire (accounts differed) at a traffic circle in a Benghazi exurb in connection with an attempt by a police officer to stop a vehicle being used by extremists. (Note: Both incidents were reported late last year in other channels. This is the first mention we"ve heard of these events from other sources. End note.) xxxxxxxxxxxx also offered non-specific accounts of raids by extremists, whom they understood to be affiliated with the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, on police and military installations to secure weapons.

The rebels have leaders who talk about "democracy" and are trying to ingratiate themselves to the imperialists powers but the rank and file are a bunch of misguided and reactionary forces. These people being worse than Gaddafi is a no-brainer. Oppose Gaddafi from the left, do not support racist reactionaries and their new imperialist allies.

Link (http://91.214.23.156/cablegate/wire.php?id=08TRIPOLI120&search=)

[The Douche]

My reluctant support for Western intervention

You attack socialists who cheered "send in the tanks", meanwhile you cheer "send in the planes". You are no communist.

[Raubleaux]

The Western nations have limited material interests in Libya. They're certainly present of course but Libya, and its worth repeating this, is not Iraq. Its oil reserves are relatively small (what, 2-3% of global production?) and the West already gets its hands on it through state concessions to Western companies. This is not to underplay these material interests but Gaddafi is no Saddam and has proven to be perfectly willing to work with the West. One of the first stories to emerge in the Western media from Libya was the evacuation of hundreds of ex-pat oil workers from the country. It would have been perfectly possible for the West to continue working with Gaddafi without risking it all in an expensive war

You make some good points here, but ultimately I think you are underestimating this. Yes, Libya is not as important economically as Iraq and this is why the imperialist countries (especially the United States) were reluctant at first. However, Libya provides a rather large amount of oil to Europe, hence Europe's greater eagerness to overthrow Gaddafi and intervene militarily. I saw the French ambassador to the United States on CNN comparing the French attitude towards North Africa to the U.S. attitude towards central America ("its backyard").

The currently Libyan regime was not as cooperative as the West wanted them to be. The Wikileaks files attest to this. The Libyans were constantly renegotiating oil contracts with foreign multinationals and forcing them to take bare minimum profits. They were also starting to force them to hire Libyan workers.

The West and the oil companies were ultimately not very happy with their relationship to the regime, but were biding their time waiting for Gaddafi to die so they could install his son (who had thoroughly sold out to them). The rebellion just presented them with an opportunity to accelerate the process.


More interesting to my mind is the indirect material interests. Namely, the domestic importance of the Libyan crisis in the West. We're used to dismissing talk of 'democracy and freedom' (correctly) as the fig-leaves of bloody imperialist campaigns abroad but these ideals do matter at home. In fact they're vital. As I noted earlier in the thread, the liberal democracies of the West are hegemonic states and they depend on a degree of popular support for their underlying (public) principles in order to legitimise their rule. What would be the reaction at home if a popular movement for democracy (as its been portrayed in the media) was crushed by an already notorious dictator? I'm not suggesting that there would be riots in the streets or anything but it would dent peoples' faith in liberalism and raise unpleasant questions about the self-serving nature of Western governments

This is really a terrible analysis. I'm not trying to be rude but this is just so extremely unconvincing its kind of funny.

Do you honestly think a bunch of people in the United States would have been so struck with moral conflict had the intervention not occurred? Do you think some kind of huge protest movement would emerge in the United States if the rebellion was defeated? An actual genocide happened in Rwanda in the 90s and most Americans don't even know it happened, much less have an opinion on it.

Why does the Libya situation warrant this "propaganda intervention" but not any of the other Middle East conflicts? The established powers did not need this as a propaganda vehicle. If Gaddafi stopped the rebellion it would have just reinforced the narrative that he is an "evil dictator" and allowed the Western governments to posture about how free and democratic its people are compared to those who live under "dictators" like Gaddafi.

[RadioRaheem84]

Oh come off it. The more I read the less convinced I am about the rebels. Most seem to be monarchists, liberals, Islamic Extremists, and probably a very small number of real leftists.

i just really don't see any merit when there are elements of Al Qaeda, monarchists, and bourgoise liberals leading the rebellion and claiming themselves to be the sole authority should Gadaffi be ousted.

[ComradeOm]

You attack socialists who cheered "send in the tanks", meanwhile you cheer "send in the planes". You are no communist.And you still haven't answered my questions. You've still not explained how you can reconcile being anti-Gaddafi with anti-interventionism. You still refuse to admit that no intervention means the triumph of Gaddafi and the seizure of Banghazi

I'm not going to get a straight answer from you on this, am I?


Do you honestly think a bunch of people in the United States would have been so struck with moral conflict had the intervention not occurred? Do you think some kind of huge protest movement would emerge in the United States if the rebellion was defeated? An actual genocide happened in Rwanda in the 90s and most Americans don't even know it happened, much less have an opinion on itI can only assume that you didn't read my post as all these points are addressed in it. The one that I should clarify is that I don't particularly know or care what the reaction would be in the US; it is the European reaction that is of the most interest. Libya is after all only a few hundred km off the coast of Sicily

And no, I would not expect an immediate mass rising in sympathy or the like. What I would expect would be both a tarnishing of bourgeois legitimacy and intense domestic pressure on Western governments and companies to end their cooperation with the Gaddafi regime. In Egypt the West had a choice as to whether to support Mubarak or not; in Libya Gaddafi rendered this moot when his mercenaries began firing on the rebels. It was him, and not the Western capitals, that made future business between the two impossible. We are after all talking of a British government that refuses to release files on a 90 year old assassination attempt (http://www.revleft.com/vb/british-planned-assassinate-t152029/index.html) for fear of embarrassment

[synthesis]

More interesting to my mind is the indirect material interests. Namely, the domestic importance of the Libyan crisis in the West. We're used to dismissing talk of 'democracy and freedom' (correctly) as the fig-leaves of bloody imperialist campaigns abroad but these ideals do matter at home. In fact they're vital. As I noted earlier in the thread, the liberal democracies of the West are hegemonic states and they depend on a degree of popular support for their underlying (public) principles in order to legitimise their rule. What would be the reaction at home if a popular movement for democracy (as its been portrayed in the media) was crushed by an already notorious dictator? I'm not suggesting that there would be riots in the streets or anything but it would dent peoples' faith in liberalism and raise unpleasant questions about the self-serving nature of Western governments

No fucking way, dude. I mean, I appreciate that you really spelled out why you hold the position that you do, but this is too much. Maybe I'll have more to say when I sober up.

[ComradeOm]

You don't appreciate the role that ideology plays in the maintenance of Western hegemony? How on earth could any European government stand before its people and insist that it stood for fairness, democracy, etc, etc, when it had just permitted the very public crushing of a pro-democracy revolt (again, that's how the media portrayed it) on the edge of Europe? Perhaps this could be explained away, or balanced out, if there were significant Western interests at stake but these business interests would not be adversely affected through supporting either Gaddafi or the rebels

The fall of Benghazi would have domestic impact and it would make future business with Gaddafi impossible, as noted above, but it would also fatally undermine any conceit as to the moral superiority of the West. And this is important as global Western hegemony rests on it

[graymouser]

And you still haven't answered my questions. You've still not explained how you can reconcile being anti-Gaddafi with anti-interventionism. You still refuse to admit that no intervention means the triumph of Gaddafi and the seizure of Banghazi
You keep making this point on this thread, but I don't think you grasp why it's so deadly wrong. The reality is, any "victory" that comes as a result of an imperialist intervention will destroy any independent character that the resulting government would have. If the rebels win, at this point, they will basically have to rely on the imperialists for protection - which means that these same imperialists will have tremendous leverage to force neoliberalism upon the Libyan people in a heretofore unseen way.

One revolutionary position, as I said earlier in this thread, would have been to call for the Egyptian and Tunisian people to co-opt the militaries in their respective countries and come to the aid of the Libyan rebels. This would convert their national armies into a pan-Arab liberation army, and their national democratic revolutions into a democratic revolution of the whole Maghreb. Not the most likely scenario, but one with deep-reaching revolutionary consequences for the whole Arab nation.

You don't seem to grasp that the UN/NATO intervention means the end of this uprising's character as a national-democratic revolution, and raises the prospect of a ground war and protracted occupation.

[robbo203]

And you still haven't answered my questions. You've still not explained how you can reconcile being anti-Gaddafi with anti-interventionism. You still refuse to admit that no intervention means the triumph of Gaddafi and the seizure of Banghazi
I'm not going to get a straight answer from you on this, am I?


This is a difficult dilemma indeed but no less difficult than the dilemma of having to reconcile opposition to capitalism and capitalist states with urging and cheering on some of them to use military force to overthrow another. Like it or not supporting western intervention in Libya (and we know very well that it is not driven by humanitarian concerns ) amounts to aligning oneself with and, inadvertently, if not intentionally, supporting the interests of these western capitalist powers. If one is going to adopt a consequentialist argument - that without Western support the Libyan rebels are doomed - then the same would applies here. The consequence of supporting western intervention would be to support western interests. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander....

That the Gaddafi regime is a repugnant dictatorship and needs to be overthrown, is unquestionable. One thing this whole Libyan affair has shown up is the utter bankruptcy of the whole "anti-imperialism" posture. People here have questioned my claim that anti-imperialism implies the division of the world into "oppressor" and "oppressed" nations and places a moral obligation upon the anti-imperialist to support the latter against the former. But actually "anti-imperialism" takes it cue from the very theory of imperialism itself which divides up the world in this fashion and claims that the metropolitan core countries exploits the dependent peripheral countries. Thus, a consistent anti imperialist would be driven to support Gaddafi as some on the Left have done and this is precisely I think the whole paradigm of anti-imperalism needs to junked once and for all.

But to return to the question of the uprising against Gaddafi, I think we have to step back from a bit and ask ourselves what might be entailed by supporting western intervention. While the consequences of such intervention will almost certainly aid the uprising and so lead to the desirable outcome of overthowing Gaddafi, I really cannot see how we can actively support intervention as socialists and thereby throw our weight behind those capitalist states intent upon militarily intervening in Libya. That is a step beyond the pale as far as I am concerned.

Like I said, this is not an easy situation to resolve - where we stand in relation to Libya. Not that it makes much material difference any way what our position is; the western powers will do what they will do regardless.


The point that I am trying to grope towards somewhat clumsily is that there are different ways in which one can defines one's moral postion vis a vis Libya (and it is ultimately about the morality of the situation that this debate is concerned with). Do we take a consequentialist position? Or do we take a deontological postion that acknowleges that while Western intervention will indirectly aid the desirable overthrow of Gaddafi that , even so, we cannot support it, because we cannot sanction the the use of one evil to eradicate another without comprising in quite a fundamental way our opposition to capitalism and capitalism's wars

[manic expression]

Well, yes. That's because, unlike yourself, I don't believe that the nature of their movement suddenly changes due to decisions in Paris or London
:lol: Does the nature of "protests" change when they start flying warplanes? How many fighter jets are "protestors" allowed to utilize before they become defined as something else entirely?

And no, I'm not just talking about the imperialist planes you're fantasizing about. Good to know your head is still buried in the oil-rich sand on this issue. "Protestors"...:rolleyes:


You've still not explained how you can reconcile being anti-Gaddafi with anti-interventionism. You still refuse to admit that no intervention means the triumph of Gaddafi and the seizure of BanghaziYou oppose imperialist meddling in Libya by opposing imperialist meddling in Libya. You can call for the fall of Gaddafi at the same time. Did you oppose the invasion of Iraq without supporting Saddam Hussein? There you go. It really isn't that hard to figure out...but it seems you're stuck on 2003 War Drum Mode.

Without imperialist invasion, Benghazi would have in all likelihood fallen to Gaddafi. Now, Benghazi will fall to imperialism. Happy? I know you are. Enjoy your victory champagne with your imperialist friends.

[Luís Henrique]

Oh come off it. The more I read the less convinced I am about the rebels. Most seem to be monarchists, liberals, Islamic Extremists, and probably a very small number of real leftists.

i just really don't see any merit when there are elements of Al Qaeda, monarchists, and bourgoise liberals leading the rebellion and claiming themselves to be the sole authority should Gadaffi be ousted.

Except, of course, that you have absolutely no evidence of any of that. Those are your hopes, that's what you root for, that is what you want. And, of course, there is a remote possibility that it is so, or that it becomes so during the simultaneous strifes against Gaddafy and among the rebels for hegemony in their revolution. But the overwhelming possibilities are that the monarchist elements are very minoritary and will have absolutely no chance if not overtly backed by the US and EU (of which there is also no evidence up to now); that Islamic extremists are also quite insignificant, at least as organised forces; and that liberals of various, and probably antagonistic, extractions are hegemonic at the head of the rebellion (though to me it seems that renegade Gaddafyists are in significant numbers, and much more dangerous), but have actually no real grip on the much wider rebel constituency, which are quite certainly just petty-bourgeois and working class people with no clear political loyalties, but fed up with a regime that never allowed them any freedom and has of lately been encroaching on their life standards.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

No fucking way, dude. I mean, I appreciate that you really spelled out why you hold the position that you do, but this is too much. Maybe I'll have more to say when I sober up.

Hope you sober up soon and safely in the "West", under a Western "democratic" bourgeois dictatorship, not in Libya under Gaddafy's "anti-imperialist" dictatorship.

Luís Henrique

[manic expression]

Except, of course, that you have absolutely no evidence of any of that.
You certainly have no evidence to the contrary. So that leaves us with you supporting imperialist conquest and the rest of us opposing it.


but fed up with a regime that never allowed them any freedom and has of lately been encroaching on their life standards.
And as Iraq and Afghanistan can testify to, your new buddies have a great record of increasing living standards. :rolleyes:


Hope you sober up soon and safely in the "West", under a Western "democratic" bourgeois dictatorship, not in Libya under Gaddafy's "anti-imperialist" dictatorship.
Bombs are dropping and the best you can come up with is a jab about alcohol. What a stalwart defender of bourgeois values you've become.

[Luís Henrique]

Perhaps this could be explained away, or balanced out, if there were significant Western interests at stake

And quite probably it would be easier if there was no significant unrest in Europe itself. There were half a million people in the streets in London yesterday; there were 200,000 in the streets of Lisbon a few days ago, leading to the Portuguese parliament rejecting the government austerity plans, and consequently to the fall of the Portuguese government.


The fall of Benghazi would have domestic impact and it would make future business with Gaddafi impossible, as noted above, but it would also fatally undermine any conceit as to the moral superiority of the West. And this is important as global Western hegemony rests on it

Quite probably you hit the nerve here. If the "West" allowed Gaddafy to rape Benghazi, the popular pressure against European governments buying their oil there would be quite possibly so strong and angered that it would put these governments further into the defensive, in a moment when they face significant turmoil at home.

Luís Henrique

[The Douche]

And you still haven't answered my questions. You've still not explained how you can reconcile being anti-Gaddafi with anti-interventionism. You still refuse to admit that no intervention means the triumph of Gaddafi and the seizure of Banghazi


Yes, it means the unfortunate defeat of the rebels. I don't hope for that, I don't call for that. But the reality is that if their movement cannot liberate their country without the aid of the imperialists then it cannot liberate their country at all.

A comprador regime is not liberation.

You are so obsessed with liberal democracy tha you support the bombing of other countries to secure it. You should also support the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, based on the exact same logic you use to support the murder of Libyan citizens. I don't see how you can't. You have been asked dozens of times, what makes this different? And you claim there is a popular resistance this time, was the northen alliance not as popular as the libyan rebellion? Were the Kurdish rebels not as popular as the Libyan movement? Then why do you not support imperialist intervention in support of those movements?

There is a large movement against Chavez in Venezuela, so large it draws tens of thousands into the streets, do you support the bombing of Venezuela?

So many people wanted Castro out of power in the 60s that they were able to form an entire army, thats a pretty big movement, huh? Do you support the bay of pigs invasion?

In Russia there was such popular discontent with the bolshevik revolution that a 3+year civil war broke out. 3-5 years of fighting? Hell, there must have been a lot of support for the whites, a pretty popular resistance I suppose, guess you support the imperialists there to?

[Luís Henrique]

You certainly have no evidence to the contrary. So that leaves us with you supporting imperialist conquest and the rest of us opposing it.

Except, of course, that I don't claim to have evidence of anything, other than the fact that "monarchists", "islamic extremists", and "liberals" never have the actual numbers for mass demonstrations or rebellions.


And as Iraq and Afghanistan can testify to, your new buddies have a great record of increasing living standards. :rolleyes:

And who said otherwise?

The fall on the living standards is not Gaddafy's "fault" more than it is Bush's, Obama's or Cameron's - it is a consequence of the general capitalist crisis started in 2008, which in turn is a consequence of how capitalism "works".

And at the moment people in Europe are starting to stand up against their own governmnets because of this, you want the people of Libya to keep quiet under their own government because of exactly what?


Bombs are dropping and the best you can come up with is a jab about alcohol. What a stalwart defender of bourgeois values you've become.

What bourgeois value? Soberness or the freedom to drown in alcohol?

At this moment the city of Misrata is under siege, being shelled and bombed by Gaddafy's army. And the best you can come up is with the idea that they should surrender and join Gaddafy's supposed fight against imperialism.

Out of curiosity, how do Gaddafy's boots taste?

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

There is a large movement against Chavez in Venezuela, so large it draws tens of thousands into the streets, do you support the bombing of Venezuela?

And do you support Chavez using his army to strafe and bomb those demonstrations?

Because up to now, Chavez's behaviour has been nothing like this. He reacts to demonstrations much like bourgeois democratic governments do: some propaganda, police lines keeping "order", etc. Sending the military to crush the demonstrations, this I have yet to see.

Luís Henrique

[The Douche]

And do you support Chavez using his army to strafe and bomb those demonstrations?

Because up to now, Chavez's behaviour has been nothing like this. He reacts to demonstrations much like bourgeois democratic governments do: some propaganda, police lines keeping "order", etc. Sending the military to crush the demonstrations, this I have yet to see.

Luís Henrique

As I recall (meaning I could be wrong), the Libyan rebels siezed arms from military installations before the start of widespread military action.


"liberals" never have the actual numbers for mass demonstrations or rebellions.


lolwut

[manic expression]

Except, of course, that I don't claim to have evidence of anything, other than the fact that "monarchists", "islamic extremists", and "liberals" never have the actual numbers for mass demonstrations or rebellions.
You deny such forces could put themselves into positions of leadership? Every rebellion is as pure as the driven snow? How more naive are you going to act in order to justify your imperialist friends' bombs?


And who said otherwise?

The fall on the living standards is not Gaddafy's "fault" more than it is Bush's, Obama's or Cameron's - it is a consequence of the general capitalist crisis started in 2008, which in turn is a consequence of how capitalism "works".

And at the moment people in Europe are starting to stand up against their own governmnets because of this, you want the people of Libya to keep quiet under their own government because of exactly what?
I'd rather the people of Libya be very unquiet in opposing both the capitalists of their own country and the imperialists who are attempting to suppress them. "Standing up to their government" and having rebellion leadership pledge themselves allies of the most blood-soaked imperialist powers on the face of the planet are two very different things. Perhaps if you thought about it without a pro-imperialist mindset you'd realize this.


What bourgeois value? Soberness or the freedom to drown in alcohol?
Of course you'd portray "the West" as so superior to those Arabs...they aren't even allowed to drink! :rolleyes:


At this moment the city of Misrata is under siege, being shelled and bombed by Gaddafy's army. And the best you can come up is with the idea that they should surrender and join Gaddafy's supposed fight against imperialism.
How about the idea that the rebellion's leaders shouldn't be appealing to imperialists and promising them the keys to Libya? Ever consider that, or are you too busy cheering imperialism and taking copious notes on their rhetoric to notice what progressives are saying?


Out of curiosity, how do Gaddafy's boots taste?
No idea. If you're really dying to know, how about you ask your boy Sarkozy? Be sure not to blush too much when you give him a curtsy. :lol:

[Invader Zim]

You don't appreciate the role that ideology plays in the maintenance of Western hegemony? How on earth could any European government stand before its people and insist that it stood for fairness, democracy, etc, etc, when it had just permitted the very public crushing of a pro-democracy revolt (again, that's how the media portrayed it) on the edge of Europe? Perhaps this could be explained away, or balanced out, if there were significant Western interests at stake but these business interests would not be adversely affected through supporting either Gaddafi or the rebels

The fall of Benghazi would have domestic impact and it would make future business with Gaddafi impossible, as noted above, but it would also fatally undermine any conceit as to the moral superiority of the West. And this is important as global Western hegemony rests on it

This is the same point I have been making throughout these threads. One only has to see the Conservative Party's previously failing position in the polls, and now their recent position in the polls has levelled off and they have curbed their previous steady decline. Meanwhile, at the same time as this conflict has seen the Conservatives pull out of a major period of declining public opinion, the Labour Party's recent success in the polls has been reduced over the past weeks. It is no coincidence that this intervention has seen a subsequent Conservative and LibDem success in the polls.

That seems to be a very pressing factor in all of this.

[Luís Henrique]

As I recall (meaning I could be wrong), the Libyan rebels siezed arms from military installations before the start of widespread military action.

Curiously, I recall exactly the opposite. Mass demonstrations, then brutal crackdown on them, then leading to splits in the military, then leading to armed insurrection.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

You deny such forces could put themselves into positions of leadership? Every rebellion is as pure as the driven snow? How more naive are you going to act in order to justify your imperialist friends' bombs?

Of course they can put themselves into positions of leadership. To which the obvious response is, people should fight for the leadership of the rebellion, not give it up because it was spoiled by half-a-dozen bourgeois trying to assert their leadership.

No revolution ever are snow pure. All of them have opportunists adhering, half-hearted leaderships, and are entangled in confuse international bourgeois politics. I stand with the Libyan uprising, impure, imperfect, on the risk of being betrayed for within, riddled with opportunists trying to surf it, etc. Now who wants a revolution "pure like snow"? And where do you stand? Against the impure and imperfect revolution, because it is so, oh, impure and imperfect that an opera buffa "King" living in exile can make self-important statements about his armchair desire to "contribute" to it by magnanimously allowing them to chose him as their king? And in favour of the Gaddafyist onslaught against the people?


I'd rather the people of Libya be very unquiet in opposing both the capitalists of their own country and the imperialists who are attempting to suppress them.Oh how wonderfully farisaic. Be sure, if your beloved leader of the "green revolution" wins, the people of Libya will have every reason to be unquiet about him. Pity they won't have a chance of expressing such unrest, lest they be tortured and executed by your "snow pure" anti-imperialist.


"Standing up to their government" and having rebellion leadership pledge themselves allies of the most blood-soaked imperialist powers on the face of the planet are two very different things.Indeed. But in material reality, it didn't happen. Now according to your, they should do exactly what? Surrender to Gaddafy, pleading for forgiving and offering themselves as pawns in the "anti-imperialist" struggle? (So, the rebellion is tainted because some liberals try to surf it, but the anti-imperialist struggle remains pure as snow even though its leadership belongs inquestionably to Gaddafy?) Try to resist both sides at once? With exactly what weapons? With exactly what methods? Should they fill the streets in mass demonstrations against the imperialist intervention? Should they try to down the coalition planes with their scarce weapons? Should they retreat into a guerrilla war in the desert?


Perhaps if you thought about it without a pro-imperialist mindset you'd realize this.

Perhaps if you thought about it, period...


Of course you'd portray "the West" as so superior to those Arabs...they aren't even allowed to drink! :rolleyes:Listen, armchair bootlicker, your "liberal" freedoms you take for granted do not exist under regimes like Gaddafy. And this has nothing to do with being Arab or whatever. Or we cannot speak against Hitler anymore lest we are anti-Germanic bigots?


How about the idea that the rebellion's leaders shouldn't be appealing to imperialists and promising them the keys to Libya?Well, if I could in anyway influence their decisions, I would tell them that.

Now, since you are so much in the "in" of those negotiations, please explain us exactly what was dealt, who promised what, and what guarantees there are that whatever has been promised will be delivered.


Ever consider that, or are you too busy cheering imperialism and taking copious notes on their rhetoric to notice what progressives are saying?Anyone who licks Gaddafy's boots is not a progressive in my book.

Luís Henrique

[robbo203]

I'd rather the people of Libya be very unquiet in opposing both the capitalists of their own country and the imperialists who are attempting to suppress them. "Standing up to their government" and having rebellion leadership pledge themselves allies of the most blood-soaked imperialist powers on the face of the planet are two very different things. Perhaps if you thought about it without a pro-imperialist mindset you'd realize this.

So does that mean , when it comes down to the wire, that you would support the idea of Libyans forsaking "standing up to their government" in order to resist military intervention by the "most blood-soaked imperialist powers on the face of the planet"? Is it a case of opting for the lesser of two evils in your view - meaning rallying behind the Gaddafi regime? After all what else would or can a consistent "anti imperialist" do but this if you think the problem is simply one of some nasty imperialist powers wanting to impose their will and their way upon others

[black magick hustla]

edit: nvm

[manic expression]

Of course they can put themselves into positions of leadership. To which the obvious response is, people should fight for the leadership of the rebellion, not give it up because it was spoiled by half-a-dozen bourgeois trying to assert their leadership.
"People should fight for the leadership of the rebellion". How good of you to say so. Meanwhile, in reality, you have no conception of the political, ideological or most importantly class composition of the rebellion or its leadership, and yet you slavishly support it without a shred of evidence to your argument.

Just so we're clear, when you say "should", it has nothing to do with what's happening now. But your liberal idealism is still a nice change of pace.


No revolution ever are snow pure. All of them have opportunists adhering, half-hearted leaderships, and are entangled in confuse international bourgeois politics. I stand with the Libyan uprising, impure, imperfect, on the risk of being betrayed for within, riddled with opportunists trying to surf it, etc. Now who wants a revolution "pure like snow"? And where do you stand? Against the impure and imperfect revolution, because it is so, oh, impure and imperfect that an opera buffa "King" living in exile can make self-important statements about his armchair desire to "contribute" to it by magnanimously allowing them to chose him as their king? And in favour of the Gaddafyist onslaught against the people?:lol: You stand with what you do not know. The only thing we do know is that the rebellion is now an ally (read: vassal) of imperialism. That's why your position is built on misconceptions and pro-imperialist sentiment.

I stand against imperialism and the friends of imperialism. I stand for the interests of the workers. The rebellion has proven itself among the former, not the latter. But you don't care, because it's fun to beat the drums of war as the future of Libya is cast into fire.


Oh how wonderfully farisaic. Be sure, if your beloved leader of the "green revolution" wins, the people of Libya will have every reason to be unquiet about him. Pity they won't have a chance of expressing such unrest, lest they be tortured and executed by your "snow pure" anti-imperialist.He's hardly my leader, but he was good pals with your boys just a few months ago. How much longer are you going to ignore the history of your beloved imperialist masters? :lol:

The people of Libya will be tortured and murdered and executed by imperialism unless it is defeated. But you don't care, because you're too busy putting on your pom-poms to notice.


Indeed. But in material reality, it didn't happen. Now according to your, they should do exactly what? Surrender to Gaddafy, pleading for forgiving and offering themselves as pawns in the "anti-imperialist" struggle? (So, the rebellion is tainted because some liberals try to surf it, but the anti-imperialist struggle remains pure as snow even though its leadership belongs inquestionably to Gaddafy?) Try to resist both sides at once? With exactly what weapons? With exactly what methods? Should they fill the streets in mass demonstrations against the imperialist intervention? Should they try to down the coalition planes with their scarce weapons? Should they retreat into a guerrilla war in the desert?:lol: What "didn't happen"? The rebel leadership never even tried to oppose imperialism, they were on their knees begging for an imperialist invasion for weeks. That's not just "impure"...it's reactionary and every honest analysis comes to that conclusion.

Yes, the rebellion must resist imperialism and its Libyan enemies, with whatever weapons they can use. If it does not, it is casting its lot with the greatest enemy to the people of Libya. That is what you must confront if you want to come to something faintly resembling an accurate vision of the situation.


Perhaps if you thought about it, period...Only one of us is dodging points. It isn't me. Keep dancing, maybe Sarkozy, Cameron or Obama will come and tuck some dollar bills onto your outfit.


Listen, armchair bootlicker, your "liberal" freedoms you take for granted do not exist under regimes like Gaddafy. And this has nothing to do with being Arab or whatever. Or we cannot speak against Hitler anymore lest we are anti-Germanic bigots?Yeah, being able to drink liquor is why imperialism should bomb Libya and take its oil! :laugh: Keep the imperialist arguments coming, I love it when reactionaries out themselves.


Well, if I could in anyway influence their decisions, I would tell them that.You wouldn't even know who to tell, which explains precisely how seriously we should take your argument that the rebellion is intrinsically progressive. Let me guess: Ronald Reagan came to you in a dream and told you so.


Now, since you are so much in the "in" of those negotiations, please explain us exactly what was dealt, who promised what, and what guarantees there are that whatever has been promised will be delivered.Ah, no, you're right. When they went to Paris to meet with Hillary Clinton, they told her that they won't give imperialism anything. That's why imperialism saved their backsides. Genius argument.


Anyone who licks Gaddafy's boots is not a progressive in my book.Right. So your "Boys in Blue" who are dropping bombs and cruise missiles all over Libya aren't progressives. And yet you support them unwaveringly. Thanks for demonstrating that you are no progressive...not even in your own book! :laugh:

[Invader Zim]

It is the point. You identify your own "ethic conundrum" with imperialist power. That is clear from your own wording. Do not blame me for noticing.

You amaze me at the lengths you will go to admit you are mistaken. But, whatever Pal, it's no bother to me.


No, the "West" stages an invasion and Gaddafi is ousted by imperialism.

Western politicans stage a grudging, token and perfunctory intervention to prevent the imminent destruction of the popular uprising, in order to preserve their electoral positions, and you describe it as an invasion and contend that now the West will be underwriting the entire revolt in Libya.

You're delusional.


Yes, Hiroshima just blew up by itself. Those sly Japanese, detonating a nuclear bomb in their own city to make the US look bad. :lol: No, the US invaded Japan as the Nazis invaded Britain by sending warplanes into its airspace and dropping bombs on military and civilian targets.

:lol: You confuse an aerial sortie with an invasion.

[manic expression]

So does that mean , when it comes down to the wire, that you would support the idea of Libyans forsaking "standing up to their government" in order to resist military intervention by the "most blood-soaked imperialist powers on the face of the planet"? Is it a case of opting for the lesser of two evils in your view - meaning rallying behind the Gaddafi regime? After all what else would or can a consistent "anti imperialist" do but this if you think the problem is simply one of some nasty imperialist powers wanting to impose their will and their way upon others
The rebellion could have opposed imperialism without lining up behind Gaddafi. They chose not to. Not all that hard to understand.


You amaze me at the lengths you will go to admit you are mistaken. But, whatever Pal, it's no bother to me.Well said. This whole imperialism thing isn't a bother to you.


Western politicans stage a grudging, token and perfunctory intervention to prevent the imminent destruction of the popular uprising, in order to preserve their electoral positions, and you describe it as an invasion and contend that now the West will be underwriting the entire revolt in Libya.

You're delusional.to prevent the imminent destruction

You said it yourself. The rebellion is now indebted to the imperialists for saving them.


You confuse an aerial sortie with an invasion.Ah, so the US didn't invade its airspace.

[Invader Zim]

Well said. This whole imperialism thing isn't a bother to you.

Actually, it is. And I most certainly wouldn't support the kind of military adverturism you describe... but luckly it hasn't happened yet and there is no evidence to suggest it will anytime soon.


The rebellion is now indebted to the imperialists for saving them.

I'm indebted to the British state too, those guys gave me a shit load of money to complete my degree... doesn't mean I intend to pay it back. It is your assumption that a Quisling government will be installed, and it is my assumption that you don't know what the fuck you're talking about. Actually no, the latter isn't an assumption, it is an observation.


Ah, so the US didn't invade its airspace.

No, the US led an incusion or sortie into Japan's airspace. An invasion implies, in the context of our discussion, a prolonged stay in a region. The ability of a B29 to actually maintain a presence in Japanese airspace was fundermentally curtailed by its fuel capacity; therefore invasion is not really an appropriate adjective - hense the use of the term sortie. Indeed, the UN mandate in the context of western involvement in Libya informs us that a prolonged stay in Libya is out of the question, at least in the immidiate future. Thus to use the word 'invasion' is not actuallt appropriate.

[The Douche]

Curiously, I recall exactly the opposite. Mass demonstrations, then brutal crackdown on them, then leading to splits in the military, then leading to armed insurrection.

Luís Henrique

I'm pretty sure, that the first aerial attack ordered by gadaffi was refused, and the pilots defected to another country, at which point the rebels siezed arms.

But this is irrelevant, because you allready know I don't support gadaffi.

[robbo203]

The rebellion could have opposed imperialism without lining up behind Gaddafi. They chose not to. Not all that hard to understand..

Whether that may not be hard to understand is besides the point and was not the question I asked. What I am finding increasingly hard to understand is why you and your buddies in the PSL group are so coy about stating your own position vis a vis the Gaddafi regime. Do you support the regime against the uprising? Yes or no?

[Chimurenga.]

What I am finding increasingly hard to understand is why you and your buddies in the PSL group are so coy about stating your own position vis a vis the Gaddafi regime.

I find it so hard to understand why you would be so supportive of the racist, Western educated, Al Queda-backed rebels. Never mind that you don't even see that your aligned at the hip, politically, with Western imperialism. Never mind that the rebel controlled Benghazi is a legitimate police state with tortures and killings of random people who look like they might support Gaddafi. Even if you claim that you aren't supportive of the rebels, you sure as hell sound like it now.

It's pleasing to see the bankrupt politics of Luis Henrique and robbo203 (to name a few) come out in the open like this. It makes it that much easier to figure out who is full of shit on this forum.

[manic expression]

Actually, it is. And I most certainly wouldn't support the kind of military adverturism you describe... but luckly it hasn't happened yet and there is no evidence to suggest it will anytime soon.
Imperialist bombs and cruise missiles are cool in your book, right?


I'm indebted to the British state too, those guys gave me a shit load of money to complete my degree... doesn't mean I intend to pay it back. It is your assumption that a Quisling government will be installed, and it is my assumption that you don't know what the fuck you're talking about. Actually no, the latter isn't an assumption, it is an observation.That's probably the most idiotic comparison anyone's ever made in relation to Libya. And there have been some dumb comparisons made so far. :laugh: Congrats.

But I'm curious...after begging for imperialist aid for weeks and then getting their skins saved by such aid...in what position will the rebels be in to dictate terms to the imperialists? In what possible way are they not vassals? The present situation, that being them existing because of "the West", would suggest quite strongly that they are effectively a rebellion bought and paid for. Your head, like the rest of the pro-imperialists here, is very deep in the sand indeed. And under that sand is precisely why the imperialists are involved.


No, the US led an incusion or sortie into Japan's airspace. An invasion implies, in the context of our discussion,You mean in the context you just made up.


Whether that may not be hard to understand is besides the point and was not the question I asked. What I am finding increasingly hard to understand is why you and your buddies in the PSL group are so coy about stating your own position vis a vis the Gaddafi regime. Do you support the regime against the uprising? Yes or no?
Your question is predicated on the idea that there is no way to oppose both Gaddafi and imperialism. That is false, and I pointed out why it is false. Perhaps you can digest this lesson in your own sweet time.

As for your new question, read up:

http://www.pslweb.org/liberationnews/news/us-progressives-must-tell.html

[robbo203]

I find it so hard to understand why you would be so supportive of the racist, Western educated, Al Queda-backed rebels. Never mind that you don't even see that your aligned at the hip, politically, with Western imperialism. Never mind that the rebel controlled Benghazi is a legitimate police state with tortures and killings of random people who look like they might support Gaddafi. Even if you claim that you aren't supportive of the rebels, you sure as hell sound like it now.

It's pleasing to see the bankrupt politics of Luis Henrique and robbo203 (to name a few) come out in the open like this. It makes it that much easier to figure out who is full of shit on this forum.

Firstly get your facts straight. I do not support western imperialism and western intervention and have said so plainly and unequivocally several times

Secondly this argument is really about whether you and your sect - the PSL -support the billionaire tyrant Gaddafi against the uprising. In your case we see yet another example of a member of the PSL being uable or unwilling to give a straight answer to a very straightforward question. Instead all we get is prevarication, evasion and deflection which suggests to me that you lot have something to hide

On the question of my attitude to the rebels I keep an open mind on this. I have read of instances of racism towards migrant workers and, if true, that is appalling. However, the overwhelming weight of evdience Ive come across suggest your characterisation of the rebel forces and their motives is rather misleading. "Western educated and Al Queda-backed"? That doesnt quite ring true - people sympathetic to Al Queda on the one hand and singing the praises of David Cameron on the other? Nope, I cant quite buy that one. And as for being being western educated since when does this constitue a crime and who precisely are your talking about? Every rebel, a majority or just a tiny minority?

The real question is whether you think the Gaddafi regime should go or whether you think it should be supported. What is the PSL's answer to this question? Are you capable of giving an honest answer?

[Nolan]

Sure, Gaddafi might have to go because of intervention. That might beat the alternative.

If you pay your bills by taking loans from the mob, your bills are payed, you're not homeless in the cold, and that's that, right?

[manic expression]

The real question is whether you think the Gaddafi regime should go or whether you think it should be supported. What is the PSL's answer to this question? Are you capable of giving an honest answer?
Do you think Saddam should have gone or should he have been supported? What is robbo203's answer to this question? Are you capable of giving an honest answer?

See how ridiculous the premise is?

[Chimurenga.]

Firstly get your facts straight. I do not support western imperialism and western intervention and have said so plainly and unequivocally several times

You seem to be quite sympathetic to the rebels so, ipso-facto, you are supporting Western imperialism. Congrats! :w00t:


Secondly this argument is really about whether you and your sect - the PSL -support the billionaire tyrant Gaddafi against the uprising. In your case we see yet another example of a member of the PSL being uable or unwilling to give a straight answer to a very straightforward question. Instead all we get is prevarication, evasion and deflection which suggests to me that you lot have something to hide

There is no evasion. Read our articles which Manicexpression just posted and see for yourself.


On the question of my attitude to the rebels I keep an open mind on this. I have read of instances of racism towards migrant workers and, if true, that is appalling.

What do you mean, if true? For someone so eager to buy into Gaddafi being a "mass murderer", you sure are hesitant to believe the possibility of the reactionary opposition harassing, torturing and killing Black immigrants in Libya. Astonishing.


However, the overwhelming weight of evdience Ive come across suggest your characterisation of the rebel forces and their motives is rather misleading.

Except you have no idea of what you're even talking about so allow me to guide you through this.


"Western educated and Al Queda-backed"? That doesnt quite ring true - people sympathetic to Al Queda on the one hand and singing the praises of David Cameron on the other? Nope, I cant quite buy that one.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8407047/Libyan-rebel-commander-admits-his-fighters-have-al-Qaeda-links.html


In an interview with the Italian newspaper Il Sole 24 Ore, Mr al-Hasidi admitted that he had recruited "around 25" men from the Derna area in eastern Libya to fight against coalition troops in Iraq. Some of them, he said, are "today are on the front lines in Adjabiya".

Mr al-Hasidi insisted his fighters "are patriots and good Muslims, not terrorists," but added that the "members of al-Qaeda are also good Muslims and are fighting against the invader".




His revelations came even as Idriss Deby Itno, Chad's president, said (http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=6060143&c=MID&s=LAN) al-Qaeda had managed to pillage military arsenals in the Libyan rebel zone and acquired arms, "including surface-to-air missiles, which were then smuggled into their sanctuaries"...


US and British government sources said Mr al-Hasidi was a member of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, or LIFG, which killed dozens of Libyan troops in guerrilla attacks around Derna and Benghazi in 1995 and 1996.

Even though the LIFG is not part of the al-Qaeda organisation, the United States military's West Point academy has said the two share an "increasingly co-operative relationship". In 2007, documents captured by allied forces from the town of Sinjar, showed LIFG emmbers made up the second-largest cohort of foreign fighters in Iraq, after Saudi Arabia..

Earlier this month, al-Qaeda issued a call for supporters to back the Libyan rebellion, which it said would lead to the imposition of "the stage of Islam" in the country.Awesome, man. Keep supporting those "revolutionaries". Are you buying it now? :laugh:



And as for being being western educated since when does this constitue a crime and who precisely are your talking about? Every rebel, a majority or just a tiny minority?

I'll leave you to decide...

http://www.washington.edu/news/articles/uw-faculty-member-ali-tarhouni-named-finance-minister-by-libyan-opposition-1


“Tarhouni understands the Western mentality,” opposition spokeswoman Iman Bugaighis told Reuters.Iman Bugaighis is the spokeswoman of the Libyan Provisional Transitional National Council, the main rebel leadership.

How you don't see that this opposition force is run neoliberal-minded reactionaries is testament to your actual understanding of this situation. You really have no idea of what is going on or else this would be common knowledge to you. Like I said, please keep parroting the line of the opposition and live in the delusion that this is a working class movement for the betterment of the Libyan people. Fact and reality, as it continues to unfold, is proving you dead wrong constantly.

[robbo203]

Do you think Saddam should have gone or should he have been supported? What is robbo203's answer to this question? Are you capable of giving an honest answer?

See how ridiculous the premise is?

Yes of course I think Saddam should have gone. Just as I think the billionaire tryant Gaddafi should go. What a stupid question. I thought it would have been plain enough by now what my honest answer to it would have been.

The real question to which I am still waiting for an honest answer from you and your pals in the PSL is do you think Saddam should have gone and do you think Gaddafi should go. Looks like Ill be waiting till the cows come hoime before I get an honest answer from you

[manic expression]

Yes of course I think Saddam should have gone.
George W Bush thanks you for your support.

Millions of Iraqi men, women and children don't.

[Luís Henrique]

Western educated, Al Queda-backed rebels.

This goes beyond ridiculous. What are they, pro-Western neoliberals educated in London, or Al Qaida fanatical enemies of the West?

This starts to sound like the Rothschild-Bolshevik conspiration that some used to believe.

Luís Henrique

[Chimurenga.]

This goes beyond ridiculous. What are they, pro-Western neoliberals educated in London, or Al Qaida fanatical enemies of the West?

This starts to sound like the Rothschild-Bolshevik conspiration that some used to believe.

Luís Henrique

I already posted the sources and the facts. Its up to you whether you want to join the rest of us in reality. I can say that there is no conspiracy here, pal.

[Luís Henrique]

Do you think Saddam should have gone or should he have been supported? What is robbo203's answer to this question? Are you capable of giving an honest answer?

See how ridiculous the premise is?

Of course Saddam should have gone. There should be absolutely no doubt about this among leftists - much more of the "revolutionary" variety, which we are supposed to belong to, here.

The issue however, is completely different: Saddam should have gone through a popular uprising against his dictatorship. But such uprising didn't happen, or at least it did not coincide with the occasion the imperialists chose to attack Iraq (there were two different uprisings a few years earlier, one in the Shiite South, another in the Kurdish North; they might or might not qualify as "popular" uprisings, but both had been quelled by the regime by 2003). And so the question at the time of the invasion was not, "should Saddam go, or should he be supported", but, rather, wheter were the imperialist forces the legitimate agents of Saddam's toppling.

The differences between Libya 2011 and Iraq 2003 start by the decisive fact that there is an ongoing popular uprising against Gaddafy. That's were a Marxist analysis should begin: in the class struggle on the ground. Not in bourgeois international politics.

Luís Henrique

[manic expression]

Of course Saddam should have gone. There should be absolutely no doubt about this among leftists - much more of the "revolutionary" variety, which we are supposed to belong to, here.

The issue however, is completely different:
That's not the point at all here. The point is that posing a question such as "Should x be gone or do you support x?" is a false dichotomy. It is not only about if x should go, it is as much about what is the y that replaces it.

As for the rest of your post, the "popular uprising" now only exists because of imperialist bombs and missiles. Thus, this "popular uprising" is now a pawn of the imperialists at best. Imperialism must be defeated if the people of Libya are to see any progress.

[Luís Henrique]

the "popular uprising" now only exists because of imperialist bombs and missiles. Thus, this "popular uprising" is now a pawn of the imperialists at best.

That's absurd. The popular uprising exists because the living standards of Libyans have been quickly falling from 2008. The only "pawn of imperialism" there is Gaddafy's regime, that has been implementing IMF "austerity" policies against the Libyan people.


Imperialism must be defeated if the people of Libya are to see any progress.

Defeating imperialism on the Libyan ground starts by defeating Gaddafy's regime.

Luís Henrique

[synthesis]

The problem here is that the nature of the situation in Libya is different from that of Egypt and Tunisia, where the protesters essentially united to demand a more transparent bourgeois democracy.

It really is more like Iraq in that Libya instead has many different, diametrically-opposed quasi-ethnic factions competing for supremacy in the country, who are (were) only held in check by a military strongman with intranational allegiances of his own. "Freedom" and "stability" are tricky things to balance.

6BEsZMvrq-I

[Chimurenga.]

That's absurd. The popular uprising exists because the living standards of Libyans have been quickly falling from 2008. The only "pawn of imperialism" there is Gaddafy's regime, that has been implementing IMF "austerity" policies against the Libyan people.



Defeating imperialism on the Libyan ground starts by defeating Gaddafy's regime.

:blink:

You have really lost touch with reality and live in a complete state of delusion.