Libyan Civil War

Over the course of the last three weeks during the uprisings in the middle east, several countries have been on the verge of collapse. Egypt and Tunisia had their governments overthrown. To what end, we can't really be sure. The revolutions sparked protests in Yemen, Oman, Jordan, Morocco, Syria, Iran, Bahrain, and even Saudi Arabia. Oh, and of course in Libya, where the people rose up against Muammar Qaddafi.

Unlike other protests in the region, the uprising in Libya has turned into a full scale civil war. The media isn't calling it that, but the obvious truth is there. Rebels had captured several cities and were advancing on Tripoli, the capitol of Libya. That is until Qaddafi decided to use his air force to bomb the rebels into paste. It's taken him about 2 weeks to accomplish, but the rebels have been driven back to their holdings in Benghazi. That's their last stand, and it looked as though Qaddafi was about to crush them utterly.

Enter the UN. That completely ineffective body of worthless sniveling diplomats who can't ever decide to do anything worthwhile. A Security Council resolution somehow managed to pass with a 10-0 vote with 5 abstentions. Naturally China and Russia couldn't be bothered but at least they didn't veto it. Apparently the Germans aren't feeling up to it either. The fact that it took them nearly 3 weeks to do something about it is appalling, but it's done, and they authorized the enforcement of a no-fly zone over Libya.

This got Qaddafi's attention briefly as he declared a cease fire with the rebels. As expected though, this lasted all of 12 hours or so. Trying to delay the inevitable. Or maybe he forgot radar can see in the dark.

The end result is what you see now. French warplanes bombing Libyan defenses. Joined this morning by US Navy warships who are lobbing cruise missiles into the country to blow up coastal defense installations. Whether we all like it nor not, we're involved in another war in the middle east. Here's to hoping we don't get yet another instance of the Arabs spitting in our faces for responding to their requests for intervention.
.........................
"It is pointless to resist, my son." -- Darth Vader
"Resistance is futile." -- The Borg
"Mother's coming for me in the dragon ships. I don't like these itchy clothes, but I have to wear them or it frightens the fish." -- Thurindil

Well. I guess that's that then.

       
« Japan Earthquake
Change »

Posted on Mar 19, 2011 1:41 pm by Samson in: | 179 comment(s) [Closed]
Comments
Eerie. Check this shit:

Drudge Report said:

MARCH 19, 2011
OBAMA: 'Today we are part of a broad coalition. We are answering the calls of a threatened people. And we are acting in the interests of the United States and the world'...

MARCH 19, 2003
BUSH: 'American and coalition forces are in the early stages of military operations to disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger'...

       
We are answering the calls of a threatened people.


There's your difference. Iraqi's may have hated Saddam just as much as Lybian's hate Qaddafi, but at least they actually want you to get involved and help them out.

       
You might have missed the part then where the Iraqis wanted us there too, just that Bush didn't really word it clearly enough to say that. I'll forgive you though because your propagandist media probably left that part out too.

I was more interested in the eeriness of it being on the same day 8 years later. The fact that Obama basically said what Bush said was secondary but just as interesting.

       
Samson said:

You might have missed the part then where the Iraqis wanted us there too, just that Bush didn't really word it clearly enough to say that. I'll forgive you though because your propagandist media probably left that part out too.


Actually, I was referring to this and this. Its not that every Iraqi didn't like America coming in, just most of them didn't. I don't think your propagandist right wing media would've covered that though.

Samson said:


I was more interested in the eeriness of it being on the same day 8 years later. The fact that Obama basically said what Bush said was secondary but just as interesting.


Hmm, eerie. And I'll note that I completely missed that when looked at it the first time :redface:

       
Both your poll links are invalid as they did not take place art the time the war started. They were both taken years after it was over.

At the time we rolled in to Baghdad, we were hailed as liberators and heroes. But then your propagandist left wing media sources left that crucial detail out, didn't they? (We could go on like this for ages)

You might note that in other topics I've said it's a bad idea for us to get involved with Libya. That opinion hasn't changed, but now that we've gone and done it, we may as well paste them good. I suspect in 3 years when the reality of our troops being there sets in the muslims in Libya will turn on us the way they have twice before now in Iraq and Afghanistan.

       
Edited by Samson on Mar 19, 2011 8:07 pm
Meh, I won't keep arguing then. Like you said, it'll go on for ages and we won't get anywhere.

As for Libya, well, as long as you don't have to go any further than making air strikes to help the rebels, I don't see how they can really hurt you even if they do turn on you.

BTW, Lybian state (y'know, the one on Qaddafi's side) TV is claiming that your air strikes killed a head of civilians in Tripoli, but aside from the fact that's probably a whole heap of bullshit made up to smear America (not that anyone will believe them), I'm suspicious that their definition of 'civilian' is basically anyone who isn't a rebel, even if they are, say, manning a pro-Qaddafi tank at the time.

       
Edited by prettyfly on Mar 19, 2011 10:19 pm
So a few brief thoughts:

1. France, of all people.

2. I for one welcome our new Euro-led coalitions. About damned time.

3. I sure hope we know what the hell we're doing here, because

4. Man, that last no-fly zone sure worked out, didn't it? Oh wait. This is going to end with somebody's ground troops going in there, and it's going to go pretty sideways from there. The more of said troops who aren't Americans, the happier I am going to be.

5. Somewhere, my teenage interventionist self who thought Kosovo was a really, REALLY good idea is looking at me like "I don't know this person. At all."

       
Mohammed [Anon] said:
Comment #8 Mar 20, 2011 6:55 am
Dwip, The answer to thoughts 1. and 2: Refugees and Illegal immigrants.

To 3 and 4: It doesn't look like it. The whole thing was planned and arranged in a matter of a few days, unless the French had a carefully thought out Khadaffi ousting plan on the shelves just waiting for an insurrection to take place.

Picking sides in this conflict ensures that there is no turning back. Now this coalition will have to make sure that the side they picked wins the conflict, and that the winning side promises to behave itself afterward. It may look like Khadaffi doesn't have a stick to shake at the EU, but he can make the illegal immigrant situation a lot worse by simply letting everyone through who wants to cross the Mediterranean.

5: Kosovo is a rather unfortunate example, where the choice between the good guys and the bad guys later turned out not to be as clear cut and obvious as it seemed at the time.

       
To be somewhat fair to the French, it's not like they don't have a history of this sort of thing. Usually it's in Sub-Saharan Africa in recent years though. Then again, sort of like Kosovo etc, one of the reasons everyone in Europe is being spurred to action is that Libya is actually sort of close to Europe and all that. I don't really confess to be paying a ton of attention to the various domestic politics there though, so.

As to my points 3-4, yeah, I don't really think we do know what we're doing, since last I checked I don't think we really know a damn thing about the rebels. I may be wrong. Qadaffi's a bad dude, to be sure, and I'd like it if the rebels were all up into goodness, light, and the warm fuzzy feeling, but we have a really, really awful track record on backing the wrong horse.

OTOH, initial reports seem to be that somebody's also actually doing tactical air strikes on Qadaffi's forces, which is a whole lot more than a no-fly zone, and if we're going to do this thing, the sort of thing we ought to be doing.

The other thing about Kosovo, though you're right, is that it gave the air power can win wars crowd a lot of ammo, and I don't really think those people are right at all. I'd like to see a version of this where we sit back with planes and the rebels magically win on the ground, but I feel pretty certain that this is going to end either in the Balkanization of Libya when the rebels can't actually win by themselves, complete with a UN observer force and demilatarized zone, or somebody somewhere sending ground troops to actually take down Qadaffi, which may or may not go sideways in a real hurry.

       
Mohammed [Anon] said:
Comment #10 Mar 20, 2011 10:46 am
The other thing about Kosovo, though you're right, is that it gave the air power can win wars crowd a lot of ammo, and I don't really think those people are right at all


If I recall correctly, it took almost three months of bombing. First military targets, then infrastructure, then economic targets, before the Serbs gave up. Serbian civilian casualties probably exceeded Kosovo Albanian casualties, civilians and warriors combined, but their military remained mostly intact. I suppose in the end it was successful, as the objectives were reached, but I didn't think anyone would ever try an air war for humanitarian reasons again after that.

If this takes more than a couple of weeks, I have the feeling ground forces will have to come in, to protect one side against the other, and to stem a tide of tends of thousands of refugees.

       
And now we realize why it is we didn't want to get involved in Libya to start with. We don't know jack shit about the rebels, and we sure as hell don't want to get suckered into a ground war. Yes, Qaddafi sucks, but how do we know the rebels don't suck more?

And really, who was surprised to find out that a no-fly zone would turn into an indiscriminate target-Qaddafi-forces zone? I certainly wasn't. I guarantee you that when this thing turns ugly the Euros will lose their will and we'll be asked to clean up the mess they made by stirring up the nest.

The US has nothing to gain by backing either side. Libya is not a security threat to us the way Iraq and Afghanistan were. Even if they cut off oil exports to us that's not actually enough to hurt anything. Obama said that our interests were among the goals here, ok, so what are our interests? What are the goals? Does anyone even know?

       
On the upside, at least this was is about Libya (note to self; don't spell it Lybia) as opposed to the usual Shi'ite and Sunni violence the you get going on.

As fir what the rebels themselves are like, well, we don't really know, though they seem to have an agenda for democracy and anti-tribalism, which is a start, right? Or maybe they'll turn out yo be just as bad as Qaddafi themselves...

       
I have to agree here with Prettyfly, the people of Libya went to the streets and demanded change, i think we should be compelled to assist them in all ways we can to bring about the type of society that they want to live in, one the current leaders will not give them. Iraq on the other hand was all about oil and who controlled it. When it comes to change, the only way that change will be made and be permanent is if the people rise up and effect it for themselves. Change in Libya, Egypt and others will be permanant because the people put their own blood into it. Iraq on the other hand is ripe for some other puppet dictator to take it over, because it was not Iraqi blood being spilled for change, it was US blood, so the people don't own it in the same way as these other Arab nations do.

       
Funny. If it was all about oil, it sure hasn't done us a lick of good to spend 8 years there pissing in the sand. It's time for you guys to find a new argument. One that's based in facts, not left wing propaganda propagated by your corrupt media.

       
Arab League condemns broad Western bombing campaign in Libya

That didn't take long either. The bastards, I knew this was going to happen. Beg us to intervene, we do, they condemn us for intervening. I say we pack up and go home.

       
Samson said:

Funny. If it was all about oil, it sure hasn't done us a lick of good to spend 8 years there pissing in the sand. It's time for you guys to find a new argument. One that's based in facts, not left wing propaganda propagated by your corrupt media.


Big claims there, Samson. Have you got any intelligence reports demonstrating that Saddam had WMD? I think you're going to have to do a bit of looking.

Also, I'll add, the Iraq was undoubtedly a complete failure and multiple fronts, except for the few multi-nationals who made a fortune out of contracting there. In fact, I'm pretty sure the war was never intended to benefit the average American. It wasn't Bush's style to help the masses.

Oh, and when Fox stops reporting things like Barack's trip to India cost $400 million per day and doesn't dismiss the claims of pro-palestinian advocates the moment they open their mouths, let me know, I might change some of my opinions on your media.

EDIT; also, I'll add that I'm with The Fury's analysis 100%; there is a legitimate alternative and pro-democratic government ready to take control in Libya once Qaddafi falls, vs Iraq where you guys found out the hard way that if you just remove the leadership there becomes a power vacuum that people like Muslim extremists can take up fairly easily.

       
Edited by prettyfly on Mar 20, 2011 6:03 pm
Big claims which have been proven over and over, but you guys just refuse to accept it, even from Saddam's own former generals. They had the WMDs. They got rid of the shit only after the invasion had begun. Whether you want to believe this or not is not up to me, but I will continue to challenge the bullshit claim that we invaded to steal their oil. I'm still waiting to see that oil brought home by the tanker full.

Complete failure? No. That's only in the minds of the uber-left who wanted nothing to do with a war there other than to cast their votes in Congress authorizing exactly that. Much like I don't think the UN expected this resolution for Libya to get past China or Russia - who abstained rather than voting against it. Of course, once it passed, they're not happy that it's actually getting implemented. This all sounds rather familiar actually.

When Obama stops spending ludicrous amounts of money on trips to India and golf 3 times a week, we'll stop picking on him for doing that while the world burns. If ever there was a modern day version of Nero, Obama is it. Fiddling while the US burns.

Fury's analysis is a joke for the simple fact that it's based around the same tired old discredited arguments about Iraq. I find it highly amusing that the same scenario is now playing out in a different country but suddenly because a Democrat fired the missiles and is now bombing the country it's a war to liberate an oppressed people rather than steal Libya's oil.

       
A Pentagon official had previously said Sunday that the coalition “will not be going after Qaddafi.”


I wonder then if someone might be so kind as to explain why we're wasting our time?

       
Mohammed [Anon] said:
Comment #19 Mar 20, 2011 11:12 pm
They had the WMDs. They got rid of the shit only after the invasion had begun.


That's the strangest tactic I've ever heard of: getting rid of your weapons in the middle of an invasion. Where did they hide these weapons?

I can't believe people who were mature enough to watch it happen 10 years ago are debating whether Iraq was about oil or about the WMDs. It was about 9/11. I'm sure the plan was to topple all of these hostile regimes, if the occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan (is the end in sight yet?) hadn't lasted 8 years and cost almost a trillion dollars. It's hard not to get the impression that the planning focused on the toppling of the regimes, which was done in a few weeks and with little cost, and that too many positive assumptions were made about the following occupations.

Of course it was about oil, indirectly. Without all that oil, the Persian gulf and all the dictators in in would never have been of enough interest to the west to get involved in any way. Without the oil, Saddam wouldn't have had the means or the interest to invade Iran, and even if he had, the US wouldn't have cared to support him, the monster wouldn't have been created, and wouldn't have needed to be slain later. If it had been about Saddam's oil directly, it would have been cheaper and easier to just lift the sanctions and let him sell as much of it as he wanted on the open market.

Of course it was about the WMDs, indirectly. They were needed as a justification, when the Bush administration was still trying to get UN support. Once the operation went on without UN support, the WMDs became irrelevant. There is no need to mention them again.

       
Samson said:

I find it highly amusing that the same scenario is now playing out in a different country but suddenly because a Democrat fired the missiles and is now bombing the country it's a war to liberate an oppressed people rather than steal Libya's oil.


Um...Hello? We've entered Libya basically (even if this isn't the absolute official reason) to support an armed and organized pro-democracy revolution. Iraq on the other hand relied on a very well planned and executed plan of mis-information on the behalf of the Bush administration, and furthermore, it is easy enough to point to members of the Bush Administration and other corporate allies that made money out of the war. I don't see to many Democrats&co making $ out of invading Libya. Furthermore, if this was about money, wtf are the French doing here. Didn't they oppose Iraq? Why have they suddenly changed their minds?

       
@Mohammed: I can't believe rational adults don't understand what it means to have confirmation of WMDs in place from no less than 15 different international intelligence agencies.

Yes, it was a travesty that by the time we rolled into Baghdad, Saddam managed to make fools of all of them.

@Prettyfly: Yes, I've heard all that crap before. We invaded Iraq to steal the oil. Nevermind the fact that we actually invaded to liberate the people and to put a stop to Saddam's security risk. Mohammed is correct in saying that was related to 9/11. Had 9/11 not happened we wouldn't have wasted the time.

So now because Obama says we're bombing the shit out of a different muslim country and that we're there to help some nebulous pro-democracy rebel group nobody questions this? Armed and organized? Since when are Libyan tribal forces the least bit organized? Since when do pistols and rifles constitute an able bodied force that can topple the government? Anyone asked the other 12 tribes in Libya what THEY thought? Or do they not even exist?

What part of a humanitarian effort to stop Qaddafi from attacking one group of rebels is covered by blowing up the guy's house? Again btw, this is like the 3rd time us or one of our allies has done it. If you want to talk about well executed mis-information campaigns, look no further than the outright lie that we're not there to go after Qaddafi. His destroyed home begs to differ with you.

It's easy to point the finger and figure out who is making money hand over fist from the Obama administration too. Frankly I'd prefer the money go to corporations who create jobs and not to corrupt unions who destroy them. Call me crazy but that just doesn't seem logical.

I also do hope you realize just how insanely stupid and ignorant it is to claim the war was about oil. Surely the fact that you're getting so angry and irrational about me saying that about Libya should give you pause to realize that Iraq wasn't about oil either. Rush Limbaugh said it best in 2003. If we wanted Saddam's oil, we would have simply paid him for it. There wouldn't have been a need to kill him instead.

       
Samson said:

I can't believe rational adults don't understand what it means to have confirmation of WMDs in place from no less than 15 different international intelligence agencie


Yeah, and that's why they publicly exposed the identities of the CIA agents they got to confirm this who came to the conclusion based on the intel the gathered that such WMD's did not exist. Because they had such overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Samson said:

Mohammed is correct in saying that was related to 9/11. Had 9/11 not happened we wouldn't have wasted the time.


Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Saddam hated Al-Qaeda and was extremely effective at dealing with Islamic extremists. In terms of 'brutal and oppressive dictators', there was nothing particularly unique about Saddam at the time you invaded him. He was bad, but so are a lot of the other Arab countries.

Samson said:

So now because Obama says we're bombing the shit out of a different Muslim country and that we're there to help some nebulous pro-democracy rebel group nobody questions this? Armed and organized? Since when are Libyan tribal forces the least bit organized? Since when do pistols and rifles constitute an able bodied force that can topple the government? Anyone asked the other 12 tribes in Libya what THEY thought? Or do they not even exist?


The Rebels are consisted of forces from multiple tribes, in fact, I would go as far as to say that the large majority of tribes support the rebels. But of course, they aren't in the names of their tribes anyway. This war is being fought over whether or not they want Qaddafi to rule.

Samson said:


What part of a humanitarian effort to stop Qaddafi from attacking one group of rebels is covered by blowing up the guy's house? Again btw, this is like the 3rd time us or one of our allies has done it. If you want to talk about well executed mis-information campaigns, look no further than the outright lie that we're not there to go after Qaddafi. His destroyed home begs to differ with you.


We don't have comprehensive proof of that yet. Yes, a plume of smoke was seen rising from around his home, but subsequent reports have made it a little bit more sketchy. It wouldn't supprise me if someone did 'accidentally' call an airstrike on his more, but until we get some more proof...

Samson said:


It's easy to point the finger and figure out who is making money hand over fist from the Obama administration too. Frankly I'd prefer the money go to corporations who create jobs and not to corrupt unions who destroy them. Call me crazy but that just doesn't seem logical.


What a great way to thin out you're middle class. Just what you need for a healthy and stable democracy. Also, you got any names for who is making the bucks in Obama bandwagon?

       
Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.

I'm not even going to bother responding to the absolute ignorance regarding Iraq, our intelligence, and whatever else. It's clear that there's no hope of penetrating the lifetime of propaganda you've been subjected to on it.

The Brits blew up Qaddafi's compound. Unless of course you think Fox News is lying, but then you're quoting Al Jazeera, which is the propaganda arm of Al Qaeda. So it wouldn't surprise me if you claimed they faked the entire story.

Also, you got any names for who is making the bucks in Obama bandwagon?


Andy Stern - the guy who used to run Service Employees International Union. Who is now a huge bigwig within the administration on union stuff. It's also not entirely proven that he isn't still in charge at SEIU in some way.

Richard Trumka - President of the AFL-CIO. This man has had more personal visits to the Whitehouse than any other union bosses combined.

And you can stop with the left wing communist bullshit about how the unions are all trying to protect the middle class and the whole crap with workers of the world unite. The unions stopped being about that here in the US about 40 years ago and care only about raking in millions in dues to squander on all manner of progressive causes.

       
Samson said:

I'm not even going to bother responding to the absolute ignorance regarding Iraq, our intelligence, and whatever else. It's clear that there's no hope of penetrating the lifetime of propaganda you've been subjected to on it.


You're the one who had been bowled over by the propaganda. Unfortunately Bush couldn't keep lying about it forever.

Samson said:


The Brits blew up Qaddafi's compound. Unless of course you think Fox News is lying, but then you're quoting Al Jazeera, which is the propaganda arm of Al Qaeda. So it wouldn't surprise me if you claimed they faked the entire story.


Maybe they did then. But did you notice how the target wasn't Qaddafi but the military headquarters within the compound. Their intention wasn't to 'bomb Qaddafi's house'. That said, the coalition and the UN are shooting themselves in the foot getting the UN Human Rights Commission or whoever it is to investigate and possible trial him if possible for human rights abuses. It's effectively encouraging him to fight to the bitter bloody end. It would be much easier if they just tried to get him step down from power and peacefully go into exile.

Samson said:


Andy Stern - the guy who used to run Service Employees International Union. Who is now a huge bigwig within the administration on union stuff. It's also not entirely proven that he isn't still in charge at SEIU in some way.

Richard Trumka - President of the AFL-CIO. This man has had more personal visits to the Whitehouse than any other union bosses combined
.

I'm highly doubtful that Union bosses have too much to make from a Foreign war. Or do you have some explanation about how their whole money making scheme works?

Samson said:

And you can stop with the left wing communist bullshit about how the unions are all trying to protect the middle class and the whole crap with workers of the world unite.


That's got nothing to do with it. I hate unions, and I hate the way my countries (and states) government suck up to them. Just because someone works for a job creating corporation doesn't mean that they are part of a union. A lot of these people are middle class. Every single one of them were I live, for instance, is middle class. Democracy is about having a middle class majority that have the voting power to decide which group gets to be in governments (though the definition of 'middle class' can be somewhat flamboyant). The rich should be able to make money out of these things, but some of it should go to middle class workers employed by these companies.

As far as I can tell, though, you're country is going backwards; the middle class is thinning out and the divide between rich and poor is getting larger and education seems to be going downhill. That's not what happens in a functioning democracy. Laissez-Faire is bullshit, unless of course you want to go back to how England had things rolling in the early nineteenth century.

       
You're the one who had been bowled over by the propaganda. Unfortunately Bush couldn't keep lying about it forever.

Your argument is still based on a completely bogus assertion - namely that he lied. He didn't lie. They had intelligence info saying Saddam had WMDs. They did. It's been proven, but I could once again drop a battleship's worth of evidence on your head and you'd say I made the whole thing up, so why the hell should I bother?

Nope. At this point we're in for the long haul so we may as well put a bullet through his head and make sure he won't be around in another 10 years to raise more hell. Enough lines in the sand already. Either take the bastard out, or get the fuck out of Libya.

The whole scheme would take far too long to explain and since it's been sourced and verified by a news agency you already think makes shit up, again, why waste the time? Ye olde battleship's worth of evidence and all that. You have the same problem Fury does. You've long ago either made your mind up or have been so brainwashed by the lies your own media and government have told you that you can't fathom them ever being wrong.

Since you appear to already know that unions are worthless and that governments suck up to them, I can only assume you also know your anti-capitalist arguments are wrong as well. Democracy is not about having ANY class, middle or otherwise. It's an illusion - there is no such thing. The closest anyone has come to a true democracy is us with a representative republic in which EVERY class has the right to cast a vote for who they want to represent them.

Laissez-Faire is not bullshit btw, our entire country was built on that and despite best efforts by progressives, continues to function based on that. What's bullshit is progressive socialism. That shit simply does not work. Europe is a fine example of the utter failure of the entire idea. Bankrupt country after bankrupt country.

So yes, I'd love nothing more than to get back the capitalist freedoms we once had here. The ones that have been systematically stolen from us by every progressive government we've had since 1914. Abolish the income tax, abolish capital gains tax, abolish the death tax, abolish it all. Either go back to whatever system we had before all that crap came about, or enact a national sales tax that can't be raised without a 2/3 majority vote in both houses of Congress. The United States won't ever get back to the glory of our former prominence until we do something like that.

       
<< prev 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... next >>
Comments Closed
Comments for this entry have been closed.
Anonymous
Register

Forgot Password?

SuMoTuWeThFrSa
 1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30 31