Libya intervention is not all bad news...

I've seen so many negative articles about the intervention in Libya and thought I'd post a link to something that was looking at it in a positive light. I myself needed to do this because I was also focusing on the negatives and feeling doubtful about what we're doing. I'm still not sure whether it was the right thing to do or not. Anytime we drop bombs or use guns there're unintended consequences. It's never pretty.

Kristof here in his column says there were many innocents saved, but of what video's I've seen they do not look like innocents to me: they're carrying military arms and resemble, in my eyes, militants. They don't look like citizens. Perhaps this is normal in that kind of country where it's bordering on tribal. From the outset this perception I have of them has clouded my mind. Perhaps the innocents that were saved outweigh any potential problems I think I've seen.

Here is a link to Kristof's Hugs From Libyans column:
www.nytimes.com...

In 2005, the United Nations approved a new doctrine called the “responsibility to protect,” nicknamed R2P, declaring that world powers have the right and obligation to intervene when a dictator devours his people. The Libyan intervention is putting teeth into that fledgling concept, and here’s one definition of progress: The world took three-and-a-half years to respond forcefully to the slaughter in Bosnia, and about three-and-a-half weeks to respond in Libya.

Granted, intervention will be inconsistent. We’re more likely to intervene where there are also oil or security interests at stake. But just as it’s worthwhile to feed some starving children even if we can’t reach them all, it’s worth preventing some massacres or genocides even if we can’t intervene every time.

I opposed the 2003 Iraq invasion because my reporting convinced me that most Iraqis hated Saddam Hussein but didn’t want American forces intruding on their soil. This time my reporting persuades me that most Libyans welcome outside intervention.

And something else I found interesting is here:
www.cbsnews.com...

The air campaign by U.S. and European militaries has unquestionably rearranged the map in Libya and rescued rebels from the immediate threat of annihilation they faced only days ago under a powerful advance by Qaddafi's forces.

Army Gen. Carter Ham, the lead U.S. commander, said it was possible that Qaddafi might manage to retain power.

"I don't think anyone would say that is ideal," the general said, foreseeing a possible outcome that stands in contrast to President Barack Obama's declaration that Qaddafi must go.

The Libyan leader has ruled the North African nation for 42 years and was a target of American air attacks in 1986.

Catch that? We performed air strikes in libya in 1986. This is deja vu?

Here is Muammar Gaddafi's wiki:
en.wikipedia.org...

Gaddafi's Revolutionary committees resembled similar systems in communist countries. Reportedly 10 to 20 percent of Libyans worked in surveillance for these committees, a proportion of informants on par with Saddam Hussein's Iraq or Kim Jong-il's North Korea. The surveillance took place in government, in factories, and in the education sector.[18] Dissent is illegal under Law 75 of 1973. Gaddafi has said that "execution is the fate of anyone who forms a political party".[18]

Engaging in political conversations with foreigners was a crime punishable by three years in prison. Gaddafi removed foreign languages from school curricula. One protester in 2011 described the situation as: "None of us can speak English or French. He kept us ignorant and blindfolded".[19]

The regime often executed dissidents publicly and the executions are rebroadcast on state television channels.[18][20]

Libya under Gaddafi was the most censored country in the Middle East and North Africa, according to the Freedom of the Press Index.

After reading that I got the impression Gaddafi was turning around for the better by 2010 or so. He had dismantled his weapons of mass destruction program and had been working with western powers for years to reduce tensions. But even knowing this it does not erase his corrupt and criminal history. NOnetheless, when rebels picked up arms and fought against him in respose to the protests elsewhere (liike in egypt) we obviously sided with them in the matter. Probably because of Gaddafi's criminal past, not so much what he's done in the past 6 years to redeem. But redeem in what way? He may have stopped the WMD program, but he's still a dictator.

I think ti's telling that russia wnated to establish a base in libya. Makes you question their neutrality on the issue of the intervention. They're saying we were wrong to get involved. But who're they to speak? They obviously have their own strategic interests in the region. Not to mention that Gadaffi, by and large, has presided over a socialist/communist government.

Bottom line, I'm not sure that by helping the rebels we'll help the situation, so long as russia is around to meddle. Furthermore, that region is tribal and is liable to prop up another corrupt leader. The oil increases the friction because people over there want it for the wealth it produces.

Thoughts? Introspections? Criticisms?

Keep this thread pls. I don't know how I made the other double post.

reply to post by jonnywhite


How can we, as a nation who were so outraged by the Iraq Invasion, just sit back and say "but, it's different this time."? You are looking at this situation through the Pro-America MSM filter. The filter where Russia is still a big evil bogieman and America is this shining beacon of truth and light (not to say you buy into it all the way, that's just the line they push). WAKE UP and realize that this whole world is grey. He's a dictator who the superpowers of the world left in place because he played ball, selling out his nation's resources for power and a lot of money. How is he any different from the western leaders of the world?
Now that Obama is worried about reelection, he starts a war to pull the same card as Bush. "Do you want to hand this war off to some newbie who doesn't know what'd going on, or put me back in there to take care of business?" Even if we saved all of the kittens and babies of Libya, killed no civilians and arrested Qaddafi, it's still wrong. Sovereign nations have the right to self-determination, even if patriots have to become martyrs. We had minimal foreign influence during our own revolution, and I think that a solid case could be made to state that we are worse off because of it. From day one, we've had to rely on the help of superpowers against Britain, and on day 2 we started to pay those favors back.
Whoever takes over Libya is going to be enslaved to the rest of the world powers, with no air defenses or radar, they will need UN protection and funding to get back on their feet. Not to mention the fact that we really have no idea who the opposition is. Some are even saying that the armed rebels are really Al-Qaeda and other "terrorists" who bomb Iraq and U.S. soldiers. The point is, we know little of the ways of this part of the world, the relationships, alliances, feuds, and it's insane to think that we can just strut in and lay down the law. We just keep making the same mistakes, but now liberals love it and conservatives hate it.
Obama spins it like a humanitarian intervention and gets support from the left. "we're preventing the next rwanda!"
Bush spins it like a campaign to protect Americans from future threats and gets support from the right. "We gotta get them before they get us!"
Meanwhile, the same jerks behind the scenes pull the strings. We are still overthrowing other nations' governments in order to install friendly dictators who will keep their people from noticing that we're stealing all of their resources AND making the money off of them!
OBAMA IS THE SAME, NO HOPE, NO CHANGE.

With a threat title like this have you thought about joining the Westboro Baptist Church? It just sounds like you are trying to have a celebration at a funeral. The US-NATO are only out for themselves with the multinational robber barons the ones who will be winning at the end of the day. The more I have looked into who Gaddafi is and how he is governing his nation the more respect I have for for him. There are about 20-70 dictatorships around the world, but even in a democratic nation the state can still inflict harsh punishment against so called threats, eg Bradley Manning and Gitmo bay.

I know the media is trying to hype this up and spin it all around. At least you have access to the internet so you can dig a bit deeper and see the other side of the issue. I have had too much pain in my life to get excited by war, it is sad, immature and an evil place to be.

Originally posted by RicoMarston
reply to post by jonnywhite

 

How can we, as a nation who were so outraged by the Iraq Invasion, just sit back and say "but, it's different this time."? You are looking at this situation through the Pro-America MSM filter. The filter where Russia is still a big evil bogieman and America is this shining beacon of truth and light (not to say you buy into it all the way, that's just the line they push). WAKE UP and realize that this whole world is grey. He's a dictator who the superpowers of the world left in place because he played ball, selling out his nation's resources for power and a lot of money. How is he any different from the western leaders of the world?
Now that Obama is worried about reelection, he starts a war to pull the same card as Bush. "Do you want to hand this war off to some newbie who doesn't know what'd going on, or put me back in there to take care of business?" Even if we saved all of the kittens and babies of Libya, killed no civilians and arrested Qaddafi, it's still wrong. Sovereign nations have the right to self-determination, even if patriots have to become martyrs. We had minimal foreign influence during our own revolution, and I think that a solid case could be made to state that we are worse off because of it. From day one, we've had to rely on the help of superpowers against Britain, and on day 2 we started to pay those favors back.
Whoever takes over Libya is going to be enslaved to the rest of the world powers, with no air defenses or radar, they will need UN protection and funding to get back on their feet. Not to mention the fact that we really have no idea who the opposition is. Some are even saying that the armed rebels are really Al-Qaeda and other "terrorists" who bomb Iraq and U.S. soldiers. The point is, we know little of the ways of this part of the world, the relationships, alliances, feuds, and it's insane to think that we can just strut in and lay down the law. We just keep making the same mistakes, but now liberals love it and conservatives hate it.
Obama spins it like a humanitarian intervention and gets support from the left. "we're preventing the next rwanda!"
Bush spins it like a campaign to protect Americans from future threats and gets support from the right. "We gotta get them before they get us!"
Meanwhile, the same jerks behind the scenes pull the strings. We are still overthrowing other nations' governments in order to install friendly dictators who will keep their people from noticing that we're stealing all of their resources AND making the money off of them!
OBAMA IS THE SAME, NO HOPE, NO CHANGE.

I don't have any conclusions about this. Did you read the 2nd to last paragraph? I am not so sure that helping these rebels is a good thing. I don't trust them, to be honest. They were armed from the first day I heard about them. They didn't seem like peaceful protesters back then and they still don't. However, there're innocent people among the rebels. There're innocent people living in libya. Gadaffi is a bad person and dictates and has assassinated people who dissent. All this is true. The trouble is that this intervention could easily lead to to a quagmire we won't easily get out from. That country still has roots in tribalism. I just can't see this ending well or cleanly. It's expensive and sloppy. Nothing is clear about it to me. It has me confused.

That's not to say it's all bad. That's why I made this thread. Kristof shows us here that there're some people in Libya, anyway, that want us there. It's obvious that Kristof is on the surface of things. But that's how most wars and other interventions are seen by normal people. Iraq was about freeing them from oppression. Libya, well, same thing. That's how most of us see it, rightly or wrongly. Whne you look at the details things aren't nearly as clear.

One thing is clear to me, though. This is starting to look like iraq. First, this is NOT the first time we've had problems with Libya. As I pionted out in my first post here, we did air strikes in 1986 and we put sanctions on libya in the early 90's and Russia even supported it (in exchange for some economic sh**). Gadaffi is a mad man that kills people who dissent. He is a socialist and that's how he wants to run his country. He had a WMD program but when we went to iraq in 2003 he decided to come clean so we wouldn't do teh same thing to him. 5 years later in 2010 things were looking better, but he's still a dictator. Now, these rebels are tired of him and start something. We had to make a choice. We chose to side with the rebels. The man who leaked the information to our intelligence agencies in the months preceding the iraq invasion was essentially a rebel as well. He lied because he wanted to topple saddam. We never would have sided with him if we hadn't had a long history of trouble with saddam and he hadn't been a dictator.

So whether we're wrong or right Gaddafi has earned our mistrust and hostility in a similar way that Saddam did. Whether going to war with these countries or not is the right response is debatable. I just want to make it clear that there's a history here. Gaddafi earned this history.

All the while I'm thinking to myself: Can we ever have a middle east that DOESN'T create dictators? And with all of these wars to kill off the dictators, how the hell is the middle east going to develop? Until the middle east can produce freedom and no dictators we will continue to have these wars and the tribalism that's inherent in the middle east will not go away. Just one war after the other, one suicide bomber after another, one destroyed country after the next. It's a never ending cycle of doom. It's like watching a bad movie that never ends.

Are we going to be overthrowing middle east regimes for the next 200 years?

There's so much death in this world I"ll have plenty of preparedness for the day I die. And the one saving grace is no more news about another middle east dictator that has to be killed.

I'm going to make a post about this man:
Wiki: Ali_Tarhouni

He was listed in the Sunday Oregonian. He was a Professor of Business Economics. Check out his wikilink. He got a PHD in 1983. He was kicked out of Libya in 1973 and put on a Gaddafi hit list (among others all around the world that were dissenters) because he had been a student activist in college attempting to call for more freedoms and democracy. This is just one of the reasons Gadhafi has earned what's happening, whether or not the war is fought on the right terms (just like Iraq). Reference my previous post for an explanation.

Here is an article about his recent departure from the US for Libya to help the rebel movement:
The Seattle Times: The double life of a popular UW lecturer

One small example that a history of corruption and wrongdoing will eventually destroy you, as it has Saddam and Gaddafi. They both, in my view, earned what happened. The details might be wrong. For example, we should not have entered the iraq war in 2003 on the information we had. It was wrong. On the other hand, we had to choose whether to believe the man who was lying to us (he wanted to topple Saddam) or we had to side with Saddam. We chose to side with the rebel because Saddam was a dictator and hadn't earned benefit of the doubt. Understand? Their history has come back to bite them, and bite them where it counts.

If you're a dictator out in the world right now hurting your people, be aware that the UN in 2005 passed a resolution that enables them to stop you. The details of this resolution are probably not set as Russia has brought up some complaints, but there's no doubt that in 2003 we set a new standard when we entered Iraq to oust Saddam. From here on out no dictator on this planet is safe. When times get bad and we have to choose sides, keep in mind we won't choose you.

For any prospective dictator interested, here is a link about the 2005 UN resolution I reference:
Wiki: Responsibility to protect

So, with this R2P protocol, I expect we'll very soon see US / NATO airstrikes on Bahrain and Riyadh? I mean, it's not like the US will have far to go, what with so many aircraft already there!

Seriously, if the US / UN / NATO want to retain any sort of credibility at all, then they need to be seen to be handing out the spankings in equal measure. Anything less is just going to be viewed as pure hypocrisy, which of course it is.
There is ample evidence of people being gunned down in the streets of Bahrain, even in cold blooded "drive-by" shootings. Where are the US and UN calls for this to stop? Where is the R2P enforcment?

Originally posted by Britguy
So, with this R2P protocol, I expect we'll very soon see US / NATO airstrikes on Bahrain and Riyadh? I mean, it's not like the US will have far to go, what with so many aircraft already there!

Seriously, if the US / UN / NATO want to retain any sort of credibility at all, then they need to be seen to be handing out the spankings in equal measure. Anything less is just going to be viewed as pure hypocrisy, which of course it is.
There is ample evidence of people being gunned down in the streets of Bahrain, even in cold blooded "drive-by" shootings. Where are the US and UN calls for this to stop? Where is the R2P enforcment?

I have no doubt in my mind that OIL is playing a role in this. But I think you're skipping over Gaddafi's history. Take a look at the link listed in the main post for this thread.

If you're too lazy to actually read the thread, here is the link about him:
en.wikipedia.org...

There's no doubt OIL matters and it's part of our strategic interests, but in all honesty, the fact that the UN chose to help the rebels shouldn't be a surprise. It's heroic and selfish and self-righteous and humane all at the same time. We live in a world of gray.

People are right that if this happened in another country without OIL, it probably wouldn't be on the news. But that doesn't mean it'll never happen or that the current intervention is all about oil.

One of my biggest objections in the first place to this intervention was the fact we seem to know very little about the Rebels, the western media picks out the educated ones who can speak English, but this is just a tiny minority that are being used to represent the entire rebel movement. There is some evidence to suggest that the rebels may also include Jihadists who were fighting against American and British soldiers in Iraq.

I'd like to make a post about some of hte events in the 1980's involving america, israel and libya.

The link is here:
Wiki: 1986 Berlin discotheque bombing...

It's interesting to note this:

The judge Peter Marhofer said it was not clear whether Gaddafi or Libyan intelligence had actually ordered the attack, though there were indications that they had. Two weeks before the La Belle discotheque blast, Gaddafi called for Arab assaults on American interests worldwide after a U.S.-Libyan naval clash in the Mediterranean, in which 35 seamen on a Libyan patrol boat in the Gulf of Sidra were killed in international waters claimed by Libya.[11].

Chreidi was eventually extradited from Lebanon to Germany in connection with the bombing. He had been working for the Libyan Peoples' Bureau in East Berlin at the time of the bombing. Chreidi was said to have connections with Palestinian terrorist Abu Nidal, who used to live in Tripoli and was financed by Libya in the 1980s. Eter was reported to be the Libyan spy agency's point man at the embassy in East Berlin.

I find it interest because it gives a little history.

First, the history says that there was a lot of tension going on in the Gulf of Sidre in the contest zone known as the 'line of death'. Libya claimed to own this while the US claimed that by being 12 miles off-shore they were within international waters. US challenged libya's claim by performing exercises within this zone.

These're two instances that involved jet fighters skirmishing and libyan jets going down:
Wiki: Gulf of Sidra incident (1981)...
WikiGulf of Sidra incident (1989)...

Here is another in 1986 that involved some libyan boats being sunk:
Wiki: Action in the Gulf of Sidra (1986)...

This is purportedly the attack that spurred Gaddafi to call for terrorism against american interests that led to the attack in west berlin germany. The exercise by the US was likely in response to the Rome and Vienna airport attack that Libya praised and were likely a part of in some way since Gaddafi admitted to having met Abu Nidal and also had called for terrorism more than once against america and israel.

Look at this:
La Times: U.S. Is Driving Libya to Brink of War, Kadafi Says...

Fifteen travelers--including five Americans--were killed and more than 100 were wounded in twin Palestinian terrorist attacks at Israeli airline counters at the two airports on Dec. 27.

Authorities investigating the attacks believe that they were carried out by a breakaway Palestinian terrorist faction led by Abu Nidal. The United States and Israel have accused Libya of supporting the attackers, and U.S. officials have reportedly considered military action against the Kadafi regime.
.............................
Kadafi, speaking to reporters on a state-owned farm 35 miles west of Tripoli, defended the airport attacks but denied that Libya gave support to the Palestinian terrorist faction believed responsible.

After tilling a field atop a Massey-Ferguson tractor, Kadafi said he met in Libya with Abu Nidal within the last year, but he denied that the terrorist lived in Libya or that Libya provided training bases for Abu Nidal's group.
.............................
"If America can hit any place--these aircraft carriers and strategic bombers--then we can reach any place, not through aircraft carriers or bombers but through suicide groups," he said. "We would act inside American streets, but I think it is a dangerous turn--madness."

Kadafi said the attacks were "not directed against America but essentially against the Israelis.".

Gaddafi has an interesting train of thought. He supports terrorism against Israel and American interests and demands nobody goes within the line of death even though it's within international waters yet if America or Israel responds to terrorist attacks or travels where he doesn't want them to he claims it's pure madness for them to do so. And if they do? He'll turn to suicide groups to deal with us on our streets and wherever our interests are. And if we respond to his response then of course we're.... insane. This logic is odd to say the least.

After looking at all this it looks to be like it was started by Libya hamfisting their territorial claims too far and starting a sequence of events. But I suspect it goes way back much further back than 1981. Maybe I will learn more as I go, but i'll leave it here for now.

I made a post elsewhere that relates to all this, here:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

I thought it would be nice to link it here rather than reposting here.

I think it sums up my thoughts a bit in a fresh new way.

Thanks God for un-flagging function ..i accidentaly flagged this s.h.i.t (thread)

I wanted to post on update on Ali Tarhouni. He was a Senior Lecturer in Business Economics at the University of Washington Michael G. Foster School of Business.

I referenced him here:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Ali Tarhouni: A Libyan leader speaks out:
finance.fortune.cnn.com ...