Some Questions About Libya

[No DUplicitous DUpe]

How many men, women and children have been killed or maimed in this war? How many children have been orphaned? How many homes have been destroyed? What medical care is there? What role has oil played? Who funded this war? Who armed the "rebels?" Are U.S. "contractors" or U.S. military "Kill/Capture" squads involved? I ask these questions for despite the heavy news coverage the Libya War is suddenly receiving, this information is scarce.

Who are the "rebels?" What makes them "rebels" as opposed to "militants," "militants" being the term the U.S. uses for those who oppose the Iraq and Afghan governments. The locals fighting in Libya are comprised of differing ideologies and tribes and potentially differing religious beliefs. Now they are all heavily armed. If the 42 year rule of Gadhafi falls, how will they govern?

Who organized and trained these "rebels" and what do these "rebels" stand for? What voice will the people have? What security? As we've seen in Iraq and Afghanistan, the people have little voice and there is practically no security. And finally, where is the U.S. media objectivity? American coverage has been largely one-sided and the news people, like the woman on the CBS national news last night, often sound like cheerleaders, at a time when we Americans need to understand what is actually happening in Libya.

http://sane-ramblings.blogspot.com/2011/08/some-questions-about-libya.html

[Davis_X_Machina]

1. Resolved...

That this House believes a Wesphalian nation-state-based system is a divinely-inspired and permanent feature of the world, and nothing that happens within its borders is of any interest to anyone outside them.

[KittyWampus]

7. I think some of your posts fly over the heads of rather a lot of DU'ers.

They make me laugh though.

[Davis_X_Machina]

9. That's DU's problem....

...there's no inherent need for a left-wing Free Republic. We could do better.

But we have some of their same prejudices. One of them is the worship of the gut. The belief that expertise is suspect, because it's not sprung from the heart of the masses.

Another is a reflex distrust of anything multi-lateral or international. There are as many balls-to-the wall nationalists here as there.

[EFerrari]

20. Asking for good information is not the same as

worshiping the idea of the state and is the reasonable response of a propagandized public.

[Davis_X_Machina]

25. Those aren't neutral requests for information...

...not when they're all easily answered with the most cloth-eared Google-fu.

Those questions are the very definition of 'tendentious'.

[EFerrari]

32. I made no claim for neutrality and in fact, given that we know

our government arms brutal repressive governments against their own people all over the world and that we know our government has a black torture site on African soil, neutrality would be an error.

[Davis_X_Machina]

34. It is, in other words...

...trolling.

[EFerrari]

42. So, interfering with the wargasm is "trolling"? Okay. nt

[spooked911]

55. I don't think it's that easy to find answers to those questions

perhaps you could answer one.

[PVnRT]

2. I'd have hated to see people like you posting on the internet in 1989-1992

"The Romanian revolution is all a CIA plot! Nicolae Ceausescu did great things for that country!"

I guess it's impossible for a population in another country, completely independent of any Western meddling, to want to revolt and overthrow a dictator. They must only do it when the CIA orchestrates everything. :eyes:

[No DUplicitous DUpe]

6. You know, some people feel war is a brutal and barbaric way to effect change...

.and no one tells the story of the suffering and pain it causes all involved.

[muriel_volestrangler]

10. Gaddafi's attacks on his people were brutal and barbaric

which is why the UN resolution was passed.

[thewiseguy]

29. +100

Some people tend to have a very short memory.

They want rainbows and unicorns to be flying out of rebels butts while Gaddafi is shelling and killing them in droves.

[The_Casual_Observer]

31. The UN air attacks on the Libyans weren't brutal & barbaric?

[thewiseguy]

35. Yes, the UN air attacks on the Gaddafi forces were brutal and barbaric

Hence why the Libyans are out celebrating this victory.

[muriel_volestrangler]

38. Not as much as Gaddafi's, no (nt)

[ellisonz]

58. NATO jammed radio stations and dropped leaflets.

Saying stop attacking civilian areas...

Some of those Libyans killed may have died because of Gaddafi's foreign mercenaries forcing them to not defect.

[PVnRT]

33. Who started that war again?

Seems to me it started when Qadaffi's military started shooting at otherwise peaceful protesters.

[Chan790]

51. You noticed that got lost in all of this...

much like it'll get lost in the kerfluffle if we have to intervene in Syria. This didn't start with NATO bombs, it started with an armed uprising in response to a strongman dictator shooting his own citizens in the street for protesting for a less-restrictive regime and some basic human freedoms they were being denied that are considered inalienable by continuing UN resolution.

Next, they'll attack the UN as a puppet of the imperial first-worlders.

[PufPuf23]

61. UN/NATO/USA will not intervene in Syria

Russia and likely China will veto on UN SC and Russia has a naval base in Syria.

[fishbulb703]

53. LETS OUTLAW WAR!!!!111!!! Come on, man, don't be silly. nt

[spooked911]

54. Why not? Some types of war ARE in fact "outlawed"

Why is it silly to oppose war?

[fishbulb703]

56. Its silly to say it is unnecessary and to oppose it in all instances. If only we lived in that world

Sadly, we don't.

[razorman]

3. I have many of the same questions. Deposing Qadaffi is only the beginning for Libya.

While I am happy about the way the revolution there is turning out now, I do not believe that our involvement was necessarily legal. In itself, winning a war does not make it legal. Besides, what happened to the idea that we should never get involved in someone else's civil war? Because a civil war is exactly what this is. I do not think I am being an Obama-basher here, but I think maybe he will be tempted to go too far, since he got away with the Libyan intervention up to now, and watched President Bush get away with his illegal war in Iraq. It is human nature.
The Qadaffi dictatorship was absolutely hateful, now comes the hard part. Without actually interfering any further, we must fervently hope that Libya does not degenerate into another barbaric, Islamic Jihadist terrorist stronghold. I am not confident. Can any other DU'ers out there give me some info that might make me more hopeful about this?
Maybe I have missed something.

[Myrina]

4. +10

n/t

[al bupp]

28. Sure here's some hopeful signs...

A good start would the links Tabatha's compiled here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=1787917&mesg_id=1790704

[Cleita]

5. You should ask those same questions about the 40

years of undemocratic rule under Ghaddafi. I think you will find his death toll exceeds that of the rebels fighting to be free of him and his dictatorship. Unfortunately revolution is sometimes the only way a nation can free themselves from oppression and that leads to war and war leads to killing on both sides. Under oppression, the killing is one sided. Helping revolutionaries is not a new idea. The French helped the Americans during the revolutionary war and we may have not won without their help.

[spooked911]

12. do you have direct experience with Ghaddafi's rule?

or are you basing this on western media?

[Cleita]

14. Your questions actually make no sense in the context

of my statement. Please try again.

[PVnRT]

36. Wow

Just.....wow.

http://www.hrw.org/by-issue/publications/232

Or is Human Rights Watch just another "western media stooge"?

[spooked911]

57. thanks for the link

HRW is a good source; my point was just that I am wary of what is said about a country in times of war.

[The_Casual_Observer]

8. This is bound to turn out badly, if for no other reason than

the US & GB are so upbeat about it. Egypt is turning into a police state but the western press says nothing, since it doesn't fit with their holly-jolly narrative anymore.

[spooked911]

11. indeed-- this war is another propaganda masterpiece

[The_Casual_Observer]

15. Ever hear Navarro in NPR? She is embedded with the "rebels"/CIA

since day one. Never interviews any of them, never questions motives, plans or anything else. It's a love fest.

[EFerrari]

16. Al Jazeera has been one of the worst offenders.

Over the weekend I caught one reporter calling reports from NATO "news" and from Tripoli "propaganda". It's very obvious.

[ellisonz]

59. Because it's true...

[EFerrari]

60. Wrong The propaganda has been thick and fast from both sides.

And it's not a reporter's job to editorialize in that way.

[ellisonz]

64. You sound like Moussa Ibrahim. Not Walter Cronkite...

[spooked911]

13. Thanks-- I have many of the same questions and it is hard to get those answers

I suspect there is a lot being hidden from us, and Ghaddafi demonized more than was fair.

[Cleita]

18. If you want non Western coverage of this and of Libya,

try streaming Al Jazeera English. They have minute to minute coverage and have since day one of the Arab spring. I think you will find that the truth is not what you think it is either. I have been following Ghaddafi since he took power. He has a lot of blood on his hands and it is of his own people mostly. He has also attempted terror operations that backfired on him in other countries. Our interests in him have not been motivated by pure altruism that is for sure. We are interested in the oil and in cooperative strong men, which Ghaddafi is not. There are no good guys in this, but even so getting him out of power and attempting to help Libyans to form their own government could be a good if unintended effect of getting him out of power. As long as he owns the country, there is no hope for the people there.

[EFerrari]

21. Al Jaz has a conflict of interest that has been obvious in their coverage

of Libya as well as Bahrain.

[Cleita]

26. They are still better than the others and

frankly I don't believe there is any news outlet that doesn't have biases. At least AJ tries to be fair and balanced unlike one of our outlets that claims to do so. I don't believe everything they say, but they have had reporters out there reporting what is developing. That poor woman Zenia was out there in a helmet and flack jacket reporting while rebels were firing AK 47s feet from her. I didn't see a single western reporter in Tripoli doing the same in the news coverage yesterday. As a matter of fact MSNBC was using live footage from AJ in their coverage. No you shouldn't believe anything they say but look it up yourself when the information becomes available.

Have you looked at any Venezuelan news to see what they say? I haven't yet. It should be interesting.

[EFerrari]

40. Libya has been really tough to follow because both sides have

been feeding the media cr@P and then, the media does its own self interested number on it.

[Cleita]

46. True and as with all war situations, it may be months

or even years before we know what really happened.

[thewiseguy]

30. and what would you suggest to be a fair coverage? The Venezuelan State TV?

[EFerrari]

37. And a very nice Monday to you, too. nt

[Xithras]

17. Here's the real question...

Libya under Gaddafi was a quasi-socialist dictatorship that poured oil funds back into social programs (universal healthcare, domestic infrastructure upgrades, etc), maintained no external debt, supported Pan-African solutions to everything from governmental instability to food shortages, and guaranteed equal rights for women and minorities. The downside? It was all run by a egocentric dictator who saw himself as a "father" to his people and liked to hand out punishments without recourse to those who offended him. It was socialism without freedom. Gaddafi wasn't exactly Mao or Stalin, but he wasn't a big fan of free will either.

The real question today is what social perspective the new government will take. Sure, there will probably be democracy, but what about all the rest? Will they preserve the other socialist policies that Gaddafi implemented? Or will they trod the road of free-market capitalism, play second fiddle to the Europeans, and bury themselves in debt like so many other African nations have?

[The_Casual_Observer]

19. Democracy like what's emerging in Egypt?

It's a mystery so far about what these "rebels" are really going to do there. But if the CAI is involved it probably isn't going to be very polite.

[Cleita]

22. I'm thinking that there could be tribal conflict or

civil war if there isn't some immediate meeting of all the tribal chiefs to hammer out a constitution or something they can govern with.

[The_Casual_Observer]

23. That doesn't work with our own congress, you figure it will work

better in a place like that?

[Cleita]

27. I have hope that they aren't as stupid as us. Frankly, Ghaddafi

and company were their Tea Party and they are fed up with rule by a crazy and greedy minority. I hope such delegates will be marginalized quickly and business can get done.

[EFerrari]

24. Well said.

When browsing the NTC website, I noticed that several of the leaders there had "free marketeer" all over their resume and one of them had a degree in privatization.

[Xithras]

39. One of the great ironies of the Libyan civil war....

...is that the protests actually started because some Libyans were unhappy about shortages in the government-provided housing program. After the first couple days of protests, Gaddafi responded by ordering $24 billion worth of new public housing projects built across the country.

The protests quickly expanded in scope after that, becoming more about freedom in general, and then as a response to the governments attempts to squalch the protests. That grew into a genuine rebellion, which has apparently now won and taken over the country.

The irony is that the new government, populated mostly with free-marketeers and led by American business-school educated privatizers, probably isn't going to be interested in building $24 billion dollars worth of government subsidized "socialist" homes. The one demand that actually sparked the entire war was probably undermined by the very war it started and the new government it created.

[EFerrari]

41. I didn't know that. That is ironic.n/t

[The_Casual_Observer]

44. Will rebels rebel against the rebels?

Most likely.

[Xithras]

45. Depends.

If they set up a genuine democracy, it shouldn't matter. If the people want the socialist programs, they simply need to vote for representatives who will support them.

The danger, of course, is that the new Libyan government will simply follow the path of the Egyptians and ban political parties that support the previous government. If that happens, the Libyans may find themselves without any socialist candidates to support, because running as such would be illegal. There's no indication that this will happen, but Gaddafi did have a lot of support in western Libya, so it will be interesting to see how the new government responds once his supporters get their hands on a ballot box.

[truth2power]

43. Very good questions! Especially the second paragraph...

"Who are the "rebels?" What makes them "rebels" as opposed to "militants,"..." Very astute.

I would surmise that they are called "rebels" because we want Khaddafi gone. On the other hand, those who oppose the Iraq and Afghan governments are called "militants" because they are fighting against the U.S. puppet government already in place. See how that works?

Now, the question is, why do we want Khaddafi gone? Well, he's a monster. He tortured and murdered his own citizens. But there are plenty of leaders who do that. (Please refrain from stating the obvious, here).

So, why him and why now? I don't claim to have an answer, but I've been trying to generate some interest on this board in the Libyan Sovereign Wealth Fund for several months now. Just something I saw mentioned, in passing, on another site. I thought maybe someone more plugged into the Libyan issue could offer some info. But nary a nibble. Hmmm...

I haven't gotten around to looking into this, but while typing this reply I thought I'd mosey over and do a quick Google search. Well, lookee here:

Goldman Sachs Lost 98% of Libya's $1.3B Sovereign Wealth Fund Investment

http://www.forbes.com/sites/afontevecchia/2011/05/31/goldman-sachs-lost-98-of-libyas-1-3b-sovereign-wealth-fund-investment/2/

Wouldn't you know that Goldman had their mitts in this. Seems that Libya's investment in some Goldman securities tanked when the financial crisis hit.

This is good for a laugh:

" Massive losses sparked the ire of Zarti, who met with Goldman’s Kabbaj and another employee at the LIA’s headquarters in July ’08 and, “like a raging bull,” cursed and threatened the Goldman employees. Zarti, according to the Journal, is a close friend of Col. Gadhafi and maintains close ties with the Col.’s London School of Economics-educated son, Saif al-Islam Gadhafi. Kabbaj and the other Goldman employee were assigned body guards until they left the country the next day.

In their attempts to fix the relationship and make up for the losses, Goldman executives offered Libya various investment options that included large stakes in the company. Negotiations which included CEO Lloyd Blankfein, CFO David Viniar, and European top exec Michael Sherwood, resulted in the company offering to finance a $3.7 billion investment that would give LIA $5 billion in stock and a payment of 4% to 9.25% annually for 40 years. There were other offers including preferred shares, unsecured debt, a special purpose vehicle in the Cayman Islands, and investments in credit default swaps.

:rofl:

The deal fell through in June, 2010. Less than a year later all hell broke loose, i.e., Libyan uprising.

Not like this has ever happened before. No sirree.

* * * *

edit> changed second to last line to more closely reflect "ever happened before".

[court jester]

47. you went and injected some sanity into the debate, such that it is, or was- (or never was...)

sometimes I can understand why our president smokes




Often lately I smoke 4 or 5 at once but I sure don't look as good as the Chief doin' it!


**************************

Lesley Stahl on U.S. sanctions against Iraq: We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?

Secretary of State Madeleine Albright: I think this is a very hard choice, but the price--we think the price is worth it. --60 Minutes (5/12/96)

[truth2power]

48. LOL! I don't smoke, but things are so surreal anymore that

the only thought that seems to apply is "Some days it doesn't even pay to chew through the restraints." (I don't know who said that.)

[Fool Count]

49. Another question is how a bunch of incompetent screw-ups who

couldn't shoot straight suddenly turns into a halfway decent fighting force capable of
coordinated offensive action? After a few-week training course with some better weapons?
That is very doubtful. I would bet that most of the "rebels" engaged in this Tripoli
offensive are in fact Qatari, Saudi and/or other Arab regulars decked out in civilian garb.
Sure, there may be some actual Libyans there as well, but the core of the fighting force
must be made of foreign professional soldiers. That force will have to stay in Libya for
some time to protect the new regime and the truth of it is bound to come out sooner or
later.

[spooked911]

50. not to mention the fact that US participation is blatantly illegal and Obama just flat-out ignored

congressional rejection of the war.

[JoePhilly]

63. Much of DU disagrees with you, but in an ironic way ...

They too think badly of Obama in this ... but not in the same way you do.

See, they see the uprising in Libya as a good thing ... but a good thing for which Obama deserves absolutely no credit.

From their perspective ... Obama didn't do anything to help the rebels.

And so ... right here on DU ... we have two groups claiming Obama screwed up in Libya ... each using opposite descriptions of his role in it.

The one group claims Obama over stepped his bounds ... the other says he did nothing.

What I would love to see ... is those two groups debating each other.

So that the anti-Obama crowd could align on one of these two rationales for bashing Obama in Libya.

But I won't hold my breath.

Because they agree on the core message ... Obama is a bad guy. And so who cares which reasons one uses to reach that conclusion.

[CJvR]

52. I find...

...the bitter disappointment shining through every line in that post to be most amusing.

[No DUplicitous DUpe]

62. Re: the bitter disappointment shining through every line in that post

To some, engaging in wars in far off lands is a bitter disappointment, regardless of the eventual outcome. Did you not know that lives on both sides including innocent woman and children are lost/destroyed by war?