The war in Libya is about imperialism.

[ej510]

Having launched its Libyan regime change war to oust the Qaddafi dictatorship from the United States’ German-based Africa Command, the Obama administration this week arranged to continue its air war under cover of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) alliance. Long understood to be a relatively benign and defensive alliance focused on European security needs, people across Europe and, increasingly, in the United States, are questioning how and why NATO is now focused on waging non-defensive wars beyond Europe.

From the beginning, 1948, NATO was about more than containing the Soviet Union, which in the immediate aftermath of World War II was a devastated nation whose occupation of Eastern Europe was as, George Kennan wrote, primarily designed to ensure a buffer against future invasions from the West. Think in terms of the devastation wrought by Napoleon, the Kaiser and Hitler.

Like the unequal treaties that defined 19th- and early 21st-century European colonialism in Asia, NATO has served as a fig leaf, providing a degree of legitimacy for the continuing US military occupation and related US political influence across Western Eurasia. Recall that Zbigniew Brzezinski, President Carter’s national security adviser, wrote that US global dominance requires US hegemony of Eurasia, which in turn necessitates that the United States maintain toeholds (or more) on its western, southern, and eastern peripheries.

Twenty-first century NATO isn’t the cold war alliance that many of us grew up with. The collapse of the Soviet Union eliminated NATO’s cold war raison d’etre, thereby undermining the rationales for the foreign deployment of hundreds of thousands of US warriors on hundreds of US and “NATO” bases across Europe. The Clinton, George W. Bush and Obama administrations responded by transforming NATO into a global alliance to reinforce US imperial ambitions and the privileges of sectors of the European elite. Violating President George H.W. Bush’s pledge not to expand NATO a centimeter nearer to Moscow, in exchange for Gorbachev’s blessing of German reunification on Western terms Clinton began the process of expanding NATO to Russia’s borders, along the way creating the foundation for Donald Rumsfeld and company to renew the game of divide and conquer by playing “New Europe” against “Old Europe.” The US now has bases across Eastern Europe, and there will be more to come with “missile defense” deployments. In violation of the UN Charter, the Clinton administration used NATO to fight its war against Serbia, making possible the creation of Kosovo and the rise of its corrupt client political leadership there.

Cont'd at the link: http://williambowles.info/2011/03/27/libya-conflict-highlights-natos-imperialist-mission-by-joseph-gerson/

[tabatha]

1. Just a theory - no evidence.

Maybe William Bowles should go talk to the millions of families that have been affected by the evil of Gaddafi, and have died fighting to oust Gaddafi.

Iraq was imperiliasm - there were no Iraqis fighting alongside the US against Saddam. There were US troops on the ground fighting against the Iraqis, and killing in the thousands.

[ej510]

4. U.S. and Europe is worried about the Chinese gaining access to oil.

[stevenleser]

18. Since most countries have some oil, its easy to generalize that all wars are about oil.

The key is what does the international community say. The international community agrees with me in all cases. The international community was against the Iraq war and in favor of Afghanistan and Libya.

[ej510]

19. The African Union is against this war, but they do not matter, because it is

their continent and the are dark people. Africa is a colonized continent. AU wanted to diplomacy and the U.S. told them to fuck off.

[stevenleser]

20. The African Union doesnt decide International law anymore than the South decides US law

This is more crap you are spewing to try to justify a flawed position.

These poor African countries willingly signed on to the UN Charter. They have not pulled out of the UN in protest.

The US did not "tell them to fuck off". The United Nations Security council authorized the use of force as is within its power to do according to the charter that those African nations signed and to which those African nations have decided to still abide.

[ej510]

22. Are you sure about that.

Western countries blocked a United Nations resolution on Wednesday that demanded "a complete end to violence and all attacks against and abuses of civilians" in Libya.

The resolution was drafted by the African Union, whose ad hoc committee on Libya - consisting of ministers from South Africa, Mali, Mauritiania, Uganda and the Republic of Congo - pleaded for "an immediate humanitarian pause in fighting" in the closed-door meeting.

The draft noted that a ceasefire would allow aid groups to see to the "pressing needs of the populations affected."

The AU insisted that the pause "should be followed by a political process, in particular by starting with an inclusive and consensual transition."

http://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/news/content/view/full/105949

The AU is ignored because of capitalists greed from western nations.

[stevenleser]

23. 100% sure. None of what you assert makes sense at all. Not even a little. n/t

[ej510]

26. The western nations do not care about Africa, but they want the resources.

[stevenleser]

29. You keep saying that with zero evidence in your favor. n/t

[EFerrari]

48. US Authorizes Oil Deals With Libyan Rebels

http://blogs.wsj.com/corruption-currents/2011/04/26/us-authorizes-oil-deals-with-libyan-rebels/

[KurtNYC]

36. Countries opposed to war on Libya:

Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa

"The five nations -- which together represent more than 40 percent of the world's population -- said their unusual joint presence on the UN Security Council in 2011 offered an opportunity to work together on Libya."

http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-world/emerging-nations-oppose-use-of-force-in-libya-20110414-1dfou.html

Seems like you have some more convincing to do with the international community.

[tabatha]

25. Is there a report that states that? Any verification whatsoever - or just a theory?

Libya not a War for Oil

Posted on 06/14/2011 by Juan

The allegation out there in the blogosphere that the United Nations-authorized intervention in Libya was driven by Western oil companies is a non-starter. The argument is that Muammar Qaddafi was considered unreliable by American petroleum concerns, so they pushed to get rid of him. Nothing could be further from the truth. Bloomberg details the big lobbying push by American oil companies on behalf of Qaddafi, to exempt him from civil claims in the US.

The United States in any case did not spearhead the UN intervention. President Obama and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, along with the Pentagon brass, considered the outbreak of the Libya war very unfortunate and clearly were only dragged into it kicking and screaming by Saudi Arabia, France and Britain. The Western country with the biggest oil stake in Libya, Italy, was very reluctant to join the war. Silvio Berlusconi says that he almost resigned when the war broke out, given his close relationship to Qaddafi. As for the UK, Tony Blair brought the BP CEO to Tripoli in 2007, and BP had struck deals for Libya oil worth billions, which this war can only delay.

Not only is there no reason to think that petroleum companies urged war, the whole argument about UN and NATO motivations is irrelevant and sordid. By now it is clear that Qaddafi planned to crush political dissidents in a massive and brutal way, and some estimates already suggest over 10,000 dead. If UN-authorized intervention could stop that looming massacre, then why does it matter so much what drove David Cameron to authorize it?

http://www.juancole.com/2011/06/libya-not-a-war-for-oil.html

[ej510]

28. Why hasn't NATO intervened with the Congo.

It's always about oil, and when the Libyan people elect who they want the western nations will arrange for an ousting.

[pampango]

35. The UN has intervened in Congo and the Ivory Coast. What was that about oil?

http://www.responsibilitytoprotect.org/index.php/crises/crisis-in-drc
http://www.responsibilitytoprotect.org/index.php/crises/crisis-in-ivory-coast

There are numerous other countries where the UN has intervened some with oil, some without.

http://www.responsibilitytoprotect.org/

[RaleighNCDUer]

31. You want to look at a couple of those statements?

"were only dragged into it kicking and screaming by Saudi Arabia, France and Britain"

could that read: ...were only dragged into it by Libya's primary oil-producing rival Saudi Arabia, and France and Britain, two European powers largely cut out of the Libyan oil market by Italy's majority interest...

"...Italy, was very reluctant to join the war. Silvio Berlusconi says that he almost resigned when the war broke out, given his close relationship to Qaddafi"

Because he didn't want to let other European powers have a crack at HIS claimed resources.

"Tony Blair brought the BP CEO to Tripoli in 2007, and BP had struck deals for Libya oil worth billions"

A new government, however, would allow them to re-structure those deals - not to mention the profits to be made (a la Haliburton) from rebuilding damaged oil infrastructure. No-bid contracts are a wonderful thing.

If it was about stopping massacres, why aren't these same countries pounding on Syria?

[tabatha]

41. If it was about stopping massacres, why aren't these same countries pounding on Syria?

Because China and Russia have stated that will veto it at the UN.
They declined to vote in the case of Libya.
That is why. It has been repeated many times in the news.

"could that read: ...were only dragged into it by Libya's primary oil-producing rival Saudi Arabia, and France and Britain, two European powers largely cut out of the Libyan oil market by Italy's majority interest...
Because he didn't want to let other European powers have a crack at HIS claimed resources.
A new government, however, would allow them to re-structure those deals - not to mention the profits to be made (a la Haliburton) from rebuilding damaged oil infrastructure. No-bid contracts are a wonderful thing."

Where is the evidence for your fantastical claims?
Also, another thing that has been in the news many times - the existing oil contracts will not be changed - according to the TNC.

Maybe, scouring for facts (with multiple sources) will answer questions more easily than just creating answers out of thin air (the latter is what the right-wing does.)

[pampango]

39. China was the first to sign a deal for Iraqi oil after our invasion.

Something tells me that the US and Europe don't think bombing missions will do more to keep China away from Libya's oil than the US' massive invasion of Iraq succeeded in keeping China away from Iraq's oil.

http://www.businessinsider.com/sovereign-backed-oil-companies-creamed-the-multinationals-in-iraq-2010-2

"Post-invasion, Iraq is actually hard-bargaining their oil deals, offering relatively meager returns to winning bidders and keeping much of the profit potential to itself. The U.S. has been mostly left out as a result."

History News Network: The proposed contracts did not, in fact, offer them the kind of control over development and production that the Cheney task force had envisioned back in 2001. Instead, they would be hired to finance, plan, and implement a vast expansion of the country’s production capacity. After repaying their initial investment, the government would reward them at a rate of no more than two dollars for every additional barrel of oil extracted from the fields they worked on.

The major international oil companies initially rejected these terms out of hand, demanding instead complete control over production and payments of approximately $25 per barrel. This initial resistance began to erode, however, when the Chinese National Petroleum Corporation (CNPC), a government-owned operation, induced its partner, BP, the huge British oil company, to accept government terms for expanding the Rumaila field near Basra in southern Iraq to one million barrels a day.

The Chinese company, experts believed, could afford to accept such meager returns because of Beijing’s desire to establish a long-term energy relationship with Iraq. This foot-in-the-door contract, China’s leaders evidently hoped, would lead to yet more contracts to explore Iraq’s vast, undeveloped (and possibly as yet undiscovered) oil reserves.

The threat of Chinese domination, in particular, set off a stampede from other nations. ...(B)y December a veritable stampede had begun to bid for contracts. In the end, the major winners were state-owned firms from Russia, Japan, Norway, Turkey, South Korea, Angola, and -- of course -- China. The Malaysian national company, Petronas, set a record by participating with six different partners in four of the seven new contracts the Maliki government gave out. Shell and Exxon were the only major oil companies to participate in winning bids; the others were outbid by consortia led by state-owned firms. These results suggest that national oil companies, unlike their profit-maximizing private competitors, were more willing to forego immediate windfalls in exchange for long-term access to Iraqi oil.

Thus the U.S. invasion indeed unlocked Iraq's oil production potential as many critics said had been the plan all along, but in the end the U.S. won't have much control over it.

[RaleighNCDUer]

53. Look at it again -

How much access or control did the US have before the war?

Very little.

How much access or control will the US have after the war?

With China in there, very little, but more than before the war.

And in the meantime Haliburton made BILLIONS.

And not incidentally, the BIG loser is, of course, Iraq, and foreign companies are now going to be exploiting what was previously a state resource, sucking Iraqi money out of their country.

Economic colonialism is as much about preventing the colonized country from controlling its own resources as it is about the colonizer profiting from those resources. The American Revolution was not about stamp taxes - it was about British control over American resources.

When this all shakes down in Libya, Libya will no longer control its own oil. Modern economic colonialism is about the internationalizing of national resources.

[pampango]

55. "Libya will no longer control its own oil." Then they are not as adept as Iraqis.

From my previous post: ""Post-invasion, Iraq is actually hard-bargaining their oil deals, offering relatively meager returns to winning bidders and keeping much of the profit potential to itself. The U.S. has been mostly left out as a result."

It sounds like Iraq is driving some pretty hard bargains in its oil deals and exercising effective control over whom they sell to (relatively little to big oil companies and even less to the US). Their deals allow for such a small margin that most of their oil is sold to state-owned companies from a variety of countries - Russia, Japan, Norway, Turkey, South Korea, Angola, and China."

If you are right and Libya has no control over their oil after this conflict, the Iraqis will have a good laugh. They have controlled their oil production and sale better than many would have predicted during the war and have done so with many thousands of foreign "boots on the ground".

[RaleighNCDUer]

56. You do understand that before the war (that is, before the first Iraq

war and the subsequent sanctions and 'oil for food' programs) Iraq controlled ALL its oil? And the only reason they have any semblance of control now is because there is an on-going insurgency and if they wee NOT controlling much of their own resource, that resource would be a target of the insurgency?

And that doesn't change the fact that Haliburton et al have made BILLIONS in profits during the war from Iraqi oil fields. Nevermind that the US goes broke, and the US doesn't get full control (the war will pay for itself) of the oil fields - US oil companies made a killing, at the cost of just a few thousand troops and contractors which they didn't even have to pay for.

[eridani]

38. Or maybe NATO should talk to the millions of families that have been affected

--by the evil leadership of Bahrain. Just like all too many conservation organizations realize they can't save the whole world, so they'll just focus on the cute parts, our leadership has decided that if we can't save the whole world, we should just focus on the profitable parts.

[tabatha]

42. NATO does not have the resources for more than one undertaking like this

They are running out of munitions and money and the pilots are exhausted.

Unfortunately for Bahrain, Syria and other countries, Libya asked first.

Also, Russia and China will not allow a resolution at the UN like one that was passed for Libya.

It is always good to ask questions - but look for the answers in the facts of the situation not in suppositions.

[eridani]

49. Do you seriously believe that "requests" from any opposition leaders in the Mideast--

--will be evaluated in terms of anything other than potential benefits to multinationals and their imperial backers? Mr. Pangloss has a bridge for slae that you might be interested in.

[ej510]

2. Libya defiant as NATO widens war

After nearly three months of U.S./NATO bombing operations over Libya, the North African state has remained defiant in the face of one of the most intense military operations in recent months by the imperialist countries of North America and Western Europe. Official NATO sources say that more than 10,000 sorties have been flown over the oil-rich nation resulting in large-scale destruction of the country’s infrastructure and the reported deaths of 10,000 to 15,000 people.

On June 7, NATO escalated its attacks on the capital of Tripoli, striking government buildings and making additional attempts on the life of leader Muammar Gadhafi. These bombing operations were designed to further boost the morale of NATO forces before yet another so-called “Contact Group” meeting on Libya that took place in the United Arab Emirates on June 9.

>snip

While the Western states, including Germany, claim their aims in Libya are to protect civilians and stabilize the country based upon the supposed mandate of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1973, the African Union has maintained its call for an immediate ceasefire. The A.U. insists that U.S./NATO bombing be halted and demands respect from all parties for the territorial sovereignty of Libya, the protection of African migrant workers along with Libyan civilians, and the beginning of negotiations between the rebel TNC and the government in Tripoli.

>snip


Only three African countries have openly supported U.S./NATO calls for Gadhafi to step down: Gambia, Mauritania and Senegal in West Africa, all largely dependent upon U.S. and French economic assistance. The official position of the African Union has remained firm, and popular opposition throughout the continent has intensified against the U.S./NATO war against Libya.

>snip


The first stop on Clinton’s trip was in the Southern African nation of Zambia where at a conference of African governments the Secretary of State attacked China’s growing economic partnerships with various states on the continent. She then encouraged greater trade with the U.S. and promoted the so-called Africa Growth and Opportunity Act, a Clinton-era administration measure that seeks to further the penetration of highly exploitative light industrial production on the continent.

>snip


A recent CBS News poll indicated that 60 percent of people in the U.S. opposed the bombing of Libya. The same survey revealed that only 30 percent supported the mission, and among this group it would not be surprising that these views are based on lack of information.

The Obama administration and the corporate media have consistently refused to hold discussions and debates on U.S. policy toward Libya that are open to the public. The anti-war movement must continue to stress the imperialist aims of the war and demand the immediate withdrawal of all imperialist forces from the airspace of Libya as well as its waterways.

[stevenleser]

3. Ah yes, all wars are about imperialism. LMAO.

:rofl:

[ej510]

5. Yes when the U.S. is involved.

[stevenleser]

9. You realize you just proved that your opinion is hopelessly biased and should be discounted, right?

Then again, you probably will not acknowledge that, will you?

[ej510]

10. You believe the President, because he is a democrat if Bush did the same thing you would be

against it.

[stevenleser]

13. Not true. I judge by the situation. I supported Bush on Afghanistan and opposed him on Iraq

I dont turn off my mind to the particulars of each situation.

[ej510]

14. Except Afghanistan was about the oil pipeline to the Caspian sea.

[stevenleser]

15. Except I disagree. n/t

[BOG PERSON]

16. it was also about reversing the taliban's ban on opium-poppy cultivation

[ej510]

17. So true, the drug warlord from Fremont, Ca received immense help

from our federal government.

[pampango]

40. That was going to link oil from Khazakstan to India.

Khazakstan just completed a pipeline to China for its oil, so they can sell all they want now.

[ej510]

6. No to Imperialist Intervention! Down With Gaddafi! — Libya and the Left

The imposition of a no-fly zone over Libya has been sold publicly as a “humanitarian” military intervention to attempt to stop Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi’s bloody slaughter of the rebels who were cornered in the eastern city of Benghazi. President Obama defended U.S. involvement in the operation as being taken to avoid a massacre that would have “stained the conscience of the world,” (Huffington Post, 3/28/11).

What it really represents, however, is an opportunistic ploy by embattled imperialist powers to defend their strategic and economic interests in the region. They aim to regain the initiative and bolster their damaged prestige in the face of revolutionary upsurges they cannot control and disastrous occupations that have exposed their impotence and made them reviled throughout the Arab world.

Unfortunately, many liberals in the U.S., and even some on the far left, are buying this act hook, line, and sinker. The New Republic, for instance, published an editorial the day after the intervention began entitled “In Libya, Obama Finally Did the Right Thing,” in which the editors out-hawk Obama by arguing that military intervention should have begun weeks earlier.

> snip

he Lie of “Humanitarian” Intervention
Simply put, the U.S./ NATO intervention has nothing whatsoever to do with supporting and backing up a revolutionary upsurge of the Libyan people. Just the opposite, their key goal is to strategically enhance their imperialist position in the region against the influence of the revolutionary uprisings shaking North Africa and the Middle East.

The revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt and the wider revolt sweeping the region have seriously weakened U.S. and Western control. In this context, the U.S. and NATO see the intervention in Libya as a way to reassert their power in the region through a show of force, as well as using it to co-opt the Libyan revolt and bring to power a pro-U.S. regime. Their ultimate hope is to use this as a way to halt – or, if possible, reverse – the revolutionary process that has been unfolding.

That is exactly why the U.S. has hypocritically remained silent about the bloody massacre carried out in Bahrain by Saudi Arabian troops and Pakistani mercenaries – because this particular carnage favors their interests in the region. Their silence is all the more telling amidst revelations in the press of widespread murder gangs linked to the monarchy and deliberate attempts at fostering divide-and-rule ethnic sectarianism amongst the demonstrators, who have so far been largely unified.

Cont'd at the link: http://www.socialistalternative.org/news/article10.php?id=1621

[Mimosa]

7. All wars are about 'the stuff' or control of territory.

Ideals are the cosmetics to mask the real face of war.

[ej510]

8. I agree, but there are people on the left who believe we are in Libya to liberate them from

Al-Quaddafi.

[BOG PERSON]

11. we call those people "shachtmanites" aka budding neoconservatives

[ej510]

12. There are a lot of those people around. In my opinion it is another reason

why this country may not be salvageable.

[KurtNYC]

33. +1

[Emelina]

21. War is psychopathic!

How else can a politician justify it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LoUIHIjB0Io&feature=related

It gives me a sick feeling to know that right this minute Libyans are dying and we are paying for the depleted uranium rockets. I just saw an interview with Cynthia McKinney and she told it like it is.

[tritsofme]

24. I don't take the opinion of Soviet apologists very seriously.

They live in their own strange little world.

[EFerrari]

27. Soviet apologists like Time magazine?

The Post-Gaddafi Boom: In Libya, Foreign Bankers See a Coming Bonanza

Muammar Gaddafi remains hunkered down in Tripoli, ever defiant despite the the heaviest bombing of NATO's three-month campaign. But outside Libya, the talk has moved on from war to the business opportunities offered by a post-Gaddafi Libya.

It's hard to envision a booming Libyan economy with the country's communication infrastructure shattered by bombs and its oil fields abandoned and idle. Yet economists and investors say that as an intensifying NATO campaign brings Gaddafi's 42-year rule closer to its end, a bright future lies ahead — with Libya's mammoth energy reserves capable of financing a postwar development program strong enough to serve as a growth engine for the region. "Libya has $250 billion in foreign-exchange reserves, and it can just keep on tapping into foreign currency because of its oil sales," says Jacob Kolster, North Africa director for the African Development Bank. "The potential is huge." (Read about what mediating in Libya could cost Medvedev.)

Gaddafi's Libya is hardly poor, with few of the problems that beset neighboring Egypt, where about 40% of people live on about $2.50 or less a day. The average Libyan household income is more than $14,000 a year, according to U.N. statistics, and the literacy rate is about 86%.

Assuming that Libyans can find an inclusive political consensus that minimizes the risk of an Iraq-style insurgency after Gaddafi goes, Libya's natural wealth and educated population positions it for a massive boom — if peace, stability and a business-friendly government can be established, all of which are big ifs. The country retains considerable sovereign wealth, even if much of it is currently frozen abroad at the moment. And international energy companies that have suspended their Libya operations as a result of the conflict plan to return as soon as sufficient security has been restored to begin pumping oil again. (Read "Death, Prison or Exile: Gaddafi Is Out of Options.")

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2076467,00.html#ixzz1PSy121RH


Read more: http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2076467,00.html#ixzz1PSxpYjTl

[tritsofme]

30. After I stopped laughing, I stopped reading the OP

After that rant about the poor benevolent Soviet Union only occupying Eastern Europe to protect themselves against the evil USA. Does he really think that? Soviet propaganda is even more stale 20 years after the fall.

[EFerrari]

32. My post doesn't refer to the OP.

[tabatha]

43. Good, and I hope the Libyans themselves that get it.

Gaddafi was more interested in funding other countries.

Yet even among some senior officials close to Gaddafi there is sense of gloom, regret, and even inevitability, which is compounded by the day as the last of the regime’s “friends” – leaders from the continent who have enjoyed its largesse – abandon Libya. “All that money we spent on Africa?” said one official. “We really should have spent it at home.”

http://feb17.info/news/tripoli-bides-time-as-gaddafi-support-ebbs-away-2/

[EFerrari]

45. That article is about the sacking of Libya, not about some windfall

for actual Libyans.

[tabatha]

46. Dreams

What they get is up to the Libyans themselves. I do not consider wishful thinking a reality. There are many discussions on TributeFM about what the future Libya should look like and what they should do. It is very interesting to hear Libyans who have obviously learned from the US and UK. Thus, I do not find the reported conversations of people who are looking to pounce on Libya thinking the Libyans will let them do it after all they have been through, very credible. There are too many people all over the world who are watching closely what is going on in Libya and are 100% supportive of the revolution. I can guarantee that those same people will not keep quiet if they see that Libya is being harmed after the uprising has ended.

What I found amusing in the article is the sentence below - it argues against all those who are saying the war is all about oil.

"The investment stakes in Libya, say the African bankers who are meeting in Lisbon — where neither the regime nor the rebels have sent representatives — are not focused on the country's energy contracts, most of which are already accounted for."

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2076467,00.html#ixzz1PVHjEFJo

[EFerrari]

47. That's very naive.

At the moment, the supporters of this sacking are given attention because they are useful. The minute they stop being useful, they'll get as much attention as the millions of people who protested Iraq -- zip to none.

[Distant Observer]

34. Its plain as day to most in this world. If it was not action in Bahrain, Yemen, and Syria would be

much above action in Libya as a priority.

Libyan intervention is about the Western powers controlling North African resources in partnership with their Oil Potentate allies as they divide-up responsibility to keep the region under control.

[Name removed]

44. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[PurityOfEssence]

50. This should be alerted, but more importantly, it should be read by all

Some Libyans asked for help. Russia has plenty of interest in letting another oil producer go offline, and China is playing the field. You have absolutely no proof that they wouldn't let any other nation hang out to dry in the face of concerted western allies wanting to go on a greed rampage.

Distant Observer has very consistently shown facts of the corporatist rationales to destroy Qaddafi, and has not deliberately deceived in any case. Please point out three lies from that poster, since you specifically state that there are at least that many.

Calling a fellow boardmate a liar is specifically against not only the letter but the spirit of the rules on this board, and your personal emotional feelings about this WAR do not trump facts or the feelings of others.

[SDuderstadt]

37. Oh....

bullshit.

[backscatter712]

51. What a crock of shit! n/t

[joshcryer]

52. LOL, this article is hilarious in light of the NATO-critical articles I've been reading today.

Since the US has been historically "the meat of NATO" and the Libya intervention the US has "taken a backseat" it is hilarious to read this preemptive historical revisionism. NATO has been repeatedly criticized for not being able to handle the Libya intervention with the US taking a backseat, irrevocably proving that the article is false.

[peace4ever]

54. Not to mention all the other's carried out in our empire's name

it's been that way for a while, though it is always important to call them out on it.

[Waiting For Everyman]

57. There is no imperialism, no empires, and no nationhood anymore.

There is only global corporatism, which is a much different thing.

Any writer who prattles on about imperialism has no credibility at all. It would be like hand-wringing over the Red Menace today (that means communism, in case younger DUers may not have heard that term).

At least blame the correct parties - the uber rich global plutocrats. "The US" doesn't decide anything anymore.