Yay or Nay Libyan Civil War

[B0LSHEVIK]

Qaddafi was by his own account a 'third positionist.' Before Qaddafi there was a European placed monarchy. After him, there was Qaddafi. He overthrew a king and proclaimed a Republic, something that strikes any logical person as progressive. And indeed financed largely by Libya's oil reserves, Libya has one of the highest literacy rates in Africa, health care and education are widely available and indeed, all have access. There is lack of political freedom. A police state of course. To some degree, a devout muslim with Al-sharia being law of the land. He did prevent US/UK forces access to one of Africa's naturally richest countries. But that shouldnt imply that he wasnt a tool of the Soviets, French or Chinese either however. But all in all, Libya seemed to have progressed. That's why this recent UN adventure reeks of imperialist ambition. Why dont they do this for Sudan or Rwanda or Yemen, or Syria, one might wonder. Its a tough call with no right or wrong really, just contrary perceptions. What do you think?

[thesadmafioso]

Where is the 'neither war nor peace' option?

I have yet to see any real proletarian basis to this rebellion and am thus somewhat suspicious of its political aims and the value of its objectives to the international class struggle, but at the same time they do look to oust a maniacal nationalistic and theocratic dictator who was willing to use aerial bombing runs to suppress protesters. Gaddafi is deserving of no support from the left and he is certainly not worthy of defense, but it is hard to really support the rebel movement due to its strong relation to western imperialism and its lack of proletarian based demands. I mean, sure, a bourgeois revolution would be a start, but it is questionable as to whether or not that is the likely outcome of this campaign due to its strong ties to the superpowers of capitalism.

[B0LSHEVIK]

I agree with him too ^

But, lets give Qaddafi credit where credit is due. Its only fair.;)


Oh, and I didnt include that one because its practically over now, and, really, you cant change whats done.

[BIG BROTHER]

Is there a neither option? I regret that Libya will fall under the hands of Imperialism and be caught under neo-colonial conditions, but I am not a supporter of the Gadaffi regime either, which was getting close to the imperialists already anyways, probably just not as fast as they wanted.

[Smyg]

I'm heavily in favour of bringing the madman down, but this specific war is nothing I support. There is no good side, it's just a question of who's the lesser evil.

[RedSonRising]

I really dismay at either side winning.

[Spets]

I don't support violence no matter who it doing against who, so do I support the war, no. Do I support the people in their struggle for democracy, yes, yes I do.

[Sensible Socialist]

It was a fight that would only hurt people, not bring peace. Ghadaffi deserved to be overthrown, but not replaced by imperialist puppets. In any case, nothing good can come of this war, unless of course the people, by some miraculous event, rise up against the NATO forces and truly liberate themselves.

[ExUnoDisceOmnes]

False dichotomy. Next question.

[JoeySteel]

Correct position is Victory to Gaddafi! Death to NATO!

Recognizing the state of the NATO rebels as legitimate is nothing short of crossing an international picket line and scabbing for imperialism. Chavez understands this and said as much.

[socialistjustin]

Correct position is Victory to Gaddafi! Death to NATO!

Recognizing the state of the NATO rebels as legitimate is nothing short of crossing an international picket line and scabbing for imperialism. Chavez understands this and said as much.




I guarantee you wouldnt be so gun ho to support Qaddafi if you were an ordinary Libyan.
Of course we are only buying into western lies and I am sure Qaddafi is awesome. The correct response is to hope the working class liberates themselves like Sensible Socialist said.

[Sugarnotch]

Correct position is Victory to Gaddafi! Death to NATO!

Recognizing the state of the NATO rebels as legitimate is nothing short of crossing an international picket line and scabbing for imperialism. Chavez understands this and said as much.

I'm lead to believe Chavez only says as much because he himself feels under pressure to take a side (and the personal friendship with Gaddafi, no doubt).

[Tim Finnegan]

Recognizing the state of the NATO rebels as legitimate is nothing short of crossing an international picket line and scabbing for imperialism. Chavez understands this and said as much.
Since when did we recognise any bourgeois state as legitimate? :huh:

[Rafiq]

I think Libya doesn't have such a bright future, Qadaffi or no Qadaffi...

[CommunityBeliever]

There is a war in Libya?! Hearing this, all I can think to say is YAY!!!

I love war, especially when it is conducted by NATO. If it wasn't for friends in NATO we wouldn't have access to all this oil.

But I think NATO needs to work harder to fix the over-population problem by killing billions of people, then the remaining small elite won't have to share any of its resources or worry about class struggle.

[blake 3:17]

Pretty good piece: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/aug/24/libyas-imperial-hijacking-threat-arab-revolution

[blake 3:17]

Recognizing the state of the NATO rebels as legitimate is nothing short of crossing an international picket line and scabbing for imperialism. Chavez understands this and said as much.

On CBC news yesterday I heard two pretty interesting interviews. One was with some guy from some State Department consultation firm, who implied the whole thing was a frigging disaster. The other was with a poet, who'd been jailed by Khaddafi, then made a part of the government, then joined the Transitional National Council. He made out that the whole thing would be hunky dory, perfect democracy achieved, yada yada once Khaddafi were captured and tried. What a load of BS. The interviewer was extremely skeptical, but the dude kept it up.

[JoeySteel]

Where is the 'neither war nor peace' option?


I love this. It's basically the same as Trotsky's famous slogan "Neither victory nor defeat." It is nothing but idealism. Lenin demolishes this position in his essay On the Defeat of One's Government in an Imperialism War. But who is ACTUALLY fighting imperialism right now?

http://www.blackagendareport.com/content/libyan-soldier-true-heroes-nato’s-war these folks and their leaders. Every day that they elude and harass the rebels, like the Canadians from Ottawa fighting illegally in a foreign army against Gaddafi, etc, reactionaries who have had their own international brigades from the start. Somehow these rats are considered brave but all the black people fighting to protect african liberation, development, and unity against reactionary and bourgeois emigrates are mercenaries who are slaughtered en masse by the rebels. Somehow many many articles in the media very casually mention the dozens and dozens of sub saharan african corpses in the streets as a natural thing, even recently calling the mass killing and bombing of civilians who were trying to protect gaddafi's compound with their own bodies a "spectre"!

Maybe you're right though and it won't be war or peace for much longer. Just long term destabilization and continued killings between NATO rebels and those crazy Libyans and other African people who don't want to collaborate with the foreign aggressors.

[Dumb]

Is it possible to give (qualified) support to the rebels without supporting NATO's involvement?

[Invader Zim]

I am not a supporter of the Gadaffi regime either, which was getting close to the imperialists already anyways, probably just not as fast as they wanted.

Why do you suppose they wanted to change the status quo at all? It was not NATO that started the civil war and forced the western powers to react. I think that the political advantages to intervention were probably more persuasive than the actual economic or geo-political advantages. The regime was already providing the West with considerable qualities of oil, had pledged to increase that supply, and it was co-operating in the "War on Terror". But Ghaddafi is, on the other hand, deeply unpopular and his massacres of the rebels was being broadcast all over the world. Supporting the intervention was a cheap way of buying popular support, while failure to support intervention would likely have been very unpopular. It kind of reminds me of Thatcher and the war against Argentina, which was not done so much for economic reasons but because it was political suicide for her not to and an election winner if she did.

[Particles]

*Sigh* More American interference. "There's a country with some problems? What can we do to make ourselves look better? Hey guys I know what to do! Lets bomb it, create civil unrest, worsen the situation, spread propaganda and install a new dictator, who will commit atrocities on his own people while we turn a blind eye and supply them with weapons!"

Why hasn't the world done more against America yet?

[Belleraphone]

It's imperialists vs a brutal dictator. Not a lot of the profits go towards helping the people.

[Invader Zim]

*Sigh* More American interference. "There's a country with some problems? What can we do to make ourselves look better? Hey guys I know what to do! Lets bomb it, create civil unrest, worsen the situation, spread propaganda and install a new dictator, who will commit atrocities on his own people while we turn a blind eye and supply them with weapons!"

Why hasn't the world done more against America yet?


I don't think this is really about America, I think it is more about Britain and France who have the most to gain from regime change. As I recall, when the issue was put before the UN, commentators were suggesting that the US really didn't want to be involved and gave the motion vote winning token support because they didn't think it would come to anything because they believed that Russia and/or China would be sure to veto it.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

This thread is a perfect example of a leading question.