An Act of War? - Page 7 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

WhoaitsZ · 04-06-2011, 06:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DontKnockIt

I love the USA but why in the hell are we getting involved with any of the middle east America hating countries? We need to stop giving money to every tom, dick and zacari bin titty. We need to stop involving ourselves in these 5000 year old who's religious cock is bigger competitions that we don't understand. They don't want us on their land and they don't want our way of life. Let's get our troops home and focus on our future which will be our toughest battle to date. We have a huge gold plated kick in nuts debt, a junkie type dependency on oil and political leaders giving us the Ole "Hope and Change" tug job. One last thing and I'll stop. Islamic extremist are doing everything they can to destroy us while we do everything we can not to take our big ass size stealth bomber size shoe and stomp you extinct. Just let it be.

roachboy · 04-06-2011, 07:42 PM

yeah. well, it's good there are people who make ace seem sensible i suppose. jesus.

aceventura3 · 04-07-2011, 07:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

yeah. well, it's good there are people who make ace seem sensible i suppose. jesus.

Your comment here is childish and unnecessary. In addition, what I have posted here has merit. If you focused on the issues in each post rather than personal attacks you would see a higher level of discourse here.

The post you mock has a solid basis in generally held views by many in this country.

Quote:

By a wide margin, American voters think Libyan leader Muammar al-Qaddafi is more committed to staying in power than President Barack Obama is to ousting him.

In addition, most voters think the Obama administration has failed to explain what the U.S. goals are in Libya, and more voters disapprove (51 percent) than approve (42 percent) of the president’s handling of the situation there.

These are just some of the findings in a Fox News poll released Wednesday.

By a large 31 percentage-point margin, more voters think Qaddafi is determined to staying in power (57 percent) than think Obama is committed to removing him (26 percent).

Most Republicans (71 percent) and independents (65 percent) say Qaddafi is more determined. Even among Democrats, a slightly larger number believe Qaddafi is more committed (43 percent) than think President Obama is (39 percent).

Meanwhile, despite President Obama making a prime-time address to the nation on March 28, most voters -- 61 percent -- say the administration has not explained what the U.S. is trying to achieve in Libya.

Read more: Fox News Poll: Qaddafi Seen as More Committed than Obama - FoxNews.com

I suggest you take an objective look at these issues and try to understand what is going on and why on this issue.

roachboy · 04-07-2011, 08:57 AM

the rebels are not a coherent military. they were not magically transformed into one by the un resolution. now there's some curious idea being tossed around of sending in some british special forces people to whip the rebels into a fighting force in a month. this despite the fact it took 10 to accomplish the same plan in kosovo.

there is a consensus that a stalemate is unfolding. there's no consensus about either what that means or what to do about it. the "plan" of whipping the rebels into a coherent military in a month is, they say, largely about trying to tip this stalemate away from "de facto advantage gadhafi" to "de facto advantage rebels"

there is obvious mission creep. this has nothing to do with marketing. this has to do with the speed with which the action was conceptualized and the speed with which gadhafi's actions made it necessary to act. there was no "special contingency plan in case gadhafi starts massacring his political opposition" that could be drawn on.

this also has nothing to do with the chain of command in itself.

but it does have something to do with the fact that the united states has largely withdrawn its capacity from the action, which has undercut the power of the airstrikes. the reason for this withdrawal is universally acknowledged except in that special crackpot world of fox news----the effect of iraq and afghanistan---that is, of neo-conservative arrogance and incompetence.

the "obama hasn't explained things" is a simple-minded substitute for a serious problem the sole purpose of which is the allow the right---which lately has started to crumble politically again---to gain some advantage.
it's yet another cheap conservative talking point.
there is no reason to take either it or anyone who repeats it seriously.

aceventura3 · 04-07-2011, 09:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

the "obama hasn't explained things" is a simple-minded substitute for a serious problem the sole purpose of which is the allow the right---which lately has started to crumble politically again---to gain some advantage.
it's yet another cheap conservative talking point.
there is no reason to take either it or anyone who repeats it seriously.

Read my posts #36 and #42 in this thread dated 3/21. The problems were clear from the start. The questions presented were not talking points, but are very real and some still go unanswered.

Quote:

Obama's words on this issue and his actions lack clarity.

Is the military objective to simply assist with establishing a no fly zone? If so for what purpose?
Is the purpose of the no fly zone to save lives? If so, will prolonging a civil war save lives?
Is the purpose to assist the rebels in overthrowing Kadafi? If so, do they need more support?
If the rebels need more support, how much more are we going to give them? Are we committed to the end? Are we going to only provide support as long as it is politically convenient?
Who are the rebels? Are the rebels committed to a equal human rights for all? If not why support them?

So many questions with no real answers coming from the WH. And worse, we have a Congress and a press crops not demanding answers.

Quote:

Victorious warriors win first and then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win.
Sun Tzu

Read more: Sun Tzu Quotes - Page 3 - BrainyQuote

The rebel cause was lost from the start, and they need more than a no fly zone.

---------- Post added at 09:10 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:55 PM ----------

The more I think about this the more it bothers me.

Think about it this way. You are a Lybian rebel. You get word of the UN rsolution of a no fly zone. You hear and see UN coalition planes and rockets hitting Kadafi targets. You think you have the support of the world and that they will come to your aid as needed. You fight on. You fight on. Then one day when things are at their worst and you wait for the Calvary...it doesn't show up...the slaughter occurs.

Either we commit, or stay out. Being half way in is wrong.

For a change try to be intellectually honest.

roachboy · 04-07-2011, 10:20 AM

first, this is not an american operation. i don't understand why you have such trouble with this empirical situation.

second, your insistence that the "problem" is some "lack of clarity" from obama is nothing but the repetition of a lame conservative talking point. so you demonstrate my point from the post just above yours. well played. it's great to watch someone with your skills eviscerate themselves. again. bravo.

third, your "civil war" interpretation is arbitrary---we've already been through this. others have too. you make a pseudo-historical argument, get pushed off it because you don't know what you're talking about, then try to bring it back again.

finally, your assertion about the rebels "being lost from the start" is simply pulled from the air.

the only point in your summary of yourself that's real is the question about not knowing who exactly the rebels are. but everyone's been saying this from jump.

in contrast, there are some interesting alternate readings of the libyan action.
this one, for example, is written by someone who sees it as a neo-colonial enterprise.

Quote:

Libya: Who wins?
While the media presents Western intervention in Libya as aiding a just uprising of the Libyan people, the reality is very different, writes Curtis Doebbler

Watching the Western media, one would think that the Libya crisis was a domestic uprising in which the West felt morally obliged to help and came to aid of ordinary citizens. But a closer look than we are allowed by the "controlled" Western media shows a much different picture.

Rather than the result of a spontaneous show of public participation, the conflict besieging Libya may have been a classic expression of neo-colonialism. The West, especially the United States and its Gulf allies, rather than embracing the peoples' expression of participation in Egypt and Tunisia contrived events in Libya to be able to control these expressions and ensure that they did not result in these people or any other in the region being able to decide how to govern themselves.

Before the situation in Libya erupted, Western countries were investing heavily both in Libyan oil and in removing Colonel Muammar Gaddafi. The two goals were not incompatible for them as they were both driven by the capitalist motivation of greed. They could not let the oil flow by them without taking their share and, they thought, if they can replace the colonel with a Western puppet they can increase their profit as well as their control over the source of this profit.

Now we know that Western intelligence agencies were operating inside Libya long before the disturbances started. They were so well entrenched that as soon as the Libyan public got involved they could provide them diplomatic, strategic and military support. In such circumstances it is also fantastically naïve to think that Western intelligence officers were not fermenting unrest.

Recently, a Swiss military official speaking on condition of anonymity explained how the Swiss had invested millions if not billions in trying to remove the Libyan colonel since their rift with him started in 2008. US military aid to Libya -- the training of Libyan soldiers -- was widely rumoured to be accompanied with ideological efforts to convert Libyan officers to an American style of life. It may have been no coincidence that the "Libyan revolution" has from the start been led by former members of the same regime they now claim to be opposing.

To fend off such efforts, Libya bought influence with the West. The very same coalition that is bombing the people of Libya today contributed to their coffers in the recent past. Libya helped finance French President Nicolas Sarkozy's election campaign in 2007. Libya invested heavily in the UK and the US, often inviting US businessmen and entertainers to participate in extravagant events and projects. And Libya invested heavily in the capitalist markets of Europe and the United States.

Libya not only had political reasons to do so. It also had the wealth to do so. The Libyan people were the wealthiest of any of the 54 African states. Unlike the poverty-ridden populations of Tunisia and Egypt, Libyans had very good indicators of human development. Social and economic rights were so widely developed that Libya hosted hundreds of thousands of foreign workers. Yet despite its wealth, Libya remained a more socialist than capitalist state. This was hard for Western capitalists to palate.

So too the opportunities for profit from a war with Libya are hard for Western capitalists to pass up. As Asia Times Online's Pepe Escobar reported in an article entitled "There's No Business Like War Business" on 30 March, the main beneficiaries of a war with Libya are the US Pentagon, the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO), Saudi Arabia, the Arab League's Amr Moussa, and Qatar, not the Libyan people in Tripoli, Benghazi or anywhere in Libya.

When ordinary people rose up around the Middle East, these profiteers saw their opportunity to act. In the first instance, they may have thought that the ground was fertile enough from their significant investments in anti-colonel propaganda that all that was needed was some philosophical support. With a naiveté impertinent to the political sophistication of Libyans, the Sarkozy government sent French philosopher Bernard-Henri Lévy as their contribution to the rebels' cause.

When this was not enough and it was clear that firepower had to be used to prevent the Libyan government from putting down the armed rebels -- a means had to be devised to use force. A mere Western intervention would uncover for sure the neo-colonialist intentions of the West. Arab support had to be found.

The Arab League was a natural ally. Its secretary-general and a former lieutenant of disposed Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak, Amr Moussa, was trying to reinvent himself with aspirations to become the next president of Egypt. In addition, the West had leverage over him from the longstanding relationship that had existed with him during the more than a decade he served as Egypt's foreign minister and permanent representative to the United Nations. Moreover, he had been compliant with the West when they wanted to use force against Iraq on behalf of Egypt in 1991 and on behalf of the Arab League in 2003.

Moussa was compliant again. In what would have been termed a flawed ballot if it had been the standard for an election in any country, the Arab League convened just half, eleven, of its 22 member states to vote on a Saudi Arabian-Qatari proposal to support a no-fly-zone over Libya. Two states present, Algeria and Syria, objected. In the end only nine of the 22 member states actually supported the "no-fly call", but that was good enough for the West. It gave them just enough credibility to launch their grab for Libya.

The propaganda machine then turned to the UN. Timing was delicate. As the rebels were advancing on Tripoli, after the government restrained itself and withdrew its troops from town after town, the West hoped that the philosophical support might be enough. But just when things were looking hopeful for Western interests, the Libyan government, after a failed effort to resolve the conflict peacefully, unleashed a brutal attempt to put down the uprising. Within days Libyan government troops were at the gates of Benghazi. Time was of the essence.

The West focused its propaganda machinery on the UN with a vengeance. And it was no mere ordinary propaganda campaign but a full-blown orchestration of history for the books. First, Libyan diplomats were induced and threatened to step down from their positions and promised that if they supported the opposition they would be "taken care of". This resulted in the Libyan diplomats to the UN not only resigning, but doing so and still maintaining a type of diplomatic status that allowed them to advocate on behalf of the armed rebels who were challenging the government of Libya for control of their country.

This was accomplished by the spurious actions of UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon, who issued special passes to the former Libyan diplomats after their government had withdrawn their credentials. Bypassing the UN General Assembly's Credentials Committee and well-established protocol, the UN secretary-general for the first time in the world body's history personally favoured one side in what was by now a civil war. The secretary-general's bias became even more apparent when on 25 March his spokesman said that he had left the responsibility of encouraging a peaceful resolution to the conflict to others and that the UN was not engaged in it at all. Such an abrogation of the core responsibility of the United Nations was unprecedented and akin to a head of a state saying his or her country's national security is irrelevant.

The secretary-general apparently in pocket, the Libyan government's voice silenced, the UN could move to vote on a series of resolutions that would finally result in the authorisation of the West to use force against Libya.

First Resolution 1970 was adopted by the UN Security Council with little fanfare amid calls for humanitarian protection. During the short debate no state queried whether the conflict could be better resolved by sternly calling for all parties to lay down their arms. Instead a one-sided, but also weak resolution was adopted that merely aimed at vilifying a few government officials and members of the family of Colonel Gaddafi. Hardly any mention was made of the armed opposition and certainly no stern call was made for them to lay down their arms; it was even intimated that the armed opposition was allowed to go on attacking.

Just days after the first resolution was adopted without any authorisation for the use of force and before its measures could even be implemented, a second resolution was adopted calling for the use force. Not only was this inconsistent with the UN Charter's provisions concerning Security Council authorisation of the use of force, but its very adoption was based on very odd politics. For example, despite populations that largely abhorred the use of force by Western countries against African countries and despite the fact that the African Union had just reiterated that no outside force should be used in Libya, Gabon, South Africa and Nigeria, as non-permanent members of the Security Council, voted for the resolution.

What had encouraged these three African states to vote against the common position of their continent is ripe for speculation. While the impoverished Gabon may be written off to incapacity to withstand Western pressure, Nigeria and South Africa are flourishing on the African continent and have significant reputations among African states. Moreover, as might have been expected, they have suffered for ignoring their people and the collective voice of Africa.

In South Africa, opposition parties have questioned the government as to how it could act contrary to the will of its own people, as well as all of Africa, by supporting Resolution 1973. The situation even threatens the legitimacy of South African President Jacob Zuma's government. What degree of bribes or threats would motivate him to make such a dangerous decision? If US escapades in Iraq are any indication, it might be recalled that the US sent South Africa a letter threatening to view them as a hostile nation if they raised the legitimacy of the use of force against Iraq in the UN General Assembly in 2003. If such means worked then with the more resilient South African President Thabo Mbeki, one might expect that they would still work now with South Africa under Zuma.

Similarly in Nigeria, it is hard to imagine how a government on the verge of an election would risk acting contrary to the overwhelming will of its people who oppose Western intervention on their continent, with that of its African compatriots. Even the most significant campaign contributions would likely not constitute sufficient bribes coming just weeks before the elections. But then, just days ago Nigerian elections were suddenly and without credible explanation delayed.

The only Arab state of the Security Council, Lebanon, has been governed by a "gouvernement du demission" since January. Ironically the reason for the failure of the Lebanese government had to do with its bowing to the West in relation to the tribunal investigating the death of former prime minister Rafik Al-Hariri.

In the few days between the votes on resolutions 1970 and 1973, diplomats from Brazil, China, Germany, India and the Russian Federation constantly mentioned assurances that they had received that resolution 1973 would not allow for extensive use of force. Both before and after the adoption of the resolution these same countries warned of the "great risks and the likelihood" of large- scale loss of life that would result from aerial bombardment. In the end, all efforts to prevent the action were tidily foreclosed by a combination of threats and bribes and misinformation. This effort has continued as a means to protect the small coalition of mainly Western states using force against Libya from criticism.

For example, after the adoption of the resolutions when Libya attempted to send a new envoy to the UN, not only did the US government refuse him entry to the United States in violation of the Headquarters Agreement it had with the UN, but also the UN did not object. Moreover, a source close to the envoy that Libya had sent, Ali Treki, a former foreign minister and former president of the UN General Assembly, said that he had been told that if he assumed the post for his country his family would be targeted by the allied airstrikes.

When the Libyan government then named former Nicaraguan foreign minister and another former president of the UN General Assembly Miguel d'Escoto Brockmann to represent them at the UN in New York, and discussed representation with another individual in Geneva, Western governments supporting the coalition carrying out the bombings quickly issued threats to these persons. In New York, the US permanent representative to the UN literally stated that d'Escoto Brockmann could not represent Libya and that if he tried to do so he could be deported from the United States. Rice appeared oblivious of the fact that d'Escoto Brockmann was actually born in the United States, and of the fact that under the Headquarters Agreement with the UN the US was obliged to accept duly credentialed representatives to the UN. Once again, however, international law seemed to mean little to the US.

Despite preventing the government of Libya from speaking at the UN through their duly appointed representatives, the host country of the UN headquarters has allowed dismissed Libyan diplomats to continue to use the Libyan Permanent Mission in New York to work for the armed opposition to their government. In this capacity, the former Libyan diplomats in New York are advocating for the bombing of their own country by foreign forces from their country's diplomatic premises.

Even in this surreal situation, condemnations of the Western bombing of Libya are growing. Joining the repeated calls of UN Security Council members Brazil, China, Germany, India and Russia are countries like Uruguay whose president, José Mujica, recent told the International Press Service that "[t]his attack implies a setback in the current international order. The remedy is much worse than the illness. This business of saving lives by bombing is an inexplicable contradiction."

Even for those Libyans who legitimately seek to claim a right to participate in their own country's government, and their supporters around the world, the destruction of the wealthiest country in Africa must appear to be a strange contradiction. The crucial question is whether enough people will recognise this deadly oxymoron in time to do something about it.

The writer is a prominent international human rights lawyer.

Al-Ahram Weekly | Opinion | Libya: Who wins?

aceventura3 · 04-07-2011, 11:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

first, this is not an american operation. i don't understand why you have such trouble with this empirical situation.

It is your problem that you don't understand what I have written regarding my view of American involvement. At the most empirical level this is a Libyan situation. Once we get beyond that, any pretense held that American does not have the most influence over how event will go has very little credibility.

Quote:

second, your insistence that the "problem" is some "lack of clarity" from obama is nothing but the repetition of a lame conservative talking point. so you demonstrate my point from the post just above yours. well played. it's great to watch someone with your skills eviscerate themselves. again. bravo.

My post regarding Obama's lack of clarity predates any formal talking points.

Quote:

third, your "civil war" interpretation is arbitrary---we've already been through this. others have too. you make a pseudo-historical argument, get pushed off it because you don't know what you're talking about, then try to bring it back again.

Is your point that the conflict in Libya is not a civil war?

Quote:

finally, your assertion about the rebels "being lost from the start" is simply pulled from the air.

Or, a simple assessment of the situation prior to the UN resolution passage and the implementation of the no fly zone. Come on, look at the dates. Match what was going on inside and outside of Libya on a time-line. The rebel cause was clearly a lost cause prior to the UN resolution - my questions that followed involved what our level of commitment would be. Encouraging people to fight on in a lost cause, giving them the false impression of support that may not materialize borders on immoral depending on the circumstances and how events play out.

Quote:

the only point in your summary of yourself that's real is the question about not knowing who exactly the rebels are. but everyone's been saying this from jump.

And I emphasize the importance of knowing that before we engage our military. A clear error in leadership.

roachboy · 04-07-2011, 11:36 AM

1. pedantic horseshit aside, you concede the point. fine.

2. right. so the talking points were taken from you. fox is repeating you. i hope you're getting the royalties you so richly deserve.

3. you're being obtuse.

4, i am well aware of the time-line that's involved with this conflict to now.
your interpretation is pulled from the air.
what it's probably based on is the flip of it. which is circular. to wit: the un intervened to prevent a massacre. had that intervention not happened, there would have been one. ergo, the rebels would have lost "from the start"------so you can't even account for the fact of the intervention. so why are you bothering to talk about this situation in libya at all?

5. speaking of time-lines, maybe you ought to review actual material about the speed with which this situation tanked. the resolution was pushed through extremely fast. but you seem "honest" in that special way--chronology is important when you think it suits some purpose, and is irrelevant when it doesn't. fast and loose with the facts as always.

if you actually bothered to read the article i posted above---which you clearly did not---you'd have an alternative scenario. but why bother reading?

"leadership"---->meaningless b-school meme. we've been through this too. over and over. good christ. no learning curve at all.

aceventura3 · 04-07-2011, 02:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

if you actually bothered to read the article i posted above---which you clearly did not---you'd have an alternative scenario. but why bother reading?

If not for your post #242 I was pretty much done with this thread. I concede nothing to you. You are incapable of an honest, objective and fair discussion. I have concluded that the only reason you post here is to have your ego stoked - and since I don't stoke your ego you will not respond to my posts in a rational manner. My reading and commenting on something you cite has never lead to anything other than your personal attacks. Eventually you will sharing information that does not engage anyone - I will just partake in poking fun at your odd comments here and there.

Quote:

"leadership"---->meaningless b-school meme. we've been through this too. over and over. good christ. no learning curve at all.

Like the above odd comment.

"Leadership" came long before b-schools - if your premise is that "leadership" is not real or does not have an impact in world events, why not clearly state it or be more specific in your objection to my premise. Otherwise, I will continue to assume you are not serious or that you have not given the issue any serious thought. I am sure "leadership" was meaningless to this guy:

You may know him as Alexander The Great, or maybe not - read up on him and get back to us on this issue you have with "leadership"

roachboy · 04-08-2011, 07:14 AM

meanwhile, out in the wider world:

in egypt there's continued angst about the direction the revolution is heading in...there's good reason for concern, too. lately there's been a spate of overviews on the order of these:

Al-Ahram Weekly | Opinion | Explaining the slow pace of change

7 Popular Myths about the Revolution

which are interesting i think. complicated situation. lots of uncertainty. there's a sizable demo in tahrir square today

DSC_9294 \| Flickr - Photo Sharing!

that we are all khaled said refers to as a "day of purification"---the demo is a way to keep pressure on the existing government to continue getting rid of ndp people, to continue dismantling the mubarak-period oligarchy of which they are part.

as an aside, this is a quite lovely 5 minute clip shot a week ago today at tahrir:

untitled (tahrir) on Vimeo

roachboy · 04-10-2011, 08:02 AM

Quote:

Libya: rebel defences 'failing' as Gaddafi forces move towards Benghazi

Soldiers loyal to Muammar Gaddafi reach heart of strategic town of Ajdabiya, 90 miles from city at centre of revolution

Muammar Gaddafi's forces continued to fight their way toward Benghazi, the heart of Libya's revolution, as five African leaders arrived in Tripoli in an effort to broker a ceasefire and political settlement.

Rebel defences around Ajdabiya appeared to be failing as Gaddafi's soldiers broke in to the heart of the strategic town, 90 miles from Benghazi, and engaged in running street battles after again outmanoeuvring the revolutionaries.

Although western powers continued their air strikes, they did not appear to deter Gaddafi's forces.

Rebels said government forces shot down a Russian-made helicopter sent to the fight by revolutionaries only two days before. Nato forced a rebel MIG jet to land because of the UN-imposed no-fly zone.

Shelling around the southern entrance to Ajdabiya continued, with loud explosions heard and thick black smoke rising over parts of the town.

Much of Ajdabiya was deserted after civilians fled amid the prospect of Gaddafi's troops taking it for a second time in as many weeks.

Thousands of discarded bullet casings littering some streets marked sites of intense shooting over the weekend.

"Gaddafi's military is in the town," said Saleh Mufta, a 25-year-old who was a science student before becoming an armed rebel.

"There's been a lot of shooting. Gaddafi has copied our techniques. He is not using so many tanks now after the air strikes. His men are in pickups. They move very fast. We don't know where they are. They just pop up."

Burned out cars were scattered through the city, and a mosque on the edge of town appeared to have been the scene of heavy fighting. Bullets scarred much of the building.

Asked what he thought the government army's intent was, Mufta said: "They don't want Ajdabiya. They want the road to Benghazi. They want Benghazi."

Nato faces humiliation if Gaddafi's army is able to force its way through Ajdabiya again to threaten Benghazi, the city the western allies launched the first air strikes to defend.

Other than a line of artillery about 15 miles from the city, rebel defences around Benghazi are little in evidence.

The fighting continued as an African Union delegation, led by the South African president, Jacob Zuma, was to meet Gaddafi in Tripoli and then fly on to talk to the rebels in Benghazi to press for a ceasefire.

Zuma has accused western powers of going against the "letter and spirit" of the UN security council resolution with the extent of air strikes and has called for Gaddafi to be allowed to leave power "with dignity".

The other members of the team include the presidents of Congo-Brazzaville, Mali, Uganda and Mauritania.

Mohamed Ould Abdel Aziz, president of Mauritania, said: "We hope that mediation will lead to a constructive dialogue for a political settlement of the crisis based on the aspirations of the Libyan people."

But Libya's rebel leadership is sceptical about any political deal that does not require the immediate removal of Gaddafi from power or any ceasefire that does not require him to pull all his forces out of cities under attack, most importantly Misrata.

Libya: rebel defences 'failing' as Gaddafi forces move towards Benghazi | World news | The Guardian

this is a problem, yes? can nato allow itself to effectively be defeated? will it?
oops, sorry about that guys.

this was not given in advance.
and the problems here are not a matter of marketing. i don't imagine anyone cares what political advantage american conservatives try to gain from this by setting up ridiculous criteria or making surreal frames to place over by all the blather about leadership yada yada yada.

let's do a quick recap:

there was a revolt centered in eastern libya.
the metropolis has never really liked gadhafi so saw this as a way to support his ouster, and as a way to continue trying to get out in front of the revolts against the national security state/neo-liberal imperial order that's still unfolding across north africa/middle east. get out in front so as to contain/channel.
it's not a real contradiction discursively for the us to do this as it simply requires aligning its policy a bit closer with the sort of values/words that american politicians like to say the united states is about anyway--freedom and all that---but particularly since the 1980s (leaning on the cold war) neo-conservative "realism" has resulted in the continued american sponsorship of dictatorships which played nice with us interests in the region. those interests are really important, so getting in front of the revolt is a strategic imperative. neo-con "realism" would be entirely incapable of it. not clear and manly enough, you see.

once the situation in libya escalated into military action, things moved very quickly in a downhill sense. the united states dithered for a while about supporting the security council action requested by the rebels and uk and france---they finally supported the resolution on a friday---by sunday the bombing had started. and things went the other way for a short time while the americans ran the show and used their technologies.

the story since then is obvious---a period of retreat for gadhafi followed by reversal followed by retreat followed by the above, which coincides with (a) the nature of the air strikes (b) the role of us equipment in the air strikes and---here's a key change it appears (c) gadhafi's adaptation to the fact of the strikes.

one problem is that resolution isn't terribly precise about what the objective of the action is...humanitarian or overthrowing gadhafi. i think that so long as things appeared to be heading toward a military defeat for gadhafi, the humanitarian and military/political objectives could be conflated.

but now, if the dynamic above continues, it is possible that the objectives could change fundamentally and that nato begins to act to extricate itself from a potential defeat---so acts in its own interests as an independent military unit involved in a civil war in libya.

so escalation or defeat.
i don't see anything good coming of either one. and i don't see any immediate alternative scenario---unless there is a political resolution of the conflict. but that aside, i think this action may be nearing a tipping point.

i think there's been a significant underestimation of what nato was getting itself into and---what seems to be worse----a slowness to react that seems to be what is giving gadhafi the space to deliver what could well be a fatal blow to the rebels if he can take banghazi.

right now, it appears that things are moving too fast for the style that nato....

roachboy · 04-14-2011, 07:13 AM

Quote:

Johann Hari: We're not being told the truth on Libya

Look at two other wars our government is currently deeply involved in - because they show that the claims made for this bombing campaign can't be true

Friday, 8 April 2011

Most of us have a low feeling that we are not being told the real reasons for the war in Libya. David Cameron's instinctive response to the Arab revolutions was to jump on a plane and tour the palaces of the region's dictators selling them the most hi-tech weapons of repression available. Nicolas Sarkozy's instinctive response to the Arab revolutions was to offer urgent aid to the Tunisian tyrant in crushing his people. Barack Obama's instinctive response to the Arab revolutions was to refuse to trim the billions in aid going to Hosni Mubarak and his murderous secret police, and for his Vice-President to declare: "I would not refer to him as a dictator."

Yet now we are told that these people have turned into the armed wing of Amnesty International. They are bombing Libya because they can't bear for innocent people to be tyrannised, by the tyrants they were arming and funding for years. As Obama put it: "Some nations may be able to turn a blind eye to atrocities in other countries. The United States of America is different". There was a time, a decade ago, when I took this rhetoric at face value. But I can't now. The best guide through this confusion is to look at two other wars our government is currently deeply involved in – because they show that the claims made for this bombing campaign can't be true.

Imagine a distant leader killed more than 2,000 innocent people, and his military commanders responded to evidence that they were civilians by joking that the victims "were not the local men's glee club". Imagine one of the innocent survivors appeared on television, amid the body parts of his son and brother, and pleaded: "Please. We are human beings. Help us. Don't let them do this." Imagine that polling from the attacked country showed that 90 per cent of the people there said civilians were the main victims and they desperately wanted it to stop. Imagine there was then a huge natural flood, and the leader responded by ramping up the attacks. Imagine the country's most respected democratic and liberal voices were warning that these attacks seriously risked causing the transfer of nuclear material to jihadi groups.

Surely, if we meant what we say about Libya, we would be doing anything to stop such behaviour? Wouldn't we be imposing a no-fly zone, or even invading?

Yet, in this instance, we would have to be imposing a no-fly zone on our own governments. Since 2004, the US – with European support – has been sending unmanned robot-planes into Pakistan to illegally bomb its territory in precisely this way. Barack Obama has massively intensified this policy.

His administration claims they are killing al-Qa'ida. But there are several flaws in this argument. The intelligence guiding their bombs about who is actually a jihadi is so poor that, for six months, Nato held top-level negotiations with a man who claimed to be the head of the Taliban – only for him to later admit he was a random Pakistani grocer who knew nothing about the organisation. He just wanted some baksheesh. The US's own former senior military advisers admit that even when the intel is accurate, for every one jihadi they kill, as many as 50 innocent people die. And almost everyone in Pakistan believes these attacks are actually increasing the number of jihadis, by making young men so angry at the killing of their families they queue to sign up.

The country's leading nuclear scientist, Professor Pervez Hoodbhoy, warns me it is even more dangerous still. He says there is a significant danger that these attacks are spreading so much rage and hatred through the country that it materially increases the chances of the people guarding the country’s nuclear weapons smuggling fissile material out to jihadi groups.

So one of the country's best writers, Fatima Bhutto, tells me: "In Pakistan, when we hear Obama's rhetoric on Libya, we can only laugh. If he was worried about the pointless massacre of innocent civilians, there would be an easy first step for him: stop doing it yourself, in my country."

The war in the Congo is the deadliest war since Adolf Hitler marched across Europe. When I reported on it, I saw the worst things I could have ever conceived of: armies of drugged and mutilated children, women who had been gang-raped and shot in the vagina. Over five million people have been killed so far – and the trail of blood runs directly to your mobile phone and mine.

The major UN investigation into the war explained how it happened. They said bluntly and factually that "armies of business" had invaded Congo to pillage its resources and sell them to the knowing West. The most valuable loot is coltan, which is used to make the metal in our mobile phones and games consoles and laptops. The "armies of business" fought and killed to control the mines and send it to us. The UN listed some of the major Western corporations fuelling this trade, and said if they were stopped, it would largely end the war.

Last year, after a decade, the US finally passed legislation that was – in theory, at least – supposed to deal with this. As I explain in the forthcoming BBC Radio 4 programme 4Thought, it outlined an entirely voluntary system to trace who was buying coltan and other conflict minerals from the mass murderers, and so driving the war. (There are plenty of other places we can get coltan from, although it's slightly more expensive.) The State Department was asked to draw up some kind of punishment for transgressors, and given 140 days to do it.

Now the deadline has passed. What's the punishment? It turns out the State Department didn't have the time or inclination to draft anything. Maybe it was too busy preparing to bomb Libya, because – obviously – it can't tolerate the killing of innocent people. (Britain and other European countries have been exactly the same.) Here was a chance to stop the worst violence against civilians in the world that didn't require any bombs, or violence of our own. If the rhetoric about Libya was sincere, this was a no-brainer. It would only cost a few corporations some money – and they refuse to do it. So the worst war since 1945 goes on.

This all went unreported. By contrast, when the Congolese government recently nationalized a mine belonging to US and British corporations, there was a fire-burst of fury in the press. You can kill five million people and we'll politely look away; but take away the property of rich people, and we get really angry.

Doesn't this cast a different light on the Libya debate? We are pushed every day by the media to look at the (usually very real) abuses by our country's enemies and ask: "What can we do?" We are almost never prompted to look at the equally real and equally huge abuses by our own country, its allies and its corporations – which we have much more control over – and ask the same question.

So the good and decent impulse of ordinary people - to protect their fellow human beings - is manipulated. If you are interested in human rights only when it tells you a comforting story about your nation's power, then you are not really interested in human rights at all.

David Cameron says "just because we can't intervene everywhere, doesn't mean we shouldn't intervene somewhere." But this misses the point. While "we" are intervening to cause horrific harm to civilians in much of the world, it's plainly false to claim to be driven by a desire to prevent other people behaving very like us.

You could argue that our governments are clearly not driven by humanitarian concerns, but their intervention in Libya did stop a massacre in Ben Gazhi, so we should support it anyway. I understand this argument, which some people I admire have made, and I wrestled with it. It is an argument that you should, in effect, ride the beast of NATO power if it slays other beasts that were about to eat innocent people. This was the argument I made in 2003 about Iraq – that the Bush administration had malign motives, but it would have the positive effect of toppling a horrific dictator, so we should support it. I think almost everyone can see now why this was a disastrous - and, in the end, shameful - argument.

Why? Because any coincidental humanitarian gain in the short term will be eclipsed as soon as the local population clash with the real reason for the war. Then our governments will back their renewed vicious repression - just as the US and Britain did in Iraq, with a policy of effectively sanctioning the resumption of torture when the population became uppity and objected to the occupation.

So why are our governments really bombing Libya? We won't know for sure until the declassified documents come out many years from now. But Bill Richardson, the former US energy secretary who served as US ambassador to the UN, is probably right when he says: "There's another interest, and that's energy... Libya is among the 10 top oil producers in the world. You can almost say that the gas prices in the US going up have probably happened because of a stoppage of Libyan oil production... So this is not an insignificant country, and I think our involvement is justified."

For the first time in more than 60 years, Western control over the world's biggest pots of oil was being rocked by a series of revolutions our governments couldn't control. The most plausible explanation is that this is a way of asserting raw Western power, and trying to arrange the fallout in our favour. But if you are still convinced our governments are acting for humanitarian reasons, I've got a round-trip plane ticket for you to some rubble in Pakistan and Congo. The people there would love to hear your argument.

The Independent - Print Article

it's hard not to see this main points here, really. that the libyan action is not being sold using a logic that mirrors the actual motives for action.

that there have been any number of situations in which innocent people have been massacred in great number---but so long as the interests of capital were being served, none of the metropolitan states gave a fuck about humanitarian issues.

that libya is the no. 10 oil producer globally makes humanitarian claims problematic...that this is a fraught and/or ambiguous situation. that the claim ---to paraphrase above-- malign motives bringing about a desirable end should be enough to override ambivalences....see iraq:

Johann Hari: I was wrong, terribly wrong - and the evidence should have been clear all along - Johann Hari, Commentators - The Independent

that the result of this intervention may well end up being exactly the sort of thing the intervention was supposed to get rid of, on the order of what's happened in iraq since 2003---which is continuing to happen now (witness the colonial repression of protests against the continued occupation).

Iraq: Wikileaks Documents Describe Torture of Detainees | Human Rights Watch

note in particular the responses of pakistanis to obama's claims regarding american concern for human rights above....

awesome.

aceventura3 · 04-25-2011, 01:38 PM

To all the liberals who constantly said Bush lied about Iraq:

Where are you at? Why the silence on this new war? Why hasn't Obama consulted with Congress or gotten congressional approval? Why is NATO violating the UN mandate with no complaints? Why isn't Obama addressing the American people directly? why is no one demanding answers? There are so many questions, and I am shocked by what appears to be double standards.

{added} What about the whole issue of Executive power and checks and balances? A big issue when Bush was in office. Where are the calls for impeachment?

dc_dux · 04-25-2011, 01:56 PM

ace...are we back to this again?

The comparison between a UN sanctioned operation (Libya) vs one that had no UN sanction (Iraq).

The comparison between an invasion with tens of thousands of ground troops (Iraq) vs no US ground troops (Libya).

No consultation with Congress? Much like Reagan's bombing of Libya in 86. One could make the case that Obama used the War Powers Act in the same nebulous manner as Reagan (in bombing Libya and invading Granada) or GHW Bush's invasion of Panama.

Violating the UN mandate? Explain please.

filtherton · 04-25-2011, 03:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

To all the liberals who constantly said Bush lied about Iraq:

Where are you at? Why the silence on this new war? Why hasn't Obama consulted with Congress or gotten congressional approval? Why is NATO violating the UN mandate with no complaints? Why isn't Obama addressing the American people directly? why is no one demanding answers? There are so many questions, and I am shocked by what appears to be double standards.

{added} What about the whole issue of Executive power and checks and balances? A big issue when Bush was in office. Where are the calls for impeachment?

Why do some people think that Obama doesn't have liberal critics? Most of the more reasonable criticisms of Obama (ie, not the ones that rely on islamophobia, misinformed uses of the word socialism or conspiracies about birth certificates) have come from folks on the left.

There are plenty of leftward folks who aren't happy with Obama and plenty of them don't trust the president any more than they trusted Bush.

Speaking of supporting our actions in Libya, your lady Palin thinks we haven't gone far enough.

aceventura3 · 04-26-2011, 11:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

ace...are we back to this again?

The comparison between a UN sanctioned operation (Libya) vs one that had no UN sanction (Iraq).

The UN mandate has been violated.

Quote:

The comparison between an invasion with tens of thousands of ground troops (Iraq) vs no US ground troops (Libya).

would people in the Obama administration be willing to say under oath, subject to the penalty of perjury that there is and have been no US military troops on the ground? Would they testify that no Nato troops, with US knowledge and approval, have not been and are not on the ground, in violation of the UN mandate?

Quote:

No consultation with Congress? Much like Reagan's bombing of Libya in 86. One could make the case that Obama used the War Powers Act in the same nebulous manner as Reagan (in bombing Libya and invading Granada) or GHW Bush's invasion of Panama.

I am a defender of executive power, you on the other hand have consistently been on the other-side of the argument, but for some reason not now. Pleas explain.

Quote:

Violating the UN mandate? Explain please.

Why? Is it not clear that the argument could be made? Do you not understand those arguments? Again, why play juvenile games? If you want to seriously discuss the issues involving the real possibility that the UN mandate has been violated, first can you acknowledge that reasonable people can even make the argument? If your assumption is that I am just making stuff up because I don't like Obama nothing that follows will matter.

dc_dux · 04-26-2011, 11:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

The UN mandate has been violated.

would people in the Obama administration be willing to say under oath, subject to the penalty of perjury that there is and have been no US military troops on the ground? Would they testify that no Nato troops, with US knowledge and approval, have not been and are not on the ground, in violation of the UN mandate?

I am a defender of executive power, you on the other hand have consistently been on the other-side of the argument, but for some reason not now. Pleas explain.

Why? Is it not clear that the argument could be made? Do you not understand those arguments? Again, why play juvenile games? If you want to seriously discuss the issues involving the real possibility that the UN mandate has been violated, first can you acknowledge that reasonable people can even make the argument? If your assumption is that I am just making stuff up because I don't like Obama nothing that follows will matter.

We've been through this before, ace. There has been no violation of the UN mandate.

Go back and read it again.

aceventura3 · 04-26-2011, 12:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by filtherton

Why do some people think that Obama doesn't have liberal critics? Most of the more reasonable criticisms of Obama (ie, not the ones that rely on islamophobia, misinformed uses of the word socialism or conspiracies about birth certificates) have come from folks on the left.

I don't see many reasonable criticism from liberal here.

Quote:

Speaking of supporting our actions in Libya, your lady Palin thinks we haven't gone far enough.

I believe we need to be all in or not in at all. If we were all in I think Kadafi would be gone. My position is a bit different than hers.

---------- Post added at 08:00 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:57 PM ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

We've been through this before, ace. There has been no violation of the UN mandate.

Go back and read it again.

You need to read it again and then read the reports of what NATO has been doing, not to mention the things that are being done that is not being reported. Simply, the bombing of Kadafi's compound can be argued as a violation. The mandate is not regime change or assassination attempts.

filtherton · 04-26-2011, 12:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

I don't see many reasonable criticism from liberal here.

I can't make you see the sky, either. It's still there.

aceventura3 · 04-26-2011, 12:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by filtherton

I can't make you see the sky, either. It's still there.

What do you want me to see? Are you suggesting that liberals are as vocal now as they were when Bush was President regarding war, executive power, preemptive war, occupation, motivating terrorists, violating international law, etc. Not to mention Gitmo, habeas corpus, expanding the war in Afghanistan, not bringing our troops home from Iraq. I am flat out saying that liberals are generally silent (including here) and appear to hold Obama to a different standard.

filtherton · 04-26-2011, 01:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

What do you want me to see? Are you suggesting that liberals are as vocal now as they were when Bush was President regarding war, executive power, preemptive war, occupation, motivating terrorists, violating international law, etc. Not to mention Gitmo, habeas corpus, expanding the war in Afghanistan, not bringing our troops home from Iraq. I am flat out saying that liberals are generally silent (including here) and appear to hold Obama to a different standard.

Comparisons to the Bush era are irrelevant. Neither side is monolithic and there are elements of both sides that will never criticize their leaders. However, if you think all liberals have been silent, then you haven't been paying attention. Maybe you should start polling folks at co-ops instead of your local Safeway?

silent_jay · 04-26-2011, 01:21 PM

dc_dux · 04-26-2011, 01:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

You need to read it again and then read the reports of what NATO has been doing, not to mention the things that are being done that is not being reported. Simply, the bombing of Kadafi's compound can be argued as a violation. The mandate is not regime change or assassination attempts.

ace...the only ones complaining about NATO violating the UN mandate are you and the Russians....and no one takes either one of you seriously.

aceventura3 · 04-26-2011, 02:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by filtherton

Comparisons to the Bush era are irrelevant. Neither side is monolithic and there are elements of both sides that will never criticize their leaders. However, if you think all liberals have been silent, then you haven't been paying attention. Maybe you should start polling folks at co-ops instead of your local Safeway?

We don't have Safeways in my area but, I will start here, tell me what you think: has Obama violated executive powers as outlined in the Constitution? Would you support impeachment?

---------- Post added at 10:33 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:23 PM ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by silent_jay

I am the first to admit that I have a slight obsessive compulsive disorder. When it comes to certain topics the only way to stop it is to ignore me.

---------- Post added at 10:39 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:33 PM ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

ace...the only ones complaining about NATO violating the UN mandate are you and the Russians....and no one takes either one of you seriously.

You see, that was my point. So, why did you ask me to go into details about the mandate violations?

Outside of my point it kinda shocks me that you don't take the Russians seriously and that you don't think anyone does? They still have veto authority in the UN Security council, don't they?

Is it possible that that others have a problem with what is going on in Libya in context of the UN mandate and are not yet vocal about it?

Just me and my silly little questions, please ignore them - please end this - please put us out of our misery. I am right, the horse is dead!

filtherton · 04-26-2011, 02:40 PM

No, I wouldn't support impeachment unless we were going to throw everyone out. I support it in the alternate reality where it would be productive.

Willravel · 04-26-2011, 02:40 PM

For the record, I'm more vocal now about torture, rendition, wiretapping, the wars, etc. than I was under Bush simply because I didn't expect this of Obama. I've even got a whole new list of things under Obama like the treatment of Bradley Manning, ruining our (liberal's) bargaining position on financial reform, healthcare reform, and other areas, and a number of other things. Don't assume for a second that liberals are going to defend President Obama, turning our backs on our principles. Elections don't change who I am.

aceventura3 · 04-26-2011, 02:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by filtherton

No, I wouldn't support impeachment unless we were going to throw everyone out. I support it in the alternate reality where it would be productive.

FYI, I don't support impeachment either. I did not support it when some liberals want to impeach Bsuh. I did not support it when Republican did it to Clinton. I think it wastes time and resources and would always be partisan based rather than merit based.

---------- Post added at 10:59 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:58 PM ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willravel

For the record, I'm more vocal now about torture, rendition, wiretapping, the wars, etc. than I was under Bush simply because I didn't expect this of Obama. I've even got a whole new list of things under Obama like the treatment of Bradley Manning, ruining our (liberal's) bargaining position on financial reform, healthcare reform, and other areas, and a number of other things. Don't assume for a second that liberals are going to defend President Obama, turning our backs on our principles. Elections don't change who I am.

Are you going to vote for him in 2012?

Willravel · 04-26-2011, 03:21 PM

President Obama? Probably. As much as I disapprove of him, I'd rather him be president than a religious extremist like Huckabee, a lying turncoat like Romney, an egotistical gimmick like Palin, or a bastard's bastard like Gingrich. Between Obama and Ron Paul, I might vote Paul simply because he'd try to end the wars and might actually champion civil liberties, but he doesn't stand a snowball's chance in hell. And he has a 14 year old Rand fan's understanding of economics and a Huckabee-esque understanding of science.

I wish there was a progressive who could give Obama a challenge in 2012. If Sanders or Kucinich ran, I'd throw my money and volunteering behind them 100%.

Baraka_Guru · 05-11-2011, 09:45 AM

Quote:

Libyan Rebels Close to Seizing Control of Misurata’s Airport

By C.J. CHIVERS

MISURATA, Libya — Rebels in the contested western city of Misurata appeared close to seizing control of the airport from forces loyal to Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi on Wednesday, advancing on the sprawling facility in scores of trucks and battling pockets of Qaddafi soldiers holed up in terminal buildings.

Taking control of the airport in Misurata, Libya’s third-largest city, which has been under siege for nearly two months by Qaddafi forces, would be one of the most significant rebel victories in the Libyan conflict.

A journalist accompanying rebels who were breaking through the fence on the airport’s southern perimeter saw abandoned Libyan Army tanks and a deserted bazaar formerly occupied by Qaddafi troops. It appeared that many of the soldiers had simply fled.

Rebel commanders in the eastern city of Benghazi were quoted by Western news agencies as saying the Misurata airport had been captured, but it was clear from the sound of gunfire at the airport that pockets of loyalist resistance remained.

The rebel advance on the airport, which lies a few miles southwest of the city, came after days of NATO airstrikes against positions and military equipment held by Qaddafi forces in and around Misurata, which rebel commanders said had weakened loyalists to a point where a ground attack was possible.

The rebels in Misurata first broke through Qaddafi lines west of the city on Sunday, snapping a stalemate that had left Misurata’s roughly 500,000 residents isolated and increasingly in need of food, fuel and medical aid.

NATO warplanes, which have been bombing Qaddafi military targets under a United Nations Security Council mandate to protect civilians, have intensified their strikes this week, hitting positions in the capital, Tripoli, and other cities.

The rebels have been fighting Colonel Qaddafi’s military since February when he sought to crush an antigovernment uprising, inspired by the revolutions in neighboring Egypt and Tunisia, that threatened his 41-year-old rule.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/12/wo...a/12libya.html

UPDATE: Libyan Rebels Seize Control of Misurata’s Airport – NY Times

Xazy · 05-13-2011, 09:13 AM

I find it hypocritical that Obama can support involvement in Libya, however we do not even talk about Syria. I am realistic about Syria. Syria has chemical weapons, and is very close with Iran and Hezballah, all of which does pose a threat if we do get involved. On top of that who knows what will come next if they fall.

That being said, we should not have gotten be involved there or Libya. We can not take a moral high ground and say we went in to Libya and ignored Syria.

Baraka_Guru · 05-13-2011, 09:42 AM

It was my understanding that recently the Obama administration has all but crossed the line in delegitimizing Bashar al-Assad. What do you make of the sanctions? I've heard they're virtually ineffective.

Oh, and there's this:

Quote:

[...] The Western inaction in the face of Assad's ruthless attempt to suppress his country's unrest comes from what U.S. and European officials describe as a blunt assessment that using force against Assad would run the risk of significant coalition casualties and a harsh Syrian counterattack against Israel and other U.S. allies in the region. [...]

Why the U.S. Won't Act on Syria - Yochi J. Dreazen - International - The Atlantic

The retaliation risk in Libya was on their own people. Was there a risk outside of Libya? Is the Syrian retaliation risk real?

04-06-2011, 07:42 PM	#242 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	yeah. well, it's good there are people who make ace seem sensible i suppose. jesus. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

04-07-2011, 08:57 AM	#244 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	the rebels are not a coherent military. they were not magically transformed into one by the un resolution. now there's some curious idea being tossed around of sending in some british special forces people to whip the rebels into a fighting force in a month. this despite the fact it took 10 to accomplish the same plan in kosovo. there is a consensus that a stalemate is unfolding. there's no consensus about either what that means or what to do about it. the "plan" of whipping the rebels into a coherent military in a month is, they say, largely about trying to tip this stalemate away from "de facto advantage gadhafi" to "de facto advantage rebels" there is obvious mission creep. this has nothing to do with marketing. this has to do with the speed with which the action was conceptualized and the speed with which gadhafi's actions made it necessary to act. there was no "special contingency plan in case gadhafi starts massacring his political opposition" that could be drawn on. this also has nothing to do with the chain of command in itself. but it does have something to do with the fact that the united states has largely withdrawn its capacity from the action, which has undercut the power of the airstrikes. the reason for this withdrawal is universally acknowledged except in that special crackpot world of fox news----the effect of iraq and afghanistan---that is, of neo-conservative arrogance and incompetence. the "obama hasn't explained things" is a simple-minded substitute for a serious problem the sole purpose of which is the allow the right---which lately has started to crumble politically again---to gain some advantage. it's yet another cheap conservative talking point. there is no reason to take either it or anyone who repeats it seriously. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

04-07-2011, 11:36 AM	#248 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	1. pedantic horseshit aside, you concede the point. fine. 2. right. so the talking points were taken from you. fox is repeating you. i hope you're getting the royalties you so richly deserve. 3. you're being obtuse. 4, i am well aware of the time-line that's involved with this conflict to now. your interpretation is pulled from the air. what it's probably based on is the flip of it. which is circular. to wit: the un intervened to prevent a massacre. had that intervention not happened, there would have been one. ergo, the rebels would have lost "from the start"------so you can't even account for the fact of the intervention. so why are you bothering to talk about this situation in libya at all? 5. speaking of time-lines, maybe you ought to review actual material about the speed with which this situation tanked. the resolution was pushed through extremely fast. but you seem "honest" in that special way--chronology is important when you think it suits some purpose, and is irrelevant when it doesn't. fast and loose with the facts as always. if you actually bothered to read the article i posted above---which you clearly did not---you'd have an alternative scenario. but why bother reading? "leadership"---->meaningless b-school meme. we've been through this too. over and over. good christ. no learning curve at all. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite Last edited by roachboy; 04-07-2011 at 11:39 AM..

04-25-2011, 01:38 PM	#253 (permalink)
aceventura3 Junkie Location: Ventura County	To all the liberals who constantly said Bush lied about Iraq: Where are you at? Why the silence on this new war? Why hasn't Obama consulted with Congress or gotten congressional approval? Why is NATO violating the UN mandate with no complaints? Why isn't Obama addressing the American people directly? why is no one demanding answers? There are so many questions, and I am shocked by what appears to be double standards. {added} What about the whole issue of Executive power and checks and balances? A big issue when Bush was in office. Where are the calls for impeachment? __________________ "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch." "It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion." "If you live among wolves you have to act like one." "A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

04-25-2011, 01:56 PM	#254 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	ace...are we back to this again? The comparison between a UN sanctioned operation (Libya) vs one that had no UN sanction (Iraq). The comparison between an invasion with tens of thousands of ground troops (Iraq) vs no US ground troops (Libya). No consultation with Congress? Much like Reagan's bombing of Libya in 86. One could make the case that Obama used the War Powers Act in the same nebulous manner as Reagan (in bombing Libya and invading Granada) or GHW Bush's invasion of Panama. Violating the UN mandate? Explain please. __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire

04-26-2011, 01:21 PM	#262 (permalink)
silent_jay Her Jay Location: Ontario for now....

04-26-2011, 02:40 PM	#265 (permalink)
filtherton Junkie Location: In the land of ice and snow.	No, I wouldn't support impeachment unless we were going to throw everyone out. I support it in the alternate reality where it would be productive.

04-26-2011, 02:40 PM	#266 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	For the record, I'm more vocal now about torture, rendition, wiretapping, the wars, etc. than I was under Bush simply because I didn't expect this of Obama. I've even got a whole new list of things under Obama like the treatment of Bradley Manning, ruining our (liberal's) bargaining position on financial reform, healthcare reform, and other areas, and a number of other things. Don't assume for a second that liberals are going to defend President Obama, turning our backs on our principles. Elections don't change who I am.

04-26-2011, 03:21 PM	#268 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	President Obama? Probably. As much as I disapprove of him, I'd rather him be president than a religious extremist like Huckabee, a lying turncoat like Romney, an egotistical gimmick like Palin, or a bastard's bastard like Gingrich. Between Obama and Ron Paul, I might vote Paul simply because he'd try to end the wars and might actually champion civil liberties, but he doesn't stand a snowball's chance in hell. And he has a 14 year old Rand fan's understanding of economics and a Huckabee-esque understanding of science. I wish there was a progressive who could give Obama a challenge in 2012. If Sanders or Kucinich ran, I'd throw my money and volunteering behind them 100%.

05-13-2011, 09:13 AM	#270 (permalink)
Xazy People in masks cannot be trusted Location: NYC	I find it hypocritical that Obama can support involvement in Libya, however we do not even talk about Syria. I am realistic about Syria. Syria has chemical weapons, and is very close with Iran and Hezballah, all of which does pose a threat if we do get involved. On top of that who knows what will come next if they fall. That being said, we should not have gotten be involved there or Libya. We can not take a moral high ground and say we went in to Libya and ignored Syria. __________________ Now, a clever man would put the poison into his own goblet, because he would know that only a great fool would reach for what he was given. I am not a great fool, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of you. But you must have known I was not a great fool, you would have counted on it, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of me.