An Act of War? - Page 6 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Cimarron29414 · 03-31-2011, 10:20 AM

You have to say, if he gets out of this without prosecution, this was a pretty slick move. God knows how many people this guy tortured. Politically, he's too symbolic and high-valued to get what he deserves.

I'd be curious to know the role of the Libyan army in all of this. Every war image I've seen of Qaddafi troops has guys that are clearly of true African descent rather than Middle Eastern. It's pretty clear they are mercs. But that does leave the question, what are the regulars doing? I can't even imagine the choice they have to make, considering they've never had to make one before (being in such a subjugated armed force.)

dc_dux · 03-31-2011, 11:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cimarron29414

... Every war image I've seen of Qaddafi troops has guys that are clearly of true African descent rather than Middle Eastern. It's pretty clear they are mercs....

His personal bodyguards, described in the Western press as the Amazonian Guard, are women?

Quote:

About 40 lipsticked, bejeweled bodyguards surround the Libyan dictator at all times. They wear designer sunglasses and high heels with their military camouflage. But they're purported to be trained killers -- graduates of an elite military academy in Tripoli that's solely for women...

...The academy's best students are dubbed "revolutionary nuns," and they never marry and dedicate their lives to the idea of Gadhafi's 1969 revolution. They're banned from having sex and swear an oath to protect the Libyan leader until death, if need be. In 1998, a bodyguard named Aisha threw herself on top of Gadhafi when Islamic militants ambushed his motorcade. A barrage of bullets killed her and injured two others, but Gadhafi escaped unharmed.

...Foreign intelligence agents are likely trying already to stealthily chip away at the loyalty of Gadhafi's elite inner circle. But while diplomats at the U.N. and even some of Gadhafi's distant relatives have turned on him, there have been no reports of defections from Gadhafi's all-female bodyguard clan -- though the regime would likely try its best to squelch any such publicity.

40 Lipsticked Virgins: Moammar Gadhafi's Best Bet for Survival

Baraka_Guru · 03-31-2011, 12:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cimarron29414

I'd be curious to know the role of the Libyan army in all of this. Every war image I've seen of Qaddafi troops has guys that are clearly of true African descent rather than Middle Eastern. It's pretty clear they are mercs. But that does leave the question, what are the regulars doing? I can't even imagine the choice they have to make, considering they've never had to make one before (being in such a subjugated armed force.)

The informative map in this link may explain a thing or two:
Gadhafi's influence on Africa - The Globe and Mail

aceventura3 · 04-01-2011, 07:56 AM

This is interesting. As some in the media are deep in speculation regarding which country Kadafi will seek asylum in, virtually ignoring his statement that he would rather die on Libyan soil, the US is employing an exist strategy, and the rebels are getting caught in a quandary now seeking a ceasefire:

Quote:

Libya Rebels Seek Cease-Fire After U.S. Vows to Withdraw Its Fighter Jets
By Zainab Fattah and Tamara Walid - Apr 1, 2011 11:34 AM ET

Libyan rebels called for a cease- fire as forces loyal to Muammar Qaddafi drove them back for a third day after sandstorms and clouds hindered NATO air strikes and the U.S. said it’s withdrawing all warplanes.

Qaddafi’s fighters must retreat from cities and nearby areas for any cease-fire deal, Mustafa Abdel Jalil, head of the rebel Interim National Council, said in a news conference televised today from their stronghold of Benghazi. He said rebel demands for freedoms must also be met. There was no immediate response to the offer from Qaddafi officials.

The rebels’ move comes one day after Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said U.S. jets won’t be flying with NATO forces over Libya after April 2. Mullen said planes would be made available only if requested by NATO. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates told Congress the U.S. will “significantly ramp down our commitment” to Libya except for electronic warfare, aerial refueling and surveillance.

Libya Rebels Seek Cease-Fire After U.S. Vows to Withdraw Its Fighter Jets - Bloomberg

In my opinion, this illustrates a lack of commitment by our country from the very beginning, and my concern of leaving the rebels in a lurch seems to be a very real possibility. What have we really accomplished to this point, what do we want to accomplish going forward? Our President needs to hold a press conference and answer questions.

filtherton · 04-01-2011, 08:54 AM

I don't know. The terms of their ceasefire don't seem all that compromising. I don't know that it necessarily represents a softening of resolve.

roachboy · 04-01-2011, 09:33 AM

there's considerable negociations going on behind the marketing curtain it seems...so i wouldn't put much weight on the various pronouncements that are floating across the surface of the infotainment-scape at this point. the defections of the past 24 hours are big deals. the game could be changing. manly man talk from the american right could not be less relevant.

aceventura3 · 04-01-2011, 09:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by filtherton

I don't know. The terms of their ceasefire don't seem all that compromising.

The fact that they are even offering a compromise says that they are willing to compromise. It also suggests that they believe that they are currently in their strongest position. If they believe outside support is not going to be available or that the support is going to be inadequate they have no better time than now to negotiate. I am sure Kadafi realizes this. Kadafi has been smart enough to hold on to power for decades - he probably has more insight into outsider resolve than he gets credit for.

Quote:

I don't know that it necessarily represents a softening of resolve.

The rebels are fighting for their lives, their resolve has not softened, it can't. They know that they must prevail or die. A split Libya is very unlikely. I question if US or "Western" resolve was ever real. The american public never bought into this war. Even members of the Obama administration were split.

---------- Post added at 05:57 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:50 PM ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

there's considerable negociations going on behind the marketing curtain it seems...so i wouldn't put much weight on the various pronouncements that are floating across the surface of the infotainment-scape at this point. the defections of the past 24 hours are big deals. the game could be changing. manly man talk from the american right could not be less relevant.

These issues have nothing to do with "right" or "left" - as there are people in both camps on both sides of this issue. Nor does it have anything to do with "manly man talk" - this is a real war with real lives on the line. I fear one of the problems from the very beginning was political gamesmanship rather than simply doing what is right based on core beliefs.

The defections pale in comparison to what Mullens and Gates had to say. Those statements are the game changer, and most likely resulted in the ceasefire request.

Baraka_Guru · 04-01-2011, 10:38 AM

I dunno, other members of NATO still have warplanes.

roachboy · 04-01-2011, 10:52 AM

so in the world of manly man talk, humanitarian actions are not core beliefs? ethics are not core beliefs? in the world of manly man talk, the statements made by koussa and the other defectors that their primary objective is to stop the violence aren't real? all that matters is what people in the united states say and within that larger set, what those say who speak the manly man that you understand. awesome. your perspective is unhinged from reality entirely, ace.

Baraka_Guru · 04-01-2011, 11:07 AM

Ethics? Altruism, you mean? The Libya matter is an ethical lapse. At least it is so to the Randians and the like.

Humanitarianism is for bleeding heart liberals.

aceventura3 · 04-01-2011, 12:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru

I dunno, other members of NATO still have warplanes.

I have not seen or heard from NATO military leaders regarding their military plans, after the statements from Mullen and Gates, have you?

---------- Post added at 08:02 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:53 PM ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

so in the world of manly man talk, humanitarian actions are not core beliefs?

Have we postponed or have we prevented? Have we shortened the duration of death and destruction or have we lengthened it? These are basic questions I have been asking from the beginning. Time will give us the answers. Based on the answers I think the conclusions will be clear.

Quote:

ethics are not core beliefs? in the world of manly man talk, the statements made by koussa and the other defectors that their primary objective is to stop the violence aren't real?

I said the actions of the defectors pale in comparison to the actions highlighted in my post. I did not say or suggest the actions or words of the defectors are not real.

Quote:

all that matters is what people in the united states say and within that larger set, what those say who speak the manly man that you understand. awesome. your perspective is unhinged from reality entirely, ace.

What matters is what our military leaders are saying. What will matter is what our President says. US public opinion is not setting the agenda.

My perspective is based on what has occurred and what is likely to occur. I agree that my interpretation of events is simply my interpretation - reasonable people can disagree - time will tell if I was correct or not. What I describe as my fears and concerns, however, are not unique to me. As I suggested, our President should hold a press conference and answer questions. this may be the only way we can get clarity from the administration.

---------- Post added at 08:04 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:02 PM ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru

Humanitarianism is for bleeding heart liberals.

Conservatives also support the causes for humanitarian aid. Are you being sarcastic?

WhoaitsZ · 04-02-2011, 09:16 AM

[/COLOR]

Conservatives also support the causes for humanitarian aid. Are you being sarcastic?[/QUOTE]

Not to sound like a dick but can I get some examples?

Honestly I do not believe in stereotypes and over-generalizations but in my lifetime 95% of all conservatives I have known only support themselves.

As for the rest of the posts... I am torn because its just pure bullshit. I would give anything to cockpunch Obama when he was talking about how we can't watch Gaddafi kill his own people. I supported Obama. I was thrilled when he won and if I have to chose between him and a Palin,, Huckabee or Bachmman I'd vote Obama again. In this case he's a liar simple and clean.

I am glad if we can help the rebels. I do not believe we are helping them. Its a smokescreen... time will tell.

aceventura3 · 04-04-2011, 08:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WhoaitsZ

Not to sound like a dick but can I get some examples?

Honestly I do not believe in stereotypes and over-generalizations but in my lifetime 95% of all conservatives I have known only support themselves.

Here are a few:

Quote:

-- Although liberal families' incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227).

-- Conservatives also donate more time and give more blood.

-- Residents of the states that voted for John Kerry in 2004 gave smaller percentages of their incomes to charity than did residents of states that voted for George Bush.

-- Bush carried 24 of the 25 states where charitable giving was above average.

-- In the 10 reddest states, in which Bush got more than 60 percent majorities, the average percentage of personal income donated to charity was 3.5. Residents of the bluest states, which gave Bush less than 40 percent, donated just 1.9 percent.

-- People who reject the idea that "government has a responsibility to reduce income inequality" give an average of four times more than people who accept that proposition.

Brooks demonstrates a correlation between charitable behavior and "the values that lie beneath" liberal and conservative labels. Two influences on charitable behavior are religion and attitudes about the proper role of government.

The single biggest predictor of someone's altruism, Willett says, is religion. It increasingly correlates with conservative political affiliations because, as Brooks' book says, "the percentage of self-described Democrats who say they have 'no religion' has more than quadrupled since the early 1970s." America is largely divided between religious givers and secular nongivers, and the former are disproportionately conservative. One demonstration that religion is a strong determinant of charitable behavior is that the least charitable cohort is a relatively small one -- secular conservatives.

Reviewing Brooks' book in the Texas Review of Law & Politics, Justice Willett notes that Austin -- it voted 56 percent for Kerry while he was getting just 38 percent statewide -- is ranked by The Chronicle of Philanthropy as 48th out of America's 50 largest cities in per capita charitable giving. Brooks' data about disparities between liberals' and conservatives' charitable giving fit these facts: Democrats represent a majority of the wealthiest congressional districts, and half of America's richest households live in states where both senators are Democrats.

While conservatives tend to regard giving as a personal rather than governmental responsibility, some liberals consider private charity a retrograde phenomenon -- a poor palliative for an inadequate welfare state, and a distraction from achieving adequacy by force, by increasing taxes. Ralph Nader, running for president in 2000, said: "A society that has more justice is a society that needs less charity." Brooks, however, warns: "If support for a policy that does not exist ... substitutes for private charity, the needy are left worse off than before. It is one of the bitterest ironies of liberal politics today that political opinions are apparently taking the place of help for others."

RealClearPolitics - Articles - Conservatives More Liberal Givers

Quote:

Conservatives also appear to be more generous than liberals in nonfinancial ways. People in red states are considerably more likely to volunteer for good causes, and conservatives give blood more often. If liberals and moderates gave blood as often as conservatives, Mr. Brooks said, the American blood supply would increase by 45 percent.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/op...stof.html?_r=2

I simply did a Google search to give some quick examples - to me it seems the key difference is that liberals want humanitarian aid to flow through government by force, conservatives prefer humanitarian aid to flow through individuals by choice. In my view the conservative approach is honest and more reflective of real concerns for others.

filtherton · 04-04-2011, 08:18 AM

Where's that patented Ace methodological skepticism? I thought you didn't trust things like this and that you preferred divining your understanding about the nature of your fellow persons by asking folks at the supermarket.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that the relationship between charity and political persuasion isn't as simple as "group A" gives more than "group B".

Baraka_Guru · 04-04-2011, 08:30 AM

Humanitarianism and donating to religious charities aren't necessarily the same thing.

aceventura3 · 04-04-2011, 09:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by filtherton

Where's that patented Ace methodological skepticism? I thought you didn't trust things like this and that you preferred divining your understanding about the nature of your fellow persons by asking folks at the supermarket.

I do know from personal experience that conservative actually care about the human condition on this planet and are often the first in line to help others. What I don't know is if you and others seriously believe that conservatives don't care about other people.

Quote:

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that the relationship between charity and political persuasion isn't as simple as "group A" gives more than "group B".

How does one arrive at the conclusion that conservatives don't care about others?

My premise is that both conservatives and liberals care about others, but they differ in how it is to be done. Do you agree or disagree and why?

---------- Post added at 05:10 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:04 PM ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru

Humanitarianism and donating to religious charities aren't necessarily the same thing.

I donate blood regularly about 3 times a year. Not a religious charity. One of the sources cited shows a difference in blood donation between "red" and "blue" states. I anticipated the "religious charity" issue and chose a non-monetary, non-religious issue on purpose.

Again, just because I may not care about the specific charitable causes you believe in does not mean I don't care about charitable causes. I fight against being forced. There is a big difference.

WhoaitsZ · 04-04-2011, 09:15 AM

ace. Can you define the type of charity you are claiming reds outdo blues?

Paying tithes or giving money to church isn't charity. It's a Christian's way of selling their guilt and giving into the biggest socialist movement of all time.

When I say most conservatives care about self more than others I am including churches.

Now hear this: I know for a fact that a lot of Christians do help people. Local churches have helped me several times when sick or when I needed a vehicle.

I am not putting down people like this and I don't believe libs are better than reds. I do believe that when it comes to helping people not in the know that libs care far more than cons.

Baraka_Guru · 04-04-2011, 09:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

I donate blood regularly about 3 times a year. Not a religious charity. One of the sources cited shows a difference in blood donation between "red" and "blue" states. I anticipated the "religious charity" issue and chose a non-monetary, non-religious issue on purpose.

Again, just because I may not care about the specific charitable causes you believe in does not mean I don't care about charitable causes. I fight against being forced. There is a big difference.

That's not my point. I didn't think it was your point either.

aceventura3 · 04-04-2011, 09:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WhoaitsZ

ace. Can you define the type of charity you are claiming reds outdo blues?

Others emphasize one group outdoing another - or one group simply being selfish, I don't. I generally think that all humans care about the condition of others regardless of political affiliation. I think people desire to employ various methods based on political affiliation.

Quote:

Paying tithes or giving money to church isn't charity. It's a Christian's way of selling their guilt and giving into the biggest socialist movement of all time.

And paying taxes is what? If you don't pay taxes, you go to jail. They will arrest you armed with weapons. I prefer the voluntary method and for those who need to be motivated by religious guilt it is still better that being forced at gun point.

Quote:

When I say most conservatives care about self more than others I am including churches.

I am not a church going person - in my experience is that they are run more like businesses than religious organizations - we actually may agree on this point - perhaps for different reasons.

Quote:

Now hear this: I know for a fact that a lot of Christians do help people. Local churches have helped me several times when sick or when I needed a vehicle.

I am not putting down people like this and I don't believe libs are better than reds. I do believe that when it comes to helping people not in the know that libs care far more than cons.

Think about it this way:

My sister is a single parent. If she needs help, I can help her right now - no conditions, no questions asked. Her being my sister, she can't b.s. me.
If she needs help from the government, it can take months of dealing with a bureaucracy looking for a reason to say NO every step of the way.

If I give $1 to my sister she gets $1. If I give $1 to government to help my sister, a portion of that goes to support government bureaucracy, what the ratio is I don't know, but it could be like $.50. Which is more efficient?

Our government rules are ridiculous. If I give a $1 to help my sister, it is a gift to her. If I give $1 to a 501(C)3 charity, I get a tax deduction. That charity then hands out less than $1 in services to people in need.

I could go on and on - but to me it is clear - government hinders helping those in need. So, in my mind if the government allowed people to hold on to more of their own money, more people can be helped in more efficient ways. i think there are a few exceptions, like in the case of a national military being able to do good in the world. People should be required or forced as I would put it, to support a national military. Or another example would be the availability of local fire and rescue, etc, etc.

---------- Post added at 05:39 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:34 PM ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru

That's not my point. I didn't think it was your point either.

Are we going to leave it a mystery? My initial question to you was if your original post on this issue was sarcasm, I still don't know.

As the question relates to Libya, I think honest and charitable people can be against supporting the rebels and still be humanitarian. What is your position on this point?

roachboy · 04-04-2011, 09:45 AM

meanwhile, in the world:

Quote:

Another war on Gaza?
Ali Abunimah, The Electronic Intifada, 4 April 2011

In recent weeks an escalation in violence between Israel and Palestinian resistance factions in the Israeli-occupied Gaza Strip has claimed the lives of more than a dozen Palestinians, the youngest of them 10-year-old Mahmoud Jalal al-Hilu.

Does this escalation increase the likelihood of another large-scale assault on Gaza similar to "Operation Cast Lead" in winter 2008-2009 that killed more than 1,400 Palestinians? There are worrying signs Israel -- by its words and deeds -- could be laying the ground for an attack.

The ratchet of violence took another turn in the small hours of 2 April when Israel carried out an air attack on the Gaza Strip killing three members of Hamas' military wing.

Israel did not claim that the three Hamas men were engaged in any hostile activity at the time they were killed (riding in a car), but a statement from the Israeli army alleged that they were "planning to kidnap Israelis over the upcoming Jewish holiday of Passover" -- several weeks in the future.

Israel's latest attack constituted an extrajudicial killing, in which Israel, the occupying power, acted as judge, jury and executioner, issuing allegations for which it offered no evidence, after it had already carried out the death sentence. Under international law, this is a war crime.

Global media tend to report these events as Israeli "retaliation" for Palestinian attacks, but a close reading of Israeli media presents a very different picture: deliberate provocation and escalation by Israel.

On 23 March, Avi Issacharoff and Amos Harel writing in the Israeli daily Haaretz reported that, "The current tensions began exactly a week ago when Israel launched an air attack on a Hamas base in the ruins of the settlement of Netzarim, killing two Hamas men. That attack came in response to a Qassam [rocket] fired from Gaza that landed in an open area." Palestinians responded with a barrage of 50 projectiles into Israel.

Israel then "launched a series of air attacks in which a number of Hamas militants were wounded." And on 22 March Israeli forces launched the shelling which killed Mahmoud al-Hilu and three other civilians, allegedly in response to mortar fire from an olive grove on the Gaza side ("A small war is starting along Gaza border").

On 24 March, Issacharoff and Harel observed, "Despite the escalation, Hamas does not seem to want large-scale clashes yet. The organization actually has good reasons to believe that Israel is the one heating up the southern front. It began with a bombardment a few weeks ago that disrupted the transfer of a large amount of money from Egypt to the Gaza Strip, continued with the interrogation of engineer and Hamas member Dirar Abu Sisi [whom Israeli agents kidnapped from Ukraine] in Israel, and ended with last week's bombing of a Hamas training base in which two Hamas militants were killed. It is noteworthy that Hamas has not fired at Israel over the past two days, even after four Palestinian civilians were killed by errant IDF [Israeli army] mortar fire on Tuesday [22 March]" ("Hamas not likely behind Jerusalem bombing").

Issacharoff and Harel added in a 25 March analysis that the Israeli attack on the Hamas outpost at Netzarim "is believed to have been authorized by the defense minister and the chief of staff, who should have known there would be people at the outpost during the day and that causing casualties would have different consequences than a routine attack on empty offices. Israel assumed -- mistakenly -- that Hamas would not respond to the bombing. In fact, Hamas responded by firing 50 mortar shells on Saturday morning" ("Escalation approaching").

It is difficult to believe, especially in light of the extrajudicial executions on 2 April, that Israeli leaders did not know that killing Palestinians would prompt further retaliation from the Palestinian side. It seems very likely this was their intention.

These events are worryingly similar to the sequence that preceded "Operation Cast Lead." After a bloody spring of 2008 in which hundreds of Palestinians were killed and injured in Israeli attacks on Gaza, Israel and Hamas negotiated a mutual ceasefire beginning on 19 June 2008. By Israel's own admission, this mutual truce resulted in a 97 percent reduction in rockets being fired from Gaza over the subsequent four months, and none of the handful of projectiles that were fired were launched by Hamas, nor did they cause any injuries to Israelis.

A mutually agreed ceasefire proved to be the most effective way to achieve the goal Israel claimed was most important: protecting Israeli civilians from rocket fire from Gaza. But on the night of 4-5 November 2008, Israel decided to end the truce. As The Guardian reported on 5 November 2008, "A four-month ceasefire between Israel and Palestinian militants in Gaza was in jeopardy today after Israeli troops killed six Hamas gunmen in a raid into the territory" ("Gaza truce broken as Israeli raid kills six Hamas gunmen").

Then, just as it has with its latest attack, Israel justified the killings with the unverifiable claim that those it killed were involved in a plot to kidnap Israelis.

On 21 March, amid the escalating violence, Hamas' military wing itself stated that it would be willing to abide by another mutual truce if Israel agreed to one, but Israel showed no interest ("Gaza: Hamas calls for truce," Ma'an News Agency, 21 March 2011).

Israel's seemingly constant and deliberate provocation of violence along the border with Gaza comes against a backdrop of belligerent statements and propaganda exercises by Israeli leaders. On 15 March, Israel intercepted a ship en route from Turkey to Alexandria in Egypt, which it alleged without providing evidence, was carrying arms destined for Gaza.

Vice Prime Minister Silvan Shalom told Israel Radio on 23 March that Israel may have to carry out another large scale attack on Gaza to topple Hamas, adding, "I say this despite the fact that I know such a thing would, of course, bring the region to a far more combustible situation."

Culture minister Limor Livnat warned, according to Haaretz, Israel might have no choice but to carry out "Operation Cast Lead 2."

Shalom, reversing the facts and laying the blame for the escalating violence on the Palestinians, put the possibility of a renewed war on Gaza in an overtly political context. Hamas, the vice premier claimed, according to Haaretz, "might have opened a new front with Israel 'to stop any possibility of dialogue among the Palestinians or to come to the intra-Palestinian negotiation in a far stronger position'" ("Netanyahu: Israel will continue to operate against terrorists in Gaza," 23 March 2011).

In other words, according to Shalom, it is the continued strength of Hamas that prevents an intra-Palestinian reconciliation on terms favorable to the Israeli-backed Ramallah-based Palestinian Authority (PA) of Mahmoud Abbas.

Whether Israel is deliberately laying the ground for a new assault on Gaza, or stumbles into one -- if the current escalation does not stop -- any such attack must be understood in political terms. It would be an effort to finish the unfinished business of destroying Hamas and any other island of Palestinian resistance.

The commitment of any significant Palestinian group to resistance -- political or military -- remains a major obstacle to the full legitimation of the warm embrace between Israel and the Abbas-led PA, whose extent was recently laid bare in the Palestine Papers. Indeed the relationship is so friendly that last October the top echelons of the PA in Bethlehem received then Israeli Chief of Staff Gabi Ashkenazi -- who commanded Operation Cast Lead -- as their honored guest, even providing him with a guided tour of the Church of the Nativity ("Israeli army chief visits Bethlehem," Ma'an News Agency, 3 October 2010).

Ironically, Hamas remains much less intransigent than Israel, as evidenced by the movement's repeated offers of ceasefires which Israel rejects or violates; its constant noises about "reconciliation" with Abbas without insisting that the latter terminate his "security" relationship with Israel; and its embrace of the defunct "two-state solution." Despite these unacknowledged political concessions, Hamas retains a military capability that Israel is unwilling to tolerate either as a challenge to itself, or to the PA.

Until now, there have been good reasons to believe Israel would hesitate to launch a new major military assault on Gaza. It is still suffering the diplomatic and political fallout of Cast Lead, including the UN-commissioned Goldstone report, as well as its massacre of nine activists aboard the Mavi Marmara during last spring's Gaza Freedom Flotilla.

Without exaggerating the risks, the constraints on Israel may be loosening. In the wake of the revolution in Egypt and amid the political upheaval in the Arab world, some Israelis may think they have a "last chance" to act in the interregnum before a new and less friendly government is seated in Cairo. Western and Saudi military interventions in Libya and Bahrain respectively have also provided new respectability to using military force for political ends.

International complicity also continues to send Israel a clear message that its impunity is guaranteed. The Obama administration's recent veto of a UN Security Council resolution that merely restated US policy on Israel's settlement construction in the West Bank was one sure sign that Israel still has a blank check from the United States.

Tragically, the biggest contributor to renewed confidence in Israel that it could once again get away with murder in Gaza, may be Judge Richard Goldstone himself. Israeli leaders have seized on his apologetic 1 April op-ed in The Washington Post as vindication and proof that Israel never committed war crimes in Gaza, and was the victim a "blood libel," as Jeffrey Goldberg, former Israeli occupation army volunteer and The Atlantic blogger put it.

While Goldstone was clearly trying to appease Zionists who subjected him to an intense campaign of personal vilification and ostracism his article did not in fact repudiate one single concrete finding in the report that bears his name ("Reconsidering the Goldstone Report on Israel and war crimes," 2 April 2011).

Two important analyses of Goldstone's op-ed, and how it is in no way a repudiation of the Goldstone report, appeared on Mondoweiss on 2 April: "What the Goldstone op-ed doesn't say" by Yaniv Reich, and "Goldstone op-ed praises Israeli investigation of Gaza war crimes, but UN committee paints a different picture," by Adam Horowitz. Goldstone's op-ed is the personal opinion of one person. The Goldstone report, an official UN document authored by a commission, remains a compendium of acts by Israel -- and indeed by Hamas -- uncontradicted by any new evidence, much less by Israel's self-serving "investigations."

Yet as we have sadly learned so many times, proper analysis and respect for basic facts have little bearing in the "fog of war," especially when Israel is that party that launches that war.

Ali Abunimah is co-founder of The Electronic Intifada, author of One Country: A Bold Proposal to End the Israeli-Palestinian Impasse and is a contributor to The Goldstone Report: The Legacy of the Landmark Investigation of the Gaza Conflict (Nation Books).

ei: Another war on Gaza?

and here's something about libya that i don't get:

Quote:

#

#
Timestamp:
7:01pm

The US will continue to play a major role in the operation, despite the draw down. Robert Gates, the US defence secretary, told Congress last week that the US would continue to offer assets that other countries do not possess.

These will likely include AWACS air surveillanec planes, electronic reconnaissance aircraft and aerial refueling tankers, with air force AC-130 gunships, A-10 Thunderbolts and Marine Corps AV-8B Harriers available in case of need.
#
Timestamp:
0:00pm

Capt Darryn James, the US Defense Department's spokesman, says that US activity in the military intervention in Libya will formally end at 2200 GMT (in approximately five hours from now)

Libya Live Blog - April 4 | Al Jazeera Blogs

i don't really get how both statements can be true at the same time....

Baraka_Guru · 04-04-2011, 09:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Are we going to leave it a mystery? My initial question to you was if your original post on this issue was sarcasm, I still don't know.

As the question relates to Libya, I think honest and charitable people can be against supporting the rebels and still be humanitarian. What is your position on this point?

My point was tongue in cheek, but I wouldn't be surprised to find that more liberals support humanitarian efforts than do conservatives, being that conservatives have more of the "individualism gene" in their pool than do liberals.

My further comment was to point out that humanitarianism and donating to charities aren't necessarily the same thing, regardless of whether it's blood or money.

It's difficult for me to accept that one who strongly supports humanitarianism would be against the idea of a no-fly zone in Libya as outlined in the U.N. resolution.

aceventura3 · 04-04-2011, 10:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru

It's difficult for me to accept that one who strongly supports humanitarianism would be against the idea of a no-fly zone in Libya as outlined in the U.N. resolution.

Perhaps from a broader point of view, certain questions come into focus.

Is it humanitarian to prolong war? In Libya what percentage of people are in active combat what percentage is impacted by war? the no fly zone is inadequate to end the conflict, all it does is prolong the conflict. it can be argued that the no flu zone is not humanitarian.

Is it humanitarian to give false hope? Have we given the rebels a false belief that we will provide the level of support that won't arrive? It can be argued what we have done is not humanitarian.

Is it humanitarian to save the lives of some at the cost of lives of others?
Is it humanitarian to have the power to prevent human suffering but not going in and doing what needs to be done?
Is it humanitarian to postpone death when the stated goal is to prevent it - while having the capability to actually prevent it?

In my mind these are legitimate questions. However, as I have stated, our President has not been clear.

WhoaitsZ · 04-04-2011, 10:02 AM

Comparing taxes to church tithes is simply beyond comparison.

Churches are a group or community that basically take care of their own and regularly g out of their way to discredit and hurt those who they disagree with. Hell, evangelicals have supported African a country (I apologize because I forget which country it was) that is trying to make homosexuality punishable by death.

The government tends to blow tons of our taxes; no argument. That said they pay for our police (double edged. I d not trust many coops), fire fighters, teachers, military, road construction, welfare, Medicaid/Medicare (without which I'd be dead), homes... etc.

I totally understand that giving what we want to give versus what charities do. Yet, if we lived in a country of responsible people and a government that would actually tax those who can afford it and make the simple humane decision that no,, health care and education is NOT a business and offer it free and by taxes we would not have to worry about who gets screwed or what have you. Yes, I am a dreamer.

In my personal experience pretty much every conservative I know, including my best friends of more than 20 years, sees charity as a Us and them" while most liberals I know only see "Us".

Again I am speaking from my personal experiences and I live in Mississippi. Its almost its own personal backward country.

Should we create another thread? We're totally off topic.

Baraka_Guru · 04-04-2011, 10:33 AM

ace, is it more humanitarian to do nothing while people are slaughtered?

You aren't talking about whether something is humanitarian or not; you are talking in degrees.

But I imagine you are a proponent of total war and unconditional defeat over more balanced measures. You'd rather have seen boots on the ground. You'd rather have seen another Afghanistan.

I don't think that's a one-size-fits-all solution. Correct me if any of this is off the mark.

aceventura3 · 04-04-2011, 11:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru

ace, is it more humanitarian to do nothing while people are slaughtered?

It depends.

If doing "something" is worse than doing nothing, doing nothing is preferable isn't it?

If doing "something" makes no difference, it is not more humanitarian, is it?

If doing "something" is done for purely selfish reasons, it may actually save lives, but I would argue that it was not for humanitarian reasons , don't you agree this argument could be reasonable?.

Quote:

You aren't talking about whether something is humanitarian or not; you are talking in degrees.

I disagree. I would answer my questions in a clear, yes or no manner. I would know what my intent was. what I have been stating from the very beginning of this is that I don't know what our intent in Libya is, it has never been made clear to me. I can not definitively support or not support our actions until I get more clarification. I would not handle this the way Obama is handling it, that is certain.

Quote:

But I imagine you are a proponent of total war and unconditional defeat over more balanced measures. You'd rather have seen boots on the ground. You'd rather have seen another Afghanistan.

I believe we have the capacity (including NATO), and enough world support to go in and end this conflict. We have chosen a route that appears to be very indirect and I am not sure it is the best or most efficient way. Again, I have questions, perhaps Obama is 100% correct and has a very thorough plan, I don't know. he has made a choice not to answer questions and to be vague. I do understand that there are reasons that a leader may take this course of action.

Quote:

I don't think that's a one-size-fits-all solution. Correct me if any of this is off the mark.

It is not.

Baraka_Guru · 04-04-2011, 12:11 PM

But, ace, answering your yes-or-no questions is pointless because they aren't necessarily in relation to my initial point.

It would seem to me that you'd rather have let Gaddafi slaughter his own people than risk the risks that are currently being risked.

For the record, I'd rather have had some kind of intervention in Rwanda than was the case. I'd rather have had some kind of intervention to prevent a death toll climbing to 500,000 to 1,000,000 (or 800,000, depending on your sources), or 20% of the country's population.

What would you rather have done in Libya? Let Gaddafi burn it out? With upwards of 1.3 million Libyans if that's what it took? You'd rather those lives get burned out and have the "war" over with rather than prolong it? The war in Somalia is still raging on 20 years later. Maybe we should stop meddling in it and prolonging that, eh?

Quote:

I believe we have the capacity (including NATO), and enough world support to go in and end this conflict. We have chosen a route that appears to be very indirect and I am not sure it is the best or most efficient way. Again, I have questions, perhaps Obama is 100% correct and has a very thorough plan, I don't know. he has made a choice not to answer questions and to be vague. I do understand that there are reasons that a leader may take this course of action.

So another Afghanistan? Rather than another Bosnia...or Kosovo?

aceventura3 · 04-04-2011, 02:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru

But, ace, answering your yes-or-no questions is pointless because they aren't necessarily in relation to my initial point.

It would seem to me that you'd rather have let Gaddafi slaughter his own people than risk the risks that are currently being risked.

How many times do I need to present the point that the no fly zone will not stop Kadafi from slaughtering his own people. If the goal is to stop Kadafi from slaughtering people, given the circumstances, he has to be removed from power. Anything less than that and people who are vocal or have rebelled against Kadafi will be killed one way or another.

Imagine it this way, you see a drowning person. Immediately you can make a decision with the objective to A) Save the person or B) Throw the person a flotation device. In option A it is clear that you will dive in if necessary, call for additional help, pull the person to shore, administer CPR until help arrives or until the person becomes functional, etc, etc. However, if your objective is to throw the person a flotation device, you throw it, but if it is clear that option B is inadequate what was the point? Personally, I could not simply throw a rope, and walk away - if I am confronted by the situation described, I am all in! I won't walk away. I will do everything in my power to save the life, everything! The thought of throwing a rope and walking away is beyond my understanding.

Quote:

For the record, I'd rather have had some kind of intervention in Rwanda than was the case. I'd rather have had some kind of intervention to prevent a death toll climbing to 500,000 to 1,000,000 (or 800,000, depending on your sources), or 20% of the country's population.

What about Ahmadinejad saying his goal was to wipe Israel off the face of the map? Is that any less real than kadafi threat against his own people?

Where do you draw the line between perceived threats and taking proactive humanitarian action compared to what may be hyperbole?

Quote:

What would you rather have done in Libya? Let Gaddafi burn it out? With upwards of 1.3 million Libyans if that's what it took? You'd rather those lives get burned out and have the "war" over with rather than prolong it? The war in Somalia is still raging on 20 years later. Maybe we should stop meddling in it and prolonging that, eh?

So another Afghanistan? Rather than another Bosnia...or Kosovo?

I have clearly said what I would do. If the cause is worthy, I am all in. As soon as I use the military, I commit to finishing the job and I do it as soon as possible.

WhoaitsZ · 04-04-2011, 05:40 PM

I actually agree with ace... I am very happy if we do good in Libya. I don't think we will. I pray I am wrong.

Baraka_Guru · 04-04-2011, 05:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

How many times do I need to present the point that the no fly zone will not stop Kadafi from slaughtering his own people. If the goal is to stop Kadafi from slaughtering people, given the circumstances, he has to be removed from power. Anything less than that and people who are vocal or have rebelled against Kadafi will be killed one way or another.

Are you suggesting the no-fly zone has had no impact? Are you suggesting that no one is talking about anything else? Are you suggesting that everything is static and neatly delineated as though it were written on paper in under 2,000 words? I don't think many people are keen on leaving Kadafi in power, but I don't think many are keen on total war. Are you?

Quote:

Imagine it this way, you see a drowning person. Immediately you can make a decision with the objective to A) Save the person or B) Throw the person a flotation device. In option A it is clear that you will dive in if necessary, call for additional help, pull the person to shore, administer CPR until help arrives or until the person becomes functional, etc, etc. However, if your objective is to throw the person a flotation device, you throw it, but if it is clear that option B is inadequate what was the point? Personally, I could not simply throw a rope, and walk away - if I am confronted by the situation described, I am all in! I won't walk away. I will do everything in my power to save the life, everything! The thought of throwing a rope and walking away is beyond my understanding.

What does this have to do with anything?

Quote:

What about Ahmadinejad saying his goal was to wipe Israel off the face of the map? Is that any less real than kadafi threat against his own people?

For starters, what Ahmadinejad does is a threat. What Kadafi was and is doing is are actions. Is Ahmadinejad's threat real? Yes. Are Kadafi's actions real? Yes. I'm not sure what you're getting at.

When Iran's honor guard starts shooting up Jews and when Iranian warplanes start bombing and strafing Nazareth and Haifa, I'll let you know how I think they compare in real terms.

Quote:

Where do you draw the line between perceived threats and taking proactive humanitarian action compared to what may be hyperbole?

I guess it depends on the situation. This is a loaded question.

Quote:

I have clearly said what I would do. If the cause is worthy, I am all in. As soon as I use the military, I commit to finishing the job and I do it as soon as possible.

So total war and unconditional surrender? You should be clear if you say you're being clear.

aceventura3 · 04-05-2011, 10:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru

Are you suggesting the no-fly zone has had no impact?

Where did the above question come from? The no fly zone clearly had an impact. What I have said is that it is inadequate. Kadafi quickly changed his military tactics and regained the upper-hand. What has our response been?

Quote:

BREGA, Libya — A senior Libyan rebel leader sharply criticized NATO on Monday for bureaucratic delays that he said were putting civilians’ lives at risk and complicating rebel efforts to fight the Qaddafi forces on the ground.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/05/wo...a/05libya.html

Quote:

BREGA, Libya — Forces loyal to Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi battered rebel fighters on the road outside this strategic oil town on Tuesday with rocket fire, mortars and artillery, driving them many miles to the north and leaving them in disarray

A day after a senior Libyan rebel leader had criticized NATO for “a delay in reacting and lack of response to what’s going on on the ground,” there was still no sign of the air power that two weeks ago seemed to have the loyalist forces reeling toward the Qaddafi stronghold of Surt, more than 100 miles to the west.

The official, Ali al-Essawi, the foreign policy director of the Transitional National Council, the rebels’ coordinating group, said that the problems began after NATO took charge of the air campaign from the United States, Britain and France, and that he now foresaw a drawn-out battle. “They took the command; they will make it long,” he said in an interview in Rome.

While NATO seemingly had no presence on the battlefield here, a NATO official, Brig. Gen. Mark van Uhm, said at a news briefing that Western airstrikes had destroyed about 30 percent of Colonel Qaddafi’s military power, Reuters reported.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/06/wo...a/06libya.html

The West has the capacity to end the conflict, but we have not.
The West has not coordinated actions with the rebels.
The West is doing less now than last week - doing less when more is needed.
The Rebels appear to have an expectation of assistance from the West that does not exist.
The West is trying to manage a bureaucracy when quick front line decisions need to be made.

What the hell are we doing? What are we trying to accomplish? Are we doing what needs to be done to accomplish our goals? Are we committed to accomplishing our goals? Was the goal simply to "throw a rope" and walk away so we can say we did something?

roachboy · 04-05-2011, 11:57 AM

as of this afternoon, nato estimates the the air strikes have destroyed about 30% of gadhafi's military capacity.

there is a persistent problem of organization amongst the rebel forces. there is no small degree of confusion about the role--if there is one----for people who were with gadhafi's military that went over to the rebels.

there are also a lot of negociations....one thing that's been clear is that gadhafi is looking for a way out. but at this point things appear to be at an impasse because his sons were seemingly under the impression that it'd be cool for them to hang out and it isn't so far as the rebels are concerned.

the rebels didn't manage to hold onto brega---they claim, as they have been saying, not to be able to match gadhafi's weaponry. the solution there is probably to arm the rebels faster. no-one knows who's not on the ground exactly what is happening on that front. the fog of disinformation...

there was to be a tanker into tobruk to export a million or so gallons of oil under the aegis of the rebel government in benghazi. it would not be at all surprising to find that preventing this from happening is the objective behind the push into brega.

its delusional to imagine that short of ground involvement that the west--or any part of the west, including the united states---is in a position to simply stride manfully into libya and straighten shit out. there's problems of the united states military being stretched thanks to conservative policy incompetence in the bush period that generated such chaos that there's been no way out of either quagmire to this point. the british are saying that they're stretched as well thanks to iraq and afghanistan. so more excellent outcomes from conservative incomptence.

france is finding itself getting sucked into the civil war in the ivory coast.

basically, the rebel forces need to play for time.
there's no way for nato to stop the air strikes.

the united states is backing down from running the show in libya. so "we" aren't really "doing" anything alone. i don't see anything in this "what are we doing?" nonsense. this is an international operation. this is a basic empirical fact.

the gambit that gadhafi seems to be playing is that there isn't the stomach for a real fight---and he's structured the militia situation so that he's in a position to bring it on to the rebels.

at the same time, the defections from the government are real.
and there is a search on for a way out from gadhafi's side.

---------- Post added at 07:57 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:33 PM ----------

aside, later: all afternoon i've been seeing tweets and other fragments from the rebels arguing that they're not being given what they need, that nato isn't doing enough. i wasn't sure i understood it until i saw this:

Quote:

Nato lacking strike aircraft for Libya campaign

US withdrawal of attack planes puts pressure on European countries, especially France, to offer more strike capability

Nato is running short of attack aircraft for its bombing campaign against Muammar Gaddafi only days after taking command of the Libyan mission from a coalition led by the US, France and Britain.

David Cameron has pledged four more British Tornado jets on top of eight already being used for the air strikes. But pressure is growing for other European countries, especially France, to offer more after the Americans withdrew their attack aircraft from the campaign on Monday.

"We will need more strike capability," a Nato official said.

Since the French launched the first raids on Libya 16 days ago, the coalition and Nato have destroyed around 30% of Gaddafi's military capacity, Lieutenant General Charles Bouchard, the Canadian officer leading the air campaign, told Nato ambassadors.

But attempts to "degrade" the Libyan leader's firepower further were being complicated by a shift in tactics by Gaddafi, said Brigadier General Marc van Uhm, a senior Nato military planner.

"They are using light vehicles and trucks to transport," while hiding tanks and heavy weapons, he said.

"We try to identify where those heavy assets are, because we have seen they have chosen to hide themselves into urban areas to prevent being targeted, even using human shields."

Nato officials insisted the pace of the air operations was being maintained. But it has emerged that the US and the French, who have been the two biggest military players until now, are retaining national control over substantial military forces in the Mediterranean and refusing to submit them to Nato authority.

The French have the Charles de Gaulle aircraft carrier, two escorting frigates and 16 fighter aircraft, none of which are under the Nato command and control which was announced last Thursday.

Until last week, President Nicolas Sarkozy was the loudest opponent of handing over the operations to Nato control. Nonetheless, the French are not only taking part in the Nato campaign, but are the biggest non-US contributors, with 33 aircraft, double Britain's 17. Not all of these are strike aircraft.

Until Monday, the Americans had performed most of the attacks on ground targets, with the French executing around a quarter and the British around a 10th. Given the US retreat, Nato is seeking to fill the gap, but only the British have pledged more.

"We're very happy that one country decided to bring in more assets," said Van Uhm.

When Nato took over from the coalition it was stressed that it had assumed "sole command and control" of all air operations.

However, countries are dipping in and out of Nato command, withdrawing "air assets" for national operations before returning them to alliance control.

"It's pretty clear that Nato is in command. Nato is in the lead," said Van Uhm. "There are assets under national control in the area. But General Bouchard is commanding what Nato does ... You could say nothing is happening without Nato knowing."

The general stressed that no air strikes on ground targets in Libya had taken place outside Nato's command.

Six countries are believed to be engaged in the bombing campaign – France, Britain, Canada, Denmark, Belgium, and Norway – with many others involved in policing an arms embargo and enforcing a no-fly zone.

Gaddafi's air force had been grounded, Van Uhm said.

In London, the Ministry of Defence said RAF aircraft had struck targets in Libya on each of the past three days.

Tornado GR4 ground attack planes, flying from the Italian airbase of Gioia del Colle, hit a battle tank and two surface-to-air missile launchers near Sirte on Monday when they launched three anti-armour Brimstone missiles. The previous day, they fired Paveway IV bombs and Brimstone missiles to target a group of 10 armoured vehicles south of Sirte.

On Saturday, they fired Paveway IV missiles at two tanks in Sirte and also hit "several small ground attack aircraft" on an airfield near Misrata, the MoD said.

Two of the 10 Eurofighter/Typhoons based in Italy have returned to the UK. The Typhoons are not equipped to conduct ground attack operations.

Nato lacking strike aircraft for Libya campaign | World news | guardian.co.uk

aceventura3 · 04-05-2011, 01:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

its delusional to imagine that short of ground involvement that the west--or any part of the west, including the united states---is in a position to simply stride manfully into libya and straighten shit out.

Why wasn't it delusional from the beginning to think that a no fly zone was going to be adequate? In the short-term the no fly zone had an impact and given the dynamics of war, conditions changed. If NATO and UN goals were in sync and if the words on paper matched the words spoken the next steps would be clear. At this point the errors at the beginning are now obvious.

Quote:

there's problems of the united states military being stretched thanks to conservative policy incompetence in the bush period that generated such chaos that there's been no way out of either quagmire to this point.

Obama was elected to end, as you put it, the quagmire, he has had two years - and Iraq was winding down when he took office. And even if you call what Bush did a quagmire, it can be legitimately argued that the Bush doctrine planted the seeds of the current revolts in the ME. We can not go back in time and pretend to say "if only" we had not invaded Iraq that we could do more to help Libya - we must deal with current realities. The current reality is that if we chose, we could do more in Libya.

Let's not mislead people - what we do or what we don't do is a choice.

Quote:

the british are saying that they're stretched as well thanks to iraq and afghanistan. so more excellent outcomes from conservative incomptence.

Looks like even in other countries people won't make a sacrifice for a cause that our President sold as humanitarian. If people were actually willing to commit and sacrifice for a cause, the resources would be there. Leadership failed to get public support.

Quote:

An opinion poll about British military involvement in Libya, has found there is mixed support for intervention.

The poll was carried out for BBC Radio Four's Broadcasting House Programme.

It suggests that the backing of British people for the Libyan mission is less than it was for the invasion of Iraq in 2003.

BBC News - Public support for Libya action 'mixed'

Make sure to see the video report at the link above.

Cimarron29414 · 04-05-2011, 02:36 PM

In the 16 or so days of this, France has managed to send 16 whole attack aircraft over to Libya. Britian has managed 8. Canada - six whole attack aircraft. As usual, the pussies in Europe and Canada raise their hands to save the downtrodden, but they can't seem to raise their rifles or their wallets. "That's Yank work, dontcha know." No doubt, this will somehow be all our fault.

silent_jay · 04-05-2011, 02:43 PM

Baraka_Guru · 04-05-2011, 02:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cimarron29414

In the 16 or so days of this, France has managed to send 16 whole attack aircraft over to Libya. Britian has managed 8. Canada - six whole attack aircraft. As usual, the pussies in Europe and Canada raise their hands to save the downtrodden, but they can't seem to raise their rifles or their wallets. "That's Yank work, dontcha know." No doubt, this will somehow be all our fault.

With all due respect, those six fighters consist of nearly 8% of Canada's air attack fleet of CF-18s. If those Yanks sent in 8% of their fleet, it would be nearly 500 aircraft.

Forgive us if less than 2% of our GDP goes towards shiny machines of destruction. We ain't Yanks, after all. Our military budget is $21.8 billion.

And it's not that we don't have other commitments, like in Afghanistan.

roachboy · 04-05-2011, 08:46 PM

and so we go back around again.

one of the problems that's being revealed by this action in libya is the extent of the consequences of iraq and afghanistan.

this does not follow from some vaporous matter of "leadership" in the sense of getting on television and telling people without power what it is that they want to hear.

this problem is about the realities that operate amongst people who have political and military power internationally and who are in a position to recognize the damage that conservative incompetence has done to the american empire in particular and everyone who aligned with the lunatic campaigns of the bush period in general.

there's no amount of marketing of war to people with no power that's going to change that reality.

the central problem you really have, ace, and all your conservative avatars have it as well, is that you cannot face the magnitude of this. you'd like to pretend it's caused by other things. well......it isn't.

the problems of empire that are being played out in libya follow directly from afghanistan and iraq and the problems of the mortgage backed security crisis that undermined the position of the american financial oligarchy in an imperial context, something that **never** would have happened (in the sense of not that particular way, not never temporally) had the cluster fucks of afghanistan and iraq already been visited upon ALL OF US by people who think the way you do.

unless you think that the commands of all the militaries involved are joking when they talk about being dangerously stretched logistically.

because you'd know better than they. obviously.

aceventura3 · 04-06-2011, 07:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

and so we go back around again.

one of the problems that's being revealed by this action in libya is the extent of the consequences of iraq and afghanistan.

This is pure b.s. Resources are available, however no one is willing to sacrifice anything - even Obama is not willing to put too much at risk, he is doing as little as he can get away with.

Quote:

this does not follow from some vaporous matter of "leadership" in the sense of getting on television and telling people without power what it is that they want to hear.

I think you may be underestimating the power of public support for a cause.

Quote:

this problem is about the realities that operate amongst people who have political and military power internationally and who are in a position to recognize the damage that conservative incompetence has done to the american empire in particular and everyone who aligned with the lunatic campaigns of the bush period in general.

Bush bashing never gets old, does it? When will it end? Also, your position seems to be a contradiction. Occasionally you argue there is no difference between the two political parties, and if true why single Bush out in a argument about US colonialism. To someone who has read what you have written, you are far too frequently incoherent.

Quote:

there's no amount of marketing of war to people with no power that's going to change that reality.

I am still not clear on this "marketing" concept of yours in the context of war. But it is clear that most people do not understand what our real objectives are in Libya. I also believe that many in the Obama administration and in the military never bought into Obama's rhetoric on this issue.

Quote:

the central problem you really have, ace, and all your conservative avatars have it as well, is that you cannot face the magnitude of this. you'd like to pretend it's caused by other things. well......it isn't.

The central problem I have has absolutely nothing to do with this topic. I am and I have been correct on this issue from the beginning and every step of the way. Anyone looking at this objectively with an open and questioning mind could see the problems and lack of clarity from Obama.

Quote:

the problems of empire that are being played out in libya follow directly from afghanistan and iraq and the problems of the mortgage backed security crisis that undermined the position of the american financial oligarchy in an imperial context, something that **never** would have happened (in the sense of not that particular way, not never temporally) had the cluster fucks of afghanistan and iraq already been visited upon ALL OF US by people who think the way you do.

unless you think that the commands of all the militaries involved are joking when they talk about being dangerously stretched logistically.

because you'd know better than they. obviously.

Sounds like you are making excuses for a failed endeavor. Obama and our military knew what resources they had before entering into the Libyan conflict, I believe they also knew what would be required to win it. If they were not prepared to win or accomplish their objective - then they were fools to initiate military actions.

roachboy · 04-06-2011, 09:04 AM

i was looking around in janes defense weekly, which is always a creepy pass time unless you like the transnational weapons bazaar (one result of which is situations like the action in libya using weapon systems from one area of the bazaar to neutralize weapon systems for other areas of the bazaar). here's an analysis about longer-term implications of the ongoing turbulence in north africa/middle east.

Quote:

Turbulence in the Middle East and the implications for the defence trade

Guy Anderson Jane's Defence Industry Editor
London

Political unrest in the Middle East and North Africa threatens to hamper defence trade agreements in the short term and reshape the military procurement landscape in the longer term, writes Guy Anderson

That political turbulence in the Middle East and North Africa will have some consequences for defence trade is almost self-evident.

Ministries across the region have found their attention diverted from procurement programmes to pressing operational issues, while efforts to placate popular concerns through far-reaching spending programmes already appear to be channelling government funding away from military procurement programmes in some quarters.

As an example, the government of Iraq was reported in late February to be shifting a USD900 million fund allocated to underpin the country's F-16 Block 52 fighter aircraft programme: an accord valued at up to USD4.2 billion when it was last raised in September 2010.

Whether other governments follow suit remains to be seen, although the scale and abrupt nature of social programmes (such as Saudi Arabia's announcement of a USD36 billion package to address inflation, housing, social security, employment and education concerns) suggests that military procurement in general may suffer delays and cancellation in the short term.

This alone is cause for concern, given that the leading markets of the region - Algeria, Egypt, Kuwait, Morocco, Oman, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) - dedicated a total of USD30 billion to procurement in 2010 (according to Jane's figures) and the Middle East is in the sights of the bulk of world materiel exporters as a means of offsetting decline elsewhere.
Lessons of the unrest

Potentially a bigger question is how the current upheaval will change the defence procurement landscape in the Middle East and North Africa, and whether lessons learnt today will change purchase patterns in the longer term.

Jane's argues that the existing trend among some markets (such as Saudi Arabia and the UAE) towards broader procurement relationships (with historical reliance on Western suppliers gradually being diluted by procurement accords with re-emerging powers such as Russia) may accelerate.

Efforts among Gulf states to broaden alliances to encompass Moscow and Beijing have been driven by the shifting balance of global influence and (certainly in the case of China) burgeoning bilateral trade over the last five years.

To these drivers we may add lessons learnt from the West's reaction to current events: specifically, the abrupt cancellation of military and security export permits (such as the UK's suspension of a series of export licences relating to Bahrain) and the spectre of military materiel embargoes in response to the threat of domestic oppression.

Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak's fall from office after a relatively brief (albeit intense) period of domestic upheaval may also carry unintended lessons for heads of state elsewhere in the region.

Mubarak's four-decade regime's acquiescence to US foreign policy (and willing receipt of US materiel as a result of the 1979 Camp David accords) did not translate into personal support. The unspoken "arms procurement for security" pact that apparently applied elsewhere in the region may not, therefore, be taken as a purchase of personal support for individuals.
Libya - arms embargo

Of the reactions to recent events in the Middle East and North Africa, it is perhaps the UN sanctions against Libya (resolution 1970 - agreed on 26 February) that carry the most intriguing lessons.

Arms embargoes typically shift relationships, as with the 2006 US embargo against Venezuela that led President Hugo Chavez to enter into multi-billion dollar materiel accords with Russia. However, the measures against Libya attracted unanimous UN Security Council backing, with Beijing and Moscow backing the resolution alongside fellow permanent members France, the UK and the US and current members Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Colombia, Gabon, Germany, India, Lebanon, Nigeria, Portugal and South Africa.

The backing of China and Russia may be viewed as pragmatic, given that Moammar Ghadaffi's regime appeared to be entering its final days at that stage and the need for alignment with successors, but it may also have marked a significant shift in China's approach to international affairs. Beijing may have been driven on this occasion to reassess its historic policy of non-interference in the internal affairs of other states. Given the potential for China's interests to be harmed by upheaval elsewhere in the region and beyond, it is plausible that Beijing's approach to international relations may have evolved.
Enter Turkey

Turkey's position as virtually the only significant voice of dissent against the UN sanctions may also prove significant. While not in a position to vote, Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan made his opposition to the measures very clear through public statements.

Turkey is a rapidly emerging defence exporter with global market ambitions. Opposition to the Libyan embargo - taken with Ankara's vote against the last round of UN sanctions against Iran in 2010 - may be viewed as a statement of independence in export markets. Turkey has already made some in-roads into the Middle East markets, and is therefore likely to be keen to promote its systems as a 'safe bet' without the threat of future impediments.
Moscow and Beijing - Middle East and North African relations

A greater shift towards alignment with Russia and China by Middle East and North African powers would not, of course, point to a new trend: substantial in-roads were made throughout the 2000s.

For example, warming relations between Moscow and Saudi Arabia over the last five years has led to defence trade that would have been inconcievable during the Soviet era, such as a materiel package valued at between USD2 billion and USD4 billion that has been under discussion for at least two years. China also penetrated the kingdom's market in 2007, albeit at a low level, with the sale of Norinco PLZ-45 155 mm self-propelled guns.

Russian and Chinese efforts have been mirrored to varying degrees elsewhere in the region.

The strength enjoyed by Moscow and Beijing has been their ease of aligning defence trade packages with wider issues ranging from strategic relations to energy supply, facilitated by vast state ownership of defence, financial and energy ventures. Military materiel accords offered by Moscow, for example, have often included elements of sovereign debt forgiveness, energy exploitation and industrial co-operation.

The fact that the two emerging powers have not, in general, shown themselves to be fickle friends is also notable. Procurement contracts involving Moscow and China have not faced the sort of publicity that was attached to past Saudi Arabian accords with Western suppliers. Likewise, there is less threat of future embargoes.

The depth of European and US penetration of markets such as Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Saudi Arabia and the UAE suggests that major change to the profile of suppliers in the near-term is not plausible. The risk of Western organisations being cut off from such markets is extremely limited. However, far greater competition in the future is highly likely.

nb: i can't post a link to this because the url runs through a proxy. you'd not be able to access it anyway. if you have access to janes, this was posted on 11 march of this year.

DontKnockIt · 04-06-2011, 01:28 PM

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.

silent_jay · 04-06-2011, 02:44 PM

03-31-2011, 10:20 AM	#201 (permalink)
Cimarron29414 Still Free Location: comfortably perched at the top of the bell curve!	You have to say, if he gets out of this without prosecution, this was a pretty slick move. God knows how many people this guy tortured. Politically, he's too symbolic and high-valued to get what he deserves. I'd be curious to know the role of the Libyan army in all of this. Every war image I've seen of Qaddafi troops has guys that are clearly of true African descent rather than Middle Eastern. It's pretty clear they are mercs. But that does leave the question, what are the regulars doing? I can't even imagine the choice they have to make, considering they've never had to make one before (being in such a subjugated armed force.) __________________ Gives a man a halo, does mead. "Here lies The_Jazz: Killed by an ambitious, sparkly, pink butterfly."

04-01-2011, 09:33 AM	#206 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	there's considerable negociations going on behind the marketing curtain it seems...so i wouldn't put much weight on the various pronouncements that are floating across the surface of the infotainment-scape at this point. the defections of the past 24 hours are big deals. the game could be changing. manly man talk from the american right could not be less relevant. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

04-01-2011, 10:38 AM	#208 (permalink)
Baraka_Guru warrior bodhisattva Super Moderator Location: East-central Canada	I dunno, other members of NATO still have warplanes. __________________ Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing? —Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön Humankind cannot bear very much reality. —From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

04-01-2011, 10:52 AM	#209 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	so in the world of manly man talk, humanitarian actions are not core beliefs? ethics are not core beliefs? in the world of manly man talk, the statements made by koussa and the other defectors that their primary objective is to stop the violence aren't real? all that matters is what people in the united states say and within that larger set, what those say who speak the manly man that you understand. awesome. your perspective is unhinged from reality entirely, ace. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

04-01-2011, 11:07 AM	#210 (permalink)
Baraka_Guru warrior bodhisattva Super Moderator Location: East-central Canada	Ethics? Altruism, you mean? The Libya matter is an ethical lapse. At least it is so to the Randians and the like. Humanitarianism is for bleeding heart liberals. __________________ Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing? —Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön Humankind cannot bear very much reality. —From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

04-01-2011, 08:54 AM	#205 (permalink)
filtherton Junkie Location: In the land of ice and snow.	I don't know. The terms of their ceasefire don't seem all that compromising. I don't know that it necessarily represents a softening of resolve.

04-02-2011, 09:16 AM	#212 (permalink)
WhoaitsZ Crazy Location: right behind you...	[/COLOR] Conservatives also support the causes for humanitarian aid. Are you being sarcastic?[/QUOTE] Not to sound like a dick but can I get some examples? Honestly I do not believe in stereotypes and over-generalizations but in my lifetime 95% of all conservatives I have known only support themselves. As for the rest of the posts... I am torn because its just pure bullshit. I would give anything to cockpunch Obama when he was talking about how we can't watch Gaddafi kill his own people. I supported Obama. I was thrilled when he won and if I have to chose between him and a Palin,, Huckabee or Bachmman I'd vote Obama again. In this case he's a liar simple and clean. I am glad if we can help the rebels. I do not believe we are helping them. Its a smokescreen... time will tell.

04-04-2011, 08:18 AM	#214 (permalink)
filtherton Junkie Location: In the land of ice and snow.	Where's that patented Ace methodological skepticism? I thought you didn't trust things like this and that you preferred divining your understanding about the nature of your fellow persons by asking folks at the supermarket. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that the relationship between charity and political persuasion isn't as simple as "group A" gives more than "group B".

04-04-2011, 08:30 AM	#215 (permalink)
Baraka_Guru warrior bodhisattva Super Moderator Location: East-central Canada	Humanitarianism and donating to religious charities aren't necessarily the same thing. __________________ Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing? —Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön Humankind cannot bear very much reality. —From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

04-04-2011, 09:15 AM	#217 (permalink)
WhoaitsZ Crazy Location: right behind you...	ace. Can you define the type of charity you are claiming reds outdo blues? Paying tithes or giving money to church isn't charity. It's a Christian's way of selling their guilt and giving into the biggest socialist movement of all time. When I say most conservatives care about self more than others I am including churches. Now hear this: I know for a fact that a lot of Christians do help people. Local churches have helped me several times when sick or when I needed a vehicle. I am not putting down people like this and I don't believe libs are better than reds. I do believe that when it comes to helping people not in the know that libs care far more than cons.

04-04-2011, 10:02 AM	#223 (permalink)
WhoaitsZ Crazy Location: right behind you...	Comparing taxes to church tithes is simply beyond comparison. Churches are a group or community that basically take care of their own and regularly g out of their way to discredit and hurt those who they disagree with. Hell, evangelicals have *supported* African a country (I apologize because I forget which country it was) that is trying to make homosexuality punishable by death. The government tends to blow tons of our taxes; no argument. That said they pay for our police (double edged. I d not trust many coops), fire fighters, teachers, military, road construction, welfare, Medicaid/Medicare (without which I'd be dead), homes... etc. I totally understand that giving what we want to give versus what charities do. Yet, if we lived in a country of responsible people and a government that would actually tax those who can afford it and make the simple humane decision that no,, health care and education is NOT a business and offer it free and by taxes we would not have to worry about who gets screwed or what have you. Yes, I am a dreamer. In my personal experience pretty much every conservative I know, including my best friends of more than 20 years, sees charity as a Us and them" while most liberals I know only see "Us". Again I am speaking from my personal experiences and I live in Mississippi. Its almost its own personal backward country. Should we create another thread? We're totally off topic.

04-04-2011, 10:33 AM	#224 (permalink)
Baraka_Guru warrior bodhisattva Super Moderator Location: East-central Canada	ace, is it more humanitarian to do nothing while people are slaughtered? You aren't talking about whether something is humanitarian or not; you are talking in degrees. But I imagine you are a proponent of total war and unconditional defeat over more balanced measures. You'd rather have seen boots on the ground. You'd rather have seen another Afghanistan. I don't think that's a one-size-fits-all solution. Correct me if any of this is off the mark. __________________ Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing? —Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön Humankind cannot bear very much reality. —From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

04-04-2011, 05:40 PM	#228 (permalink)
WhoaitsZ Crazy Location: right behind you...	I actually agree with ace... I am very happy if we do good in Libya. I don't think we will. I pray I am wrong.

04-05-2011, 02:36 PM	#233 (permalink)
Cimarron29414 Still Free Location: comfortably perched at the top of the bell curve!	In the 16 or so days of this, France has managed to send 16 whole attack aircraft over to Libya. Britian has managed 8. Canada - six whole attack aircraft. As usual, the pussies in Europe and Canada raise their hands to save the downtrodden, but they can't seem to raise their rifles or their wallets. "That's Yank work, dontcha know." No doubt, this will somehow be all our fault. __________________ Gives a man a halo, does mead. "Here lies The_Jazz: Killed by an ambitious, sparkly, pink butterfly."

04-05-2011, 02:43 PM	#234 (permalink)
silent_jay Her Jay Location: Ontario for now....	... Last edited by silent_jay; 04-05-2011 at 07:20 PM.. Reason: Can't be bothered

04-05-2011, 08:46 PM	#236 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	and so we go back around again. one of the problems that's being revealed by this action in libya is the extent of the consequences of iraq and afghanistan. this does not follow from some vaporous matter of "leadership" in the sense of getting on television and telling people without power what it is that they want to hear. this problem is about the realities that operate amongst people who have political and military power internationally and who are in a position to recognize the damage that conservative incompetence has done to the american empire in particular and everyone who aligned with the lunatic campaigns of the bush period in general. there's no amount of marketing of war to people with no power that's going to change that reality. the central problem you really have, ace, and all your conservative avatars have it as well, is that you cannot face the magnitude of this. you'd like to pretend it's caused by other things. well......it isn't. the problems of empire that are being played out in libya follow directly from afghanistan and iraq and the problems of the mortgage backed security crisis that undermined the position of the american financial oligarchy in an imperial context, something that never would have happened (in the sense of not that particular way, not never temporally) had the cluster fucks of afghanistan and iraq already been visited upon ALL OF US by people who think the way you do. unless you think that the commands of all the militaries involved are joking when they talk about being dangerously stretched logistically. because you'd know better than they. obviously. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

04-06-2011, 01:28 PM	#239 (permalink)
DontKnockIt Upright Location: In a VAN DOWN BY THE RIVER	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. __________________ Yeah I said it, big whoop, wanna fight about it?

04-06-2011, 02:44 PM	#240 (permalink)
silent_jay Her Jay Location: Ontario for now....	... Last edited by silent_jay; 04-06-2011 at 03:37 PM.. Reason: mind change