Profile
Search
Register
Log in
Libya.
View previous topic | View next topic >

Post new topic Reply to topic
Strange Famous Forum > Social stuff. Political stuff. KNOWMORE

Author Message
Plum Puddin'



Joined: 26 May 2008
Posts: 1829
Location: Run Ebola, Run.
Libya.  Reply with quote  

Can one of the resident international men of mystery tell me what the hell is going on?

"You're out of your fucking element, Donny!"

Why is America backing an Al Qaeda led rebellion?

Why Libya & not Syria, Somolia or Bahrain?

I thought Big Mo was down with us.








Why after all these years of working with him do we want him dead?

I mean, i can see that his people (or the ones they show on the news) don't like him, but what did he do on a global scale to make NATO & the French & the U.S & whoever else want to get rid of him?






Basically, why are we spending time, resources & a shit load of cash to go kick some old guys ass?
Post Thu Sep 08, 2011 1:46 am
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Windom



Joined: 04 May 2007
Posts: 721
Location: Manchester, UK.
 Reply with quote  

'US embassy in Tripoli in November 2007'
http://213.251.145.96/cable/2007/11/07TRIPOLI967.html



Quote:

'Libya needs to exploit its hydrocarbon resources to provide for its rapidly-growing, relatively young population. To do so, it requires extensive foreign investment and participation by credible IOCs [international oil companies]. Reformist elements in the Libyan government and the small but growing private sector recognize this reality. But those who dominate Libya's political and economic leadership are pursuing increasingly nationalistic policies in the energy sector that could jeopardize efficient exploitation of Libya's extensive oil and gas reserves. Effective U.S. engagement on this issue should take the form of demonstrating the clear downsides to the GOL [government of Libya] of pursuing this approach, particularly with respect to attracting participation by credible international oil companies in the oil/gas sector and foreign direct investment.


Wikileaks cables:
'US embassy in Tripoli to the State Department in August 2008'
http://213.251.145.96/cable/2008/08/08TRIPOLI680.html

Quote:


'Libya’s economy is almost entirely dependent on oil and gas. Libya has the largest proven oil reserves (43.6 billion barrels) and the third largest proven natural gas reserves (1.5 billion cubic meters) on the African continent. Libya currently produces about 1.7 million barrels/day of oil; only Angola and Nigeria produce more in Africa…

‘… Major U.S. energy companies active in Libya include Amerada Hess, ConocoPhillips, Marathon, Chevron, ExxonMobil and Occidental. Joint ventures involving U.S. companies currently account for about 510,000 barrels/day of Libya’s 1.7 million barrels/day production. A large number of small to mid-sized U.S. oil and gas services companies are also working in Libya.'
Post Thu Sep 08, 2011 3:58 am
 View user's profile Send private message
Plum Puddin'



Joined: 26 May 2008
Posts: 1829
Location: Run Ebola, Run.
 Reply with quote  

Oh.. that old doozy.

I liked the part where we didnt even make up an excuse & just bombed him.

No 'he has big naughty weapons!' or "Democracy is on it's way!'.

Thank gawd that evil Bush has gone.


Post Thu Sep 08, 2011 4:20 am
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
jakethesnake
guy who cried about wrestling being real


Joined: 03 Feb 2006
Posts: 6311
Location: airstrip one
 Reply with quote  

At least we know it's possible to win a nobel prize before actually accomplishing anything. "Hope" we rebuild the infra$tructure of Libya soon!
Post Thu Sep 08, 2011 6:53 am
 View user's profile Send private message AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
Captiv8



Joined: 25 Aug 2006
Posts: 8547
Location: Third Coast
 Reply with quote  

Everyone knows the quickest way to peace is war.

I don't know the specifics of Libya right now, but I do know that the entire African continent has been suffering from the effects of colonialism for a long time now, and you can bet that this is one of the more extreme postcolonial results. One of the big debates in postcolonial thought as both theory and practice is whether or not it should advocate and thus implement a total rejection of Western values. Unfortunately this sort of radical viewpoint is most visibly typified by fundamentalist Islam. Because the vast majority of the northern half of Africa is Islam you have a veritable powder keg. This is even scarier for Europe than the geographic Middle East because 1) Libya is quite close to Europe and 2) immigrants from northern Africa have been able to cross the Mediterranean into Europe rather easily, and often illegally. So the idea of terrorism feels that much closer.

But like I said, I haven't been following the events of Libya itself that closely. If I get a chance I just might read a few articles today.
Post Thu Sep 08, 2011 6:58 am
 View user's profile Send private message
MCGF



Joined: 22 Feb 2010
Posts: 367
 Reply with quote  

Yeah, because if Gaddafi had killed all those people it would have been so amazing for Libya!

...
Post Thu Sep 08, 2011 7:43 am
 View user's profile Send private message
jakethesnake
guy who cried about wrestling being real


Joined: 03 Feb 2006
Posts: 6311
Location: airstrip one
 Reply with quote  

MCGF wrote:
Yeah, because if Gaddafi had killed all those people it would have been so amazing for Libya!

...


We can all agree that mass murder is not OK. However, dealing with that problem also make$ for a convenient excu$e to drum up $ome bu$ine$$ in the oil $ector. You with me? We covered this in the last Libya thread. Remember the Obama address where he kept talking about "protecting our interests" in the region? How quickly we forget.
Post Thu Sep 08, 2011 7:47 am
 View user's profile Send private message AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
MCGF



Joined: 22 Feb 2010
Posts: 367
 Reply with quote  

jakethesnake wrote:
MCGF wrote:
Yeah, because if Gaddafi had killed all those people it would have been so amazing for Libya!

...


We can all agree that mass murder is not OK. However, dealing with that problem also make$ for a convenient excu$e to drum up $ome bu$ine$$ in the oil $ector. You with me? We covered this in the last Libya thread. Remember the Obama address where he kept talking about "protecting our interests" in the region? How quickly we forget.

I remember. But, for me, at least:

Mass Murder + Possible End Of Arab Spring > (is worse than) Oil companies getting their way.

And also, Libya was never a big part of US oil imports. It is, however, a huge part of European oil imports, as Libya has a specific kind of oil that they need. Which explains why Britain and France were so eager to get into this one, and why Obama was reluctant. So fuck the Europeans, who were so smugly anti-American during the Bush years and then prove just as Machiavellian when their oil interests are at stake.

Of course, Libya could easily still turn into a horrible bloodbath. And the whole not-getting-permission-from-congress bullshit that Obama pulled was a pretty horrible executive overreach, and sets a really bad precedent. But I think the war in Libya was the right decision, even if made for bad reasons.


Last edited by MCGF on Thu Sep 08, 2011 8:16 am; edited 2 times in total
Post Thu Sep 08, 2011 8:04 am
 View user's profile Send private message
firefly



Joined: 27 Sep 2002
Posts: 3990
Location: Montreal
 Reply with quote  

It's a similar situation to Iraq where the critiques of the war were faced with comments like "what, do you think Saddam is a good guy? That he deserves to rule/live?" Where the Iraq invasion killed far more people then Saddam ever did or would have.

Libya we have a similar situation. The US/NATO have their boogey man to justify the killing of thousands of civilians in order to put their CIA backed "rebels" in charge of the natural resources. Of course the media plays right into it by comparing this to the socalled "Arab Spring" and not showing the other side of the story (i,e, a million people in Tripoli protesting in support of Gaddafi).

Sadly I feel that this will only bring about more violence followed by the privatization of the oil. I predict that the country will be worse off after this. :(

Here's what Chris Hedges has to say about the recent "victory"

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/libya_here_we_go_again_20110905/

Libya: Here We Go Again

Posted on Sep 5, 2011
AP / Sergey Ponomarev

By Chris Hedges

Here we go again. The cheering crowds. The deposed dictator. The encomiums to freedom and liberty. The American military as savior. You would think we would have learned in Afghanistan or Iraq. But I guess not. I am waiting for a trucked-in crowd to rejoice as a Gadhafi statue is toppled and Barack Obama lands on an aircraft carrier in a flight suit to announce “Mission Accomplished.” War, as long as you view it through the distorted lens of the corporate media, is not only entertaining, but allows us to confuse state power with personal power. It permits us to wallow in unchecked self-exaltation. We are a nation that loves to love itself.

I know enough of Libya, a country I covered for many years as the Middle East bureau chief for The New York Times, to assure you that the chaos and bloodletting have only begun. Moammar Gadhafi, during one of my lengthy interviews with him under a green Bedouin tent in the sprawling Bab al-Aziziya army barracks in Tripoli, once proposed marrying one of his sons to Chelsea Clinton as a way of mending fences with the United States. He is as insane as he appears and as dangerous. But we should never have become the air force, trainers, suppliers, special forces and enablers of rival tribal factions, goons under the old regime and Islamists that are divided among themselves by deep animosities and a long history of violent conflict.

Stopping Gadhafi forces from entering Benghazi six months ago, which I supported, was one thing. Embroiling ourselves in a civil war was another. And to do it Obama blithely shredded the Constitution and bypassed Congress in violation of the War Powers Resolution. Not that the rule of law matters much in Washington. The dark reasoning of George W. Bush’s administration was that the threat of terrorism and national security gave the executive branch the right to ignore all legal restraints. The Obama administration has made this disregard for law bipartisan. Obama assured us when this started that it was not about “regime change.” But this promise proved as empty as the ones he made during his presidential campaign. He has ruthlessly prosecuted the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, where military planners speak of a continued U.S. presence for the next couple of decades. He has greatly expanded our proxy wars, which rely heavily on drone and missile attacks, as well as clandestine operations, in Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia and Libya. Add a few more countries and we will set the entire region alight.

The NATO airstrikes on the city of Sirte expose the hypocrisy of our “humanitarian” intervention in Libya. Sirte is the last Gadhafi stronghold and the home to Gadhafi’s tribe. The armed Libyan factions within the rebel alliance are waiting like panting hound dogs outside the city limits. They are determined, once the airstrikes are over, not only to rid the world of Gadhafi but all those within his tribe who benefited from his 42-year rule. The besieging of Sirte by NATO warplanes, which are dropping huge iron fragmentation bombs that will kill scores if not hundreds of innocents, mocks the justification for intervention laid out in a United Nations Security Council resolution. The U.N., when this began six months ago, authorized “all necessary measures … to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack.” We have, as always happens in war, become the monster we sought to defeat. We destroy in order to save. Libya’s ruling National Transitional Council estimates that the number of Libyans killed in the last six months, including civilians and combatants, has exceeded 50,000. Our intervention, as in Iraq and Afghanistan, has probably claimed more victims than those killed by the former regime. But this intervention, like the others, was never, despite all the high-blown rhetoric surrounding it, about protecting or saving Libyan lives. It was about the domination of oil fields by Western corporations.

Once the Libyans realize what the Iraqis and Afghans have bitterly discovered—that we have no interest in democracy, that our primary goal is appropriating their natural resources as cheaply as possible and that we will sacrifice large numbers of people to maintain our divine right to the world’s diminishing supply of fossil fuel—they will hate us the way we deserve to be hated. Libya has the ninth largest oil reserves in the world, which is why we react with moral outrage and military resolve when Gadhafi attacks his citizens, but ignore the nightmare in the Congo, where things for the average Congolese are far, far worse. It is why the puppets in the National Transitional Council have promised to oust China and Brazil from the Libyan oil fields and turn them over to Western companies. The unequivocal message we deliver daily through huge explosions and death across the occupied Middle East is: We have everything and if you try and History is replete with conquering forces being cheered when they arrive, whether during the Nazi occupation of the Ukraine in World War II, the Israeli occupation of southern Lebanon or our own arrival in Baghdad, and then rapidly mutating from liberator to despised enemy. And once our seizure of Libyan oil becomes clear it will only ramp up the jihadist hatred for America that has spread like wildfire across the Middle East. We are recruiting the next generation of 9/11 hijackers, all waiting for their chance to do to us what we are doing to them.

As W.H. Auden understood:

I and the public know
What all schoolchildren learn,
Those to whom evil is done
Do evil in return.

The force used by the occupier to displace the old regime always makes sure the new regime is supine and complaint. The National Transitional Council, made up of former Gadhafi loyalists, Islamists and tribal leaders, many of whom detest each other, will be the West’s vehicle for the reconfiguration of Libya. Libya will return to being the colony it was before Gadhafi and the other young officers in 1969 ousted King Idris, who among other concessions had let Standard Oil write Libya’s petroleum laws. Gadhafi’s defiance of Western commercial interests, which saw the nationalization of foreign banks and foreign companies, along with the oil industry, as well as the closure of U.S. and British air bases, will be reversed. The despotic and collapsed or collapsing regimes in Tunisia, Libya, Egypt and Syria once found their revolutionary legitimacy in the pan-Arabism of Egypt’s Gamal Abdel Nasser. But these regimes fell victim to their own corruption, decay and brutality. None were worth defending. Their disintegration, however, heralds a return of the corporate and imperial power that spawned figures like Nasser and will spawn his radical 21st century counterparts.

The vendettas in Libya have already begun. Government buildings in Tripoli have been looted, although not on the scale seen in Baghdad. Poor black sub-Saharan African immigrant workers have been beaten and killed. Suspected Gadhafi loyalists or spies have been tortured and assassinated. These eye-for-an-eye killings will, I fear, get worse. The National Transitional Council has announced that it opposes the presence in Libya of U.N. military observers and police, despite widespread atrocities committed by Gadhafi loyalists. The observers and police have been offered to help quell the chaos, train new security forces and provide independent verification of what is happening inside Libya. But just as Gadhafi preferred to do dirty work in secret, so will the new regime. It is an old truism, one I witnessed repeatedly in Latin America, Africa, the Middle East and the Balkans, that yesterday’s victims rapidly become today’s victimizers.
Post Thu Sep 08, 2011 8:08 am
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
futuristxen



Joined: 01 Jul 2002
Posts: 19373
Location: Tighten Your Bible Belt
 Reply with quote  

Waste of goddamn money, people, blood, and time. I love that we're going to prop up a minority power that couldn't even shoot straight enough to win their country by themselves--because that's not going to create more instability and a power vaccuum.

I swear we just do the same shit over and over again.

Our country has become one giant bloated evil corporation.
Post Thu Sep 08, 2011 11:37 am
 View user's profile Send private message AIM Address MSN Messenger
crash



Joined: 07 Aug 2003
Posts: 5456
Location: the chocolate city with a marshmallow center and a graham cracker crust of corruption
 Reply with quote  

What's the big deal with that Wikileaks quote? So the US wished that Libya was more open to international oil companies… big surprise there.

NATO intervened in the Balkans without any motive for oil, didn’t they? So I don’t buy that simply because Libya has oil, any intervention must be nothing more than a resource grab. The NTC has promised to respect all previous contracts. If this was some sort of Western conspiracy, wouldn’t the new government cancel its contracts with Russia and China to the benefit of Total, BP, ENI, et. al.? But that’s not what they’re doing. The NTC has indicated that in future deals it would look favorably upon the powers that backed the rebellion, but how is that a surprise? Russia abstained from the vote authorizing intervention. China was found discussing weapon sales with Gaddafi DURING the war. Of course the new government isn’t going to go to them first when it wants to open a new well.

I think that like the Balkans, regional stability was the main reason for intervention. If anything, the possibility of new contracts just sweetened the deal. If you look at how the US has played it’s cards over the last 9 months, stability was the name of the game. Look at Syria for instance. Ally of Iran, backer of Hezbollah, seat of Hamas, and still technically at war with Israel – yet as late as May Clinton was refraining from insisting that Bashar step down – because the enemy you know is better, etc.

Before February we were getting along just fine with Gaddafi. Everything was stable: oil was flowing and refugees weren't streaming into Europe. The CIA was working with him to combat al-Qaida (and Libyan dissidents). In fact, one of the rebel commanders, Abdel-Hakim Belhaj, who was a member of the LIFG (which tried to assassinate Gaddafi numerous times), was tortured by the CIA and then turned over to the Libyan government.

After things started to go bad for Gaddafi, I think France and the UK saw an opportunity to get involved in a (relatively) easy fight on the side of the “good” guys and at the same time assist in stabilizing the country (the idea being that a Libya ruled by a weakened and vengeful Gaddafi would be less stable than a post-revolutionary Libya without him). After initially cautioning against an intervention (remember Gates’ warnings of the difficulty of a no fly zone?) the administration eventually hopped on board. They didn't look so great after the Mubarak fiasco - here was a way be on the right side of history! So we starting dropping the bombs. Even though we did most of the dirty work, we let Sarkozy and Cameron stay as the “face” of the intervention. Leading from behind and all that.

Yes, the NATO went way beyond the UN mandate. Yes, Congress should have been consulted before we attacked.

We could have done things better. But did we do the right thing? I don’t doubt it at all.

A good article on the current situation in Libya: http://www.merip.org/mero/mero090711

Future – we’re not supporting a minority power. The NTC has the support of a majority of Libyans.

Firefly – we didn’t kill more than Saddam. His invasion of Iran killed more than a million. Add the invasion of Kuwait, the violence against the Kurds, Shia, and the rest of his domestic enemies and it’s even higher.

Plum – there are some unsettling connections between al-Qaida and some of the rebels (mainly in the east) but it’s not like al-Zawahiri is running the show. It’s hard to get a clear picture of things. Al-Qaida wants to be seen as being a force in these revolutions – so they will obviously exaggerate how involved they are. The Gaddafi regime wants to delegitimize the revolution, so they’ll also claim that most of their opponents are al-Qaida. Any fighters who are sympathetic with al-Qaida or actual members of an affiliated organization have an interest in keeping a low profile and will probably stay quiet. The NTC as well wants to downplay any connections their fighters have with any terrorist organization.
Post Thu Sep 08, 2011 12:26 pm
 View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Plum Puddin'



Joined: 26 May 2008
Posts: 1829
Location: Run Ebola, Run.
 Reply with quote  

MCGF wrote:
But I think the war in Libya was the right decision, even if made for bad reasons.


Tell 'em why you mad Tariq.

http://www.counterpunch.org/2011/09/07/perpetual-war/

“Grand Strategy” after 9/11
Perpetual War
by TARIQ ALI
‘Sovereign is he who decides on the exception,’ Carl Schmitt wrote in different times almost a century ago, when European empires and armies dominated most continents and the United States was basking underneath an isolationist sun. What the conservative theorist meant by ‘exception’ was a state of emergency, necessitated by serious economic or political cataclysms, that required a suspension of the Constitution, internal repression and war abroad.

A decade after the attentats of 9/11, the United States and its European allies are trapped in a quagmire. The events of that year were simply used as a pretext to remake the world and to punish those states that did not comply. And today while the majority of Euro-American citizens flounder in a moral desert, now unhappy with the wars, now resigned, now propagandized into differentiating what is, in effect, an overarching imperial strategy into good/bad wars, the US General Petraeus (currently commanding the CIA) tells us: “You have to recognize also that I don’t think you win this war. I think you keep fighting. It’s a little bit like Iraq, actually . . .. Yes, there has been enormous progress in Iraq. But there are still horrific attacks in Iraq, and you have to stay vigilant. You have to stay after it. This is the kind of fight we’re in for the rest of our lives and probably our kids’ lives.” Thus speaks the voice of a sovereign power, determining in this case that the exception is the rule.

Even though I did not agree with his own answer, the German philosopher, Jurgen Habermas posed an important question: ‘Does the claim to universality that we connect with human rights merely conceal a particularly subtle and deceitful instrument of Western domination?’ ‘Subtle’ could be deleted. The experiences in the occupied lands speak for themselves. Ten years on the war in Afghanistan continues, a bloody and brutal stalemate with a corrupt puppet regime whose President and family fill their pockets with ill-gotten gains and a US/NATO military incapable of defeating the insurgents. The latter now strike at will, assassinating Karzai’s corrupt sibling, knocking off his leading collaborators and targeting key NATO intelligence personnel via suicide terrorism or helicopter-downing missiles. Meanwhile, sets of protracted behind-the-scenes negotiations between the US and the neo-Taliban have been taking place for several years. The aim reveals the desperation. NATO and Karzai are desperate to recruit the Taliban to a new national government.

Euro-American liberal and conservative politicians who form the backbone of the governing elites and claim to believe in moderation and tolerance and fighting wars to impose the same values on the re-colonized states are still blinded by their situation and fail to see the writing on the wall. Their pious renunciations of terrorist violence notwithstanding, they have no problems in defending torture, renditions, targeting and assassination of individuals, post-legal states of exception at home so that they can imprison anybody without trial indefinitely. Meanwhile the good citizens of Euro-America who opposed the wars being waged by their governments avert their gaze from the dead, wounded and orphaned citizens of Iraq and Afghanistan, Libya and Pakistan…the list continues to grow.

War—jus belli– is now a legitimate instrument as long as it is used with US approval or preferably by the US itself. These days it is presented as a ‘humanitarian’ necessity: one side is busy engaged in committing crimes, the self-styled morally superior side is simply administering necessary punishment and the state to be defeated is denied its sovereignty. Its replacement is carefully policed both with military bases and with a combination of No’s and money. This 21st Century colonization or dominance is aided by the global media networks, an essential pillar to conduct political and military operations.

Let’s start with homeland security in the United States. Contrary to what many liberals imagined in November 2008, the debasement of American political culture continues apace. Instead of reversing the trend, the lawyer-President and his team have deliberately accelerated the process. There have been more deportations of immigrants than under Bush; fewer prisoners held without trial have been released from Gitmo, an institution that the lawyer-President had promised to close down; the Patriot Act with its defining premises of what constitutes friends and enemies has been renewed, a new war begun in Libya without the approval of Congress on the flimsy basis that the bombing of a sovereign state should not be construed as a hostile act; whistleblowers are being vigorously prosecuted and so on—the list growing longer by the day.

Politics and power override all else. Liberals who still believe that the Bush administration transcended the law while the Democrats are exemplars of a normative approach are blinded by political tribalism. Apart from Obama’s windy rhetoric, little now divides this administration from its predecessor. Ignore, for a moment, the power of politicians and propagandists to enforce their taboos and prejudices on American society as a whole, a power often used ruthlessly and vindictively to silence opposition from all quarters—Bradley Manning, Thomas Drake (released after a huge outcry in the liberal media), Julian Assange, Stephen Kim, currently being treated as criminals and public enemies, know this better than most.

Nothing illustrates this debasement so well as the assassination of Osama Bin Laden in Abbotabad. He could have been captured and put on trial, but that was never the intention. The liberal mood was reflected by the chants heard in New York on that day: U-S-A. U-S-A. Obama got Osama. Obama Got Osama. You can’t beat us (clap-clap-clap-clap-clap-clap) You can’t beat us. Fuck bin La-den. Fuck bin La-den.

These were echoed in more diplomatic language by the leaders of Europe, junior partners in the imperial family of nations, incapable of self-determination. Cant and hypocrisy have become the coinage of political culture.

Take Libya, the latest case of ‘humanitarian intervention’. The US-NATO intervention in Libya, with United Nations security council cover, is part of an orchestrated response to show support for the movement against one dictator in particular and by so doing to bring the Arab rebellions to an end by asserting western control, confiscating their impetus and spontaneity and trying to restore the status quo ante. As is now obvious the British and French are boasting of success and that they will control Libyan oil reserves as payment for the six month bombing campaign.

Meanwhile, Obama’s allies in the Arab world were hard at work promoting democracy.

The Saudis entered Bahrain where the population is being tyrannised and large-scale arrests are taking place. Not much of this is being reported on al-Jazeera. I wonder why? The station seems to have been curbed somewhat and brought into line with the politics of its funders. All this with active US support. The despot in Yemen, loathed by a majority of his people continues to kill them every day by remote control from his Saudi base. Not even an arms embargo, let alone a “no-fly zone” have been imposed on him. Libya is yet another case of selective vigilantism by the US and its attack dogs in the west. That the German Greens, amongst the most ardent European defenders of neo-liberalism and war, wanted to be part of this posse reveals more about their own evolution than the intrinsic merits or demerits of intervention.

The frontiers of the squalid protectorate that the west is going to create are being decided in Washington. Even those Libyans who, out of desperation, backed NATO’s bomber jets, might – like their Iraqi equivalents – live to regret their choice.

All this might trigger a third phase at some stage: a growing nationalist anger that spills over into Saudi Arabia and here, have no doubt, Washington will do everything necessary to keep the Saudi royal family in power. Lose Saudi Arabia and they will lose the Gulf States. The assault on Libya, greatly helped by Gaddafi’s imbecility on every front, was designed to wrest the initiative back from the streets by appearing as the defenders of civil rights. The Bahrainis, Egyptians, Tunisians, Saudi Arabians, Yemenis will not be convinced, and even in Euro-America more are opposed to this latest adventure than support it. The struggles are by no means over.

The 19th century German poet Theodor Däubler wrote that:

“The enemy is our own question embodied
And he will hound us, and we will hound him to the same end.”

The problem with this view today is that the category of enemy, determined by US policy needs, changes far too frequently. Yesterday Saddam and Ghaddafi were friends and regularly helped by western intelligence agencies to deal with their own enemies. The latter became friends when the former became enemies. And so the planetary disorder continues. The assassination of Osama Bin Laden was greeted by European leaders as something that would make the world safer. Tell that to the fairies.
Post Thu Sep 08, 2011 6:17 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
MCGF



Joined: 22 Feb 2010
Posts: 367
 Reply with quote  

Plum Puddin' wrote:
The US-NATO intervention in Libya, with United Nations security council cover, is part of an orchestrated response to show support for the movement against one dictator in particular and by so doing to bring the Arab rebellions to an end by asserting western control, confiscating their impetus and spontaneity and trying to restore the status quo ante.

This actually makes no sense.

crash wrote:
A good article on the current situation in Libya: http://www.merip.org/mero/mero090711


Thank you Crash!
Post Thu Sep 08, 2011 8:50 pm
 View user's profile Send private message
crash



Joined: 07 Aug 2003
Posts: 5456
Location: the chocolate city with a marshmallow center and a graham cracker crust of corruption
 Reply with quote  

MCGF wrote:
Plum Puddin' wrote:
The US-NATO intervention in Libya, with United Nations security council cover, is part of an orchestrated response to show support for the movement against one dictator in particular and by so doing to bring the Arab rebellions to an end by asserting western control, confiscating their impetus and spontaneity and trying to restore the status quo ante.

This actually makes no sense.

yeah, i didn't really get that part. if anything, the fall of gaddafi emboldened the arab protesters.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/25/us-syria-idUSTRE77D0LP20110825
Post Thu Sep 08, 2011 9:26 pm
 View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Asterax



Joined: 21 Nov 2002
Posts: 1883
Location: Maine
 Reply with quote  

Plum, your posting style doesn't really work with politics. Sorry.
Post Thu Sep 08, 2011 9:34 pm
 View user's profile Send private message

Post new topic Reply to topic
Jump to:  
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next
All times are GMT - 6 Hours.
The time now is Thu Oct 23, 2014 2:42 pm
  Display posts from previous:      


Powered by phpBB: © 2001 phpBB Group
Template created by The Fathom
Based on template of Nick Mahon