Seriously, where are we supposed to stand on Libya?

[Post-Something]

I'm aware that a lot of people on this site are actually rooting for Gaddafi, and that everyone is against NATOs intervention, and that the rebels are seen as a terrible group of people by some. But I've been debating with a lot of people, and I still don't know where to stand.

Originally I thought that I would be pro the rebels since Gaddafi seems like such a terrible dictator, who attacked his own people and won't budge from his seat when asked. But obviously I had to be really skeptical about the NATO intervention. It just seems too easy for the forces to come up with an excuse to send in land forces, and the UN resolution doesn't even say anything against it. It seems like they don't want to make this an occupation though, but they will definitely take advantage of the rebels weak bargaining position after Gaddafi loses. It looks like the most likely outcome is the west making Libya open up its economy to foreign investors a bit and making them follow a political line thats more agreeable to them.

So thats really the choice, whether you side with Gaddafi, a brutal dictator, or the rebels and their NATO assistance. Well why not just be pro rebel and anti NATO? It seems to me that you can't just support the rebels and not the NATO intervention because:

1. the rebels probably wouldn't win without NATO

2. the rebels and others specifically asked NATO to help since nobody else could or would, and they knew that Nato et al had vested interests in helping them.

3. The no fly zone couldn't have been done by any other countries because they didn't have the political will power, military strength, or were busy with their own situations, like in Egypt.

Now, to me, I'd much rather just side with the rebels and get rid of Gaddafi. It seems like selling off oil at a lower price and maybe even offering the western forces a little bit of geopolitical manouverability is better than living under Gaddafi, seriously.

So, thats why for now I'm going to hang in and see what events do unfold in Libya, but Id like somebody to explain to me why I should be against the NATO intervention, and if you want to try maybe even why I should just root for Gaddafi in this one.

[khad]

This thread again. Let's be honest. You aren't asking for anyone to convince you otherwise. All it is is an exercise in self-validation.

I will say this, however. You'd better pray long and hard that the tiny fraction of rebels that conforms to your western democratic aspirations doesn't get murdered by mafia, fundies, and monarchists after all this is over.

[Post-Something]

Well, actually I am, because I believed otherwise until today. And now I really don't know where to stand.

And they would have been killed if Gaddafi was going to win as well

[khad]

Translated from a French report based on a fact finding mission in April:


Cyrenacia was always been reluctant to accept the rule of Tripolitania and the authority of Colonel Kadhafi - despite having taken a wife in the east - has never been accepted: the influence of the ancient Senoussi monarchy and as well as that of the Muslim Brotherhood continue to be regularly demonstrated.

Benghazi is known as a den of religious extremism. The Cyrenaica region has an ancient Islamist tradition going back to the Senussi brotherhood. Religious fundamentalism there is much more marked than in the West of the country: women are completely veiled, cannot drive and their social life is reduced to a minimum. The population is dominated by bearded men, who often have the black mark of piety [the zebibah] on their foreheads.

It is a little-known fact that Benghazi has become over the last 15 years the epicenter of African migration to Europe. This traffic in human beings has been transformed into a veritable industry, generating billions of dollars. A parallel mafia world has developed in the city, where the traffic is firmly implanted and employs thousands of people, while corrupting police and civil servants. It was only a year ago that the Libyan government, with the help of Italy, managed to bring this cancer under control.

Following the disappearance of its main source of revenue and the arrest of a number of its bosses, the local mafia took the lead in financing and supporting the Libyan rebellion. Numerous gangs and members of the city’s criminal underworld are known to have conducted punitive expeditions against African migrant workers in Benghazi and its suburbs. Since the start of the rebellion, several hundred migrant workers, Sudanese, Somalis, Ethiopians, and Eritreans, have been robbed and murdered by rebel militias. This fact is carefully hidden by the international media.

--

The Transitional Council is a coalition of disparate elements with different interests, whose only common feature is their determined opposition to the regime. True democrats ["Les véritables démocrates"] are but a minority and are virtual hostages to partisans for a return of the monarchy or the installation of radical Islam, as well as new converts from the old regime. These three factions have understood that they must put up a front to reassure, if not fool, the West. Yet as history has repeatedly shown, the defenders of freedom rarely emerged victorious in a "united front strategy" shared with other armed and determined actors.

The CNT does not, as a result, offer any guarantee, despite the evidently good wishes of the democrats, because the the officials of the old regime, monarchists, and the Islamists intend to dominate and effectively guide the board in the direction of their goals.

--

The monarchists are not democrats and are remain opposed to all forms of modern government, despite their declarations to the contrary. One of their motivations is their wild desire to take revenge on history, following a coup d'etat in 1969, and they have no other goal except for the reestablishment of the monarchy and to eliminate Kadhafi.

One of their the tribal leaders [the authors] met in Tobruk - a local leader of the Transitional Council whose father was a minister under King Idriss - has made no mystery of his opinion: the monarchy is for him a indispensable condition for the stability of the country.

[jake williams]

I'm aware that a lot of people on this site are actually rooting for Gaddafi, and that everyone is against NATOs intervention, and that the rebels are seen as a terrible group of people by some.
I think it's rather the other way around. Very few people here are actually Gaddafi supporters in an unqualified sense, perhaps two or three, and they're a small part of the debate. But quite a few people are tacitly or not supporting the NATO intervention, yourself included.

khad is probably right, but just for shits: the rebels are a coalition led basically by ex-patriate business people, bringing in anti-Gaddafi groups from leftists and liberals to Muslim fundamentalists. There's absolutely no reason to support them and no reason to believe that they would in any way improve the situation in Libya. And even if they were a positive or legitimate force of resistance against Gaddafi, a regime of a complex political character which contains many repressive and reactionary tendencies, NATO intervention would still be illegitimate, as it always is. It would've been illegitimate for Nazi Germany to invade India to throw out the British, however illegitimate British rule was in India and whatever sympathy some Indian nationalists had for the Nazis - and even that would be an unambiguously inter-imperialist conflict, something which cannot be said of that in Libya, whatever one thinks of Gaddafi. Any leftists supporting the Nazis, for any reason, would be absolutely on the wrong side of the issue.

[Post-Something]

I think it's rather the other way around. Very few people here are actually Gaddafi supporters in an unqualified sense, perhaps two or three, and they're a small part of the debate. But quite a few people are tacitly or not supporting the NATO intervention, yourself included.

khad is probably right, but just for shits: the rebels are a coalition led basically by ex-patriate business people, bringing in anti-Gaddafi groups from leftists and liberals to Muslim fundamentalists. There's absolutely no reason to support them and no reason to believe that they would in any way improve the situation in Libya. And even if they were a positive or legitimate force of resistance against Gaddafi, a regime of a complex political character which contains many repressive and reactionary tendencies, NATO intervention would still be illegitimate, as it always is. It would've been illegitimate for Nazi Germany to invade India to throw out the British, however illegitimate British rule was in India and whatever sympathy some Indian nationalists had for the Nazis - and even that would be an unambiguously inter-imperialist conflict, something which cannot be said of that in Libya, whatever one thinks of Gaddafi. Any leftists supporting the Nazis, for any reason, would be absolutely on the wrong side of the issue.

Ok, thanks, but wouldn't you at least expect them to improve the situation in Libya by making it:

1. easier to propose changes to government and policies

2. at least in the future give power to other sectors of society to make it more balanced (checks and balances)

And your point about under no circumstances supporting NATO, what is the worst that they can do do you think?

[khad]

Ok, thanks, but wouldn't you at least expect them to improve the situation in Libya by making it:

1. easier to propose changes to government and policies

2. at least in the future give power to other sectors of society to make it more balanced (checks and balances)

And your point about under no circumstances supporting NATO, what is the worst that they can do do you think?
And all of this is irrelevant because the chance of so-called democratic forces prevailing is approximately zero.

[Post-Something]

And all of this is irrelevant because the chance of so-called democratic forces prevailing is approximately zero.

I read the article, but where did you get it from?
Its a good point, but how do you know that this mafia group is that big an element in the rebel group as a whole? And I was pretty sure that Italy, the uk etc, one of their biggest reasons for this was that if they allowed Gaddafi to keep going, people would leave the country in huge numbers to Europe, so it seems unlikely that they would support a group who used to make their money off of getting people over there.

[khad]

I read the article, but where did you get it from?
Its a good point, but how do you know that this mafia group is that big an element in the rebel group as a whole?
See, now you are just speculating, whereas the Benghazi mafia and Al-Qaeda narcotics cartels in Africa are a documented fact. Billions of dollars flowing. I'm sure you can figure out how much that's worth in Africa.

http://ethiopiantimes.wordpress.com/2011/04/19/benghazi-human-traffickers-back-in-business/

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htterr/20100412.aspx

http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/morocco/101101/morocco-battles-al-qaeda-the-islamic-maghreb

[Post-Something]

Ok, Ill read these articles, thanks for the links. You're right though I looked up the commanders and leaders and they just seem to be splinters from Gadaffis old regime, Americans and Neoliberals. I guess Ill just watch from now on and hope that the conflict doesn't drag on too long.

[Tim Finnegan]

I'm still not sure why "we" need to take a "stand" one way or the other. The working class is going to get screwed regardless of who wins, and we can't do anything to influence the situation. All we can do is offer solidarity to Libyan workers should the opportunity arise, however that might be. Anything else is just tossing opinions around.

[Impulse97]

As I see it, the working class of Libya is fucked either way. They aren't conscious enough yet and none of the current factions vying for power give a flying crap about the workers or their needs. Somehow a working class movement must get going before either current faction has a chance to secure power. That, it seems, is highly unlikely. We as Communists need to figure out a way to change that, and fast.

[Post-Something]

I'm still not sure why "we" need to take a "stand" one way or the other. The working class is going to lose one way or the other, and we can't do anything to influence the situation. All we can do is offer solidarity to Libyan workers should the opportunity arise, however that might be.

Yeah, I didn't mean that sentance literally, I meant it as in how are we supposed to understand the situation. But it is important to imagine ourselves in their shoes, and what we would do in their place.

[DaringMehring]

I doubt the possibility of a monarchical restoration or extremist takeover. At this point, the rebel movement has been taken over by western powers. The firepower and direction comes from NATO. If they win, it will be NATO's victory. That will result in a weak and dysfunctional government with the trappings of bourgeois "democracy" that will be dominated by the interests of foreign capital, not a monarchy or theocracy.

NATO hijacked the Libyan revolutionary movement. I think it was correct to support them before that happened, but it is now a decisively accomplished fact, and no communist can support NATO. So, take your pick of, indifference to the battle between two oppressions, or preference for at least a native oppression (Gaddhafi).

[jake williams]

I'm still not sure why "we" need to take a "stand" one way or the other. The working class is going to get screwed regardless of who wins, and we can't do anything to influence the situation. All we can do is offer solidarity to Libyan workers should the opportunity arise, however that might be. Anything else is just tossing opinions around.
I live in a country that is contributing substantially to one particular side, through military intervention within NATO and through political and probably financial support for the anti-Gaddafi forces. If you think the working class in Canada has any capacity to change this policy, which I do, at least in principle, and you disagree with this policy, which I also do, then you do have a political responsibility to take a position and it is your place to "take a side", albeit not necessarily one which entails abstract moral statements.

That it's unlikely the working class in Canada in this particular instance will change this policy is a separate question. If we only ever engaged in actions which we were convinced would be successful, we should probably give up now.

[Sensible Socialist]

We really need to get over this idea of support. Unless you have a plane ticket to Libya, your online declarations of support for a particular group mean absolutely nothing. I don't see why the entire left needs a collective viewpoint. Look at the facts and decide for yourself.

On issues of theory, I can see why a certain degree of unity is needed. There needs to be a defined view of what socialism is, what a socialist society will look like, etc. But on foreign events, I think it's fine if some of us disagree. Will I look differently upon you if you declare your support for a power-hungry ruler, or an imperialist organization? Sure, but I think it's better than the usual clusterfuck we have when someone doesn't know where they stand, so instead of thinking for themselves they rush to the interwebz for their opinions.

It's fine to debate these issues, but don't keep this shitfest up. Think for yourself, god dammit.

[Tim Finnegan]

I live in a country that is contributing substantially to one particular side, through military intervention within NATO and through political and probably financial support for the anti-Gaddafi forces. If you think the working class in Canada has any capacity to change this policy, which I do, at least in principle, and you disagree with this policy, which I also do, then you do have a political responsibility to take a position and it is your place to "take a side", albeit not necessarily one which entails abstract moral statements.

That it's unlikely the working class in Canada in this particular instance will change this policy is a separate question. If we only ever engaged in actions which we were convinced would be successful, we should probably give up now.
You're right, yes; I was only referring to the idea among some leftists that we are obligated to "choose" between Gaddafi or the NTC, which I should've made more clear.

[Post-Something]

We really need to get over this idea of support. Unless you have a plane ticket to Libya, your online declarations of support for a particular group mean absolutely nothing. I don't see why the entire left needs a collective viewpoint. Look at the facts and decide for yourself.

On issues of theory, I can see why a certain degree of unity is needed. There needs to be a defined view of what socialism is, what a socialist society will look like, etc. But on foreign events, I think it's fine if some of us disagree. Will I look differently upon you if you declare your support for a power-hungry ruler, or an imperialist organization? Sure, but I think it's better than the usual clusterfuck we have when someone doesn't know where they stand, so instead of thinking for themselves they rush to the interwebz for their opinions.

It's fine to debate these issues, but don't keep this shitfest up. Think for yourself, god dammit.

I know, I am trying to think for myself, thats why I was asking people to show where I was wrong. This issue has divided a lot of peope in my family and its important to them because they want to know as much as they can before they decide to start supporting groups over here in Jordan.

[jake williams]

Saddam Hussein was a pretty objectionable figure too. His domestic opponents didn't only have many legitimate grievances - on the whole, though the point is a bit academic, they were generally more progressive than are the anti-Gaddafi forces in Libya right now. They shared important similarities however. They're both fairly authoritarian nationalist leaders with an ambiguous foreign policy on Western imperialism, although Hussein clearly spent a far greater part of his political life siding with the West, against his "own" people and people in the region. They both oversaw national development regimes on oil profits which led to substantial increases in living standards, with expansion in quality and access to healthcare and education. They both have a history of repressing left and working class forces. They also both became targets of Western imperialism because they represented both geostrategic opposition, because they represented independent control of oil, and because they represented some measure of national independence more generally, however un- or even anti-democratic.

The left, however, almost with the sole personal exception of Christopher Hitchens, viewed the idea of Bush's Iraq War as absolutely unacceptable. The main difference, frankly, between this war and the Iraq War are the participation of America's "left" imperialists, and the relative importance of European imperialists.

The working class failed to stop the Iraq War, despite significant effort, one of the largest and most powerful anti-war movements in world history (if not the most) and of a broadly internationalist character, crossing important political lines and bringing in, for example, a large number of religious groups, opening up possibilities for class unity with Muslim immigrants in Europe and North America, and so on. I don't think it would at all be reasonable, however, either to assert that the movement against the war was without effect because its maximal goals (stopping the war) were ultimately unrealized, or, even more absurdly, to assert that the working class in Europe and North America in particular were wrong to "take a stand" against the war.

It's easy enough to say that "taking a 'position' on the internet" is irrelevant, but that's true enough fo all discussions on RevLeft. That's not the point. RevLeft isn't political activism and no one thinks it is, but the debates that in part take place here are relevant to the actual work which some if not most of us do in the real world.


edit:


You're right, yes; I was only referring to the idea among some leftists that we are obligated to "choose" between Gaddafi or the NTC, which I should've made more clear.
Fair enough, and I would agree. I think the Iraq case is fairly instructive.

[Luís Henrique]

The working class is going to get screwed regardless of who wins

The working class is already screwed.

And not just in Libya...

Luís Henrique

[Dr Mindbender]

Where i stand :-

The US/UK/Rebel faction represents the greater of 2 evils. If they succeed, Libya will stand to become an outpost for neo liberal exploitation with the countries remaining state owned resources syphoned off to western banks with the local population subdued into playing along. Furthermore this will expand the precedence for the west to push forward even more. If Gaddafi wins it will represent a symbolic stand that the NATO giant for all its strength can be defeated which will send a message to the people of the west that maybe this isn't such a good idea as well as to other countries who may be in their imperialist radar that the west can be defeated and to hold their ground.

Gaddafi's son has truthfully said that the mistake Libya made was demilitarising by scrapping their nuclear program and downsizing their army. Once their guard was let down, it opened the floodgates for an invasion. I really hope Mahmoud ahmadinejad and Kim Jung Il are taking note of Libya's misguided trust in these backstabbers and maintain their national deterrence systems.

How i think the left should respond- we should hope for the defeat of the reactionary NATO-rebel axis but in keeping an eye on the long term champion the toppling of the Gaddafi regime by a democratic, socialist and just as importantly, indigenous Libyan people's movement.

[agnixie]

If they succeed, Libya will stand to become an outpost for neo liberal exploitation with the countries remaining state owned resources syphoned off to western banks with the local population subdued into playing along.

I'll break the news to you, it already is.



Furthermore this will expand the precedence for the west to push forward even more. If Gaddafi wins it will represent a symbolic stand that the NATO giant for all its strength can be defeated which will send a message to the people of the west that maybe this isn't such a good idea as well as to other countries who may be in their imperialist radar that the west can be defeated and to hold their ground.
Yes, because obviously, a half-hearted aerial campaign totally negates a few decades of imperial wars. Vietnam didn't stop the US, Afghanistan didn't stop Russia.



Gaddafi's son has truthfully said that the mistake Libya made was demilitarising by scrapping their nuclear program and downsizing their army. Once their guard was let down, it opened the floodgates for an invasion. I really hope Mahmoud ahmadinejad and Kim Jung Il are taking note of Libya's misguided trust in these backstabbers and maintain their national deterrence systems.
I love how your anti-imperialist brings you to support capitalist bourgeois nationalists and a racist military pseudo-monarchy where the working class is currently starving. Clearly there was a lot of class politics going into that one.



How i think the left should respond- we should hope for the defeat of the reactionary NATO-rebel axis but in keeping an eye on the long term champion the toppling of the Gaddafi regime by a democratic, socialist and just as importantly, indigenous Libyan people's movement.

Which people here will probably decry as evil traitors the moment they start asking for foreign help from the wrong countries should the military prove too powerful. I expect history to do the same to many of these revolutions as marxist-leninist revisionists did with Spain (and before I get the "but I'm anti-revisionist" whining, no, about Spain, you fucking aren't).

[jake williams]

I'll break the news to you, it already is.
No it isn't. If all its "remaining state-owned assets" were actually already sold off to Western powers, it wouldn't have basically the highest material living standards of any African country.

Presently Libya's financial assets abroad (note below) are literally being stolen by Western banks, some of which they're simply pocketing and some of which either are or will be used to buy weapons from Western arms companies, which will then be used by NATO's thugs to loot whatever is left, hopefully slowly and ineffectively so as to create more demand for weapons, but we can't be sure. Western companies were openly stealing Libyan assets within the first few days of the war. So it's not a myth. Certainly neoliberalism and collaboration with imperialism under Gaddafi are real problems, but the basic objective facts are that Gaddafi's regime have developed and maintained high living standards and that the "rebels" and their NATO allies don't just threaten to undermine those living standards and steal the country's assets for themselves and the West; they're already doing it.


NOTE: Libya's investible assets are Gaddafi's "personal assets" in a fairly minor sense. Libya is not a fundamentally democratic country and he isn't a modest man, but almost none of the oil profits are spent on him personally. Most of them are, in fact, used to develop the country; as a sovereign wealth fund they're "personal assets" about as much as Norway's sovereign wealth fund, which indirectly maintaining all of Scandinavian social democracy on oil profits, represent the Norwegian king's personal expense account (or, as Forbes has argued, that the Castro family owns literally everything in Cuba by definition). I say this neither as a supporter of the Norwegian monarchy, nor of Scandinavian social democracy, both of which are enemies of the working class, as are neoliberal reaction, racist or religious fundamentalist reaction, and the lack of workers' democracy in Libya.


I love how your anti-imperialist brings you to support capitalist bourgeois nationalists and a racist military pseudo-monarchy where the working class is currently starving. Clearly there was a lot of class politics going into that one.
Did you or didn't you support the Iraq War?

[agnixie]

No it isn't. If all its "remaining state-owned assets" were actually already sold off to Western powers, it wouldn't have basically the highest material living standards of any African country.
:rolleyes:



NOTE: Libya's investible assets are Gaddafi's "personal assets" in a fairly minor sense. Libya is not a fundamentally democratic country and he isn't a modest man, but almost none of the oil profits are spent on him personally. Most of them are, in fact, used to develop the country; as a sovereign wealth fund they're "personal assets" about as much as Norway's sovereign wealth fund, which indirectly maintaining all of Scandinavian social democracy on oil profits, represent the Norwegian king's personal expense account (or, as Forbes has argued, that the Castro family owns literally everything in Cuba by definition). I say this neither as a supporter of the Norwegian monarchy, nor of Scandinavian social democracy, both of which are enemies of the working class, as are neoliberal reaction, racist or religious fundamentalist reaction, and the lack of workers' democracy in Libya. [/SIZE]
I'd like a source, because most of Gaddafi's projects have essentially been relatively similar to the gulf monarchies. I don't really give a damn what Forbes has to say about Cuba, as Castro is the eternal enemy while Gaddafi was, until two months ago, the west's stalwart ally in the face of terrorism.



Did you or didn't you support the Iraq War?
And back to the strawmen. No, but I wasn't for Saddam either.

[Reznov]

First off, there is no, "where are WE supposed to stand", there is however what do you guys think? We aren't sheep who all follow one line of thought.

That said, you answered your own question pretty well, and I would say I agree with that same position you seem to have taken from the beginning of your post.

[Luís Henrique]

How i think the left should respond- we should hope for the defeat of the reactionary NATO-rebel axis

This is what the left has been reduced to? Hoping for for the victory of a tin-foil dictator of a small country of 6 million inhabitants...?

The left should be working to defeat the intervention where it can be defeated - in the central countries. Of course, this would require an actual political intervention inside the military of these countries, something the left has long abdicated - sometimes under the most ridiculous pretexts, such as "the military are not working class".

Wake up. Gaddafy is not the force that can defeat imperialism. And the defeat of the intervention cannot be based on the policiac smashing of dissent in Libya.

Luís Henrique

[Dr Mindbender]

This is what the left has been reduced to? Hoping for for the victory of a tin-foil dictator of a small country of 6 million inhabitants...?

The left should be working to defeat the intervention where it can be defeated - in the central countries. Of course, this would require an actual political intervention inside the military of these countries, something the left has long abdicated - sometimes under the most ridiculous pretexts, such as "the military are not working class".

Wake up. Gaddafy is not the force that can defeat imperialism. And the defeat of the intervention cannot be based on the policiac smashing of dissent in Libya.

Luís Henrique

Well done on cherry picking choice sentences and taking me out of context. I am not saying Gaddafi is the force that can defeat imperialism in Libya. What I am saying is that a Rebel victory is the force that can consolidate imperialism in Libya, arguably the broader arab world making it harder to shift. We should hope for Gaddafi's victory not because of his ideas but because of the common political interests. If Obama and Cameron get a bloody nose on this one perhaps they will think twice about adventures in Iran and Syria. Nor do we want to give Israel a regional ally.

[Zealot]

To be honest, before NATO got involved I was indifferent about the whole thing but now it's quite clear what is going to happen. I would rather swallow my pride and support the prevention of imperialism. It is yet to be proved that Gaddafi slaughtered 10,000 civilians and in fact Russian intel have claimed their satellites showed no such thing. This myth is what legitimized NATO intervention in the first place, which leaves you wondering what the hell the reason for this war actually is, and then it all becomes obvious.

[Luís Henrique]

What I am saying is that a Rebel victory is the force that can consolidate imperialism in Libya

Imperialism is already consolidated in Libya.


We should hope for Gaddafi's victory not because of his ideas but because of the common political interests.

We shouldn't hope for anything. We should fight for our goals.

And we have no common political interests with Gaddafy. We are communists, our interest is the liberation of the working class world wide; Gaddafy's interest is the continuation of the oppression and exploitation of the working class in Libya. They are mutually exclusive.


If Obama and Cameron get a bloody nose on this one perhaps they will think twice about adventures in Iran and Syria. Nor do we want to give Israel a regional ally.

First, they won't get a bloody nose. Second, much worse bloody noses were given to imperialists in Vietnam, and it never stopped them. They don't do those things because they wish, but because the interests they represent mandate so.

Oh, and Libya under Gaddafy is such a threat to Israel... :rolleyes:

Luís Henrique

[nuisance]

i don't like this idea of 'we' in this context.

[Comrade Crow]

I think it's rather the other way around. Very few people here are actually Gaddafi supporters in an unqualified sense, perhaps two or three, and they're a small part of the debate. But quite a few people are tacitly or not supporting the NATO intervention, yourself included.

khad is probably right, but just for shits: the rebels are a coalition led basically by ex-patriate business people, bringing in anti-Gaddafi groups from leftists and liberals to Muslim fundamentalists. There's absolutely no reason to support them and no reason to believe that they would in any way improve the situation in Libya. And even if they were a positive or legitimate force of resistance against Gaddafi, a regime of a complex political character which contains many repressive and reactionary tendencies, NATO intervention would still be illegitimate, as it always is. It would've been illegitimate for Nazi Germany to invade India to throw out the British, however illegitimate British rule was in India and whatever sympathy some Indian nationalists had for the Nazis - and even that would be an unambiguously inter-imperialist conflict, something which cannot be said of that in Libya, whatever one thinks of Gaddafi. Any leftists supporting the Nazis, for any reason, would be absolutely on the wrong side of the issue.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

[Dr Mindbender]

Imperialism is already consolidated in Libya.

Clearly it isnt consolidated enough otherwise the Royal Air Force would not see the need to bomb the shit out of Tripoli.




We shouldn't hope for anything. We should fight for our goals.

In this context, our immediate goals are unrealistic. A socialist outcome is not going to be the end game of this confrontation between gaddafi and the rebels. The best we can hope for is the defeat of the rebels and for the NATO control to remain that much smaller.




First, they won't get a bloody nose. Second, much worse bloody noses were given to imperialists in Vietnam, and it never stopped them. They don't do those things because they wish, but because the interests they represent mandate so.
I think they sorely need a reminder.

Secondly a defeat would be a PR disaster between the western leaders and their public.




Oh, and Libya under Gaddafy is such a threat to Israel... :rolleyes:

Luís Henrique
For all his faults Gaddafi has been a vocal opponent of zionism and for the most part a sympathiser of the Palestinian cause. Of course it is against USA-Israel's interests for him to remain in office.

[W1N5T0N]

what bullshit.
Only because they aren't neo liberal whatever, doesn't mean they are right.
They are fucked up in the head, all of 'em.

[agnixie]

Clearly it isnt consolidated enough otherwise the Royal Air Force would not see the need to bomb the shit out of Tripoli.
"Noriega was not a tool of american imperialism, after all, the US bombed him. Let's raise our voices for a great anti-imperialist."



In this context, our immediate goals are unrealistic. A socialist outcome is not going to be the end game of this confrontation between gaddafi and the rebels. The best we can hope for is the defeat of the rebels and for the NATO control to remain that much smaller.
Therefore we must compromise and lionize a fascist. Gotcha.



I think they sorely need a reminder.
Which will accomplish exactly what?



Secondly a defeat would be a PR disaster between the western leaders and their public.

Lybia is a country of six millions, its navy is at the bottom of the med and its airforce is gone. In what world are they going to defeat anyone if NATO could do that in two weeks of light involvement, and when they're on the doorstep of NATO at all. If anything, the "anti-imps" solution, right now, is to prolong the conflict into a bloody guerilla war which will either collapse due to a lack of support in the population, or cause deaths by the hundreds of thousands. Unless the west gets bored. It will do fuck all for Lybia, fuck all against imperialism, and will change fuck all about anyone's perceptions of NATO, it will just be more feel good bullshit from dumbass western stalinoids who aren't doing the dying. To keep a fascistoid billionaire in power. Who will be in some imperial sphere anyway; if not the US, France or Britain, then Russia or China.



For all his faults Gaddafi has been a vocal opponent of zionism and for the most part a sympathiser of the Palestinian cause. Of course it is against USA-Israel's interests for him to remain in office.

Saudi Arabia is also loud about Palestine - doesn't mean they're accomplishing anything, it's mostly nationalist pandering for the gallery at home.

[Dr Mindbender]

Therefore we must compromise and lionize a fascist. Gotcha.
By what measure is the Libyan population conditioned to overthrow a hypothetical post-Gaddafi NATO backed Royalist regime?



Which will accomplish exactly what?
Several things-

It will serve as a propaganda defeat at home and garner public support against British involvement in Libya and any consequent countries that NATO will set its sights on in precedence of this.

It will also serve as a blow to operational morale to imperialist adventures further afield, ie. afghanistan.




Lybia is a country of six millions, its navy is at the bottom of the med and its airforce is gone. In what world are they going to defeat anyone if NATO could do that in two weeks of light involvement, and when they're on the doorstep of NATO at all. If anything, the "anti-imps" solution, right now, is to prolong the conflict into a bloody guerilla war which will either collapse due to a lack of support in the population, or cause deaths by the hundreds of thousands. Unless the west gets bored. It will do fuck all for Lybia, fuck all against imperialism, and will change fuck all about anyone's perceptions of NATO, it will just be more feel good bullshit from dumbass western stalinoids who aren't doing the dying. To keep a fascistoid billionaire in power. Who will be in some imperial sphere anyway; if not the US, France or Britain, then Russia or China.

The Vietcong defeated the worlds most powerful superpower not with battleships or fighter jets but primarilly with organised and resourceful guerrilla soldiers.

Furthermore if the NATO axis wants Gaddafi they will have to go through most of the population of Tripoli. That is a lot of bloodshed i'm sure they want to avoid. Its precisely why they've been hesitant to put boots on the ground. Gaddafi has consolidated his position and bar a lucky air raid he aint going anywhere soon.

[agnixie]

By what measure is the Libyan population conditioned to overthrow a hypothetical post-Gaddafi NATO backed Royalist regime?

There is no monarchist restoration planned, this is a bullshit story made up by the Stalinoids when they saw the flag. Fun fact: the South Yemenite rebels are starting to fly the flag of the PDRY. It doesn't mean they're going socialist, and the socialist party in south yemen is still a destroyed political force, both sides being essentially capitalist.



The Vietcong defeated the worlds most powerful superpower not with battleships or fighter jets but primarilly with organised and resourceful guerrilla soldiers.
A much larger country, a mountain chain in the jungle, a movement that was imposed from abroad rather than started internally, a much larger population AND 3 FUCKING MILLION DEAD. If you want to go fight NATO, go pick up a rifle and bleed yourself instead of forcing a bunch of hapless conscript libyans to die for the safeguard of their neo-fascist, arab nationalist dictatorship.



Furthermore if the NATO axis wants Gaddafi they will have to go through most of the population of Tripoli. That is a lot of bloodshed i'm sure they want to avoid. Its precisely why they've been hesitant to put boots on the ground. Gaddafi has consolidated his position and bar a lucky air raid he aint going anywhere soon.

Can we stop the drama bullshit about calling every group of countries we don't like the politics of "the axis" based on ww2 memories. I'll note that a) Gaddafi has far from universal support in Tripoli and b) the city of Tripoli is only a city of about one million.