False pretense for war in Libya?

[PurityOfEssence]

Here's an editorial from the Boston Globe by Alan J. Kuperman that is a must-read:

But Khadafy’s acts were a far cry from Rwanda, Darfur, Congo, Bosnia, and other killing fields. Libya’s air force, prior to imposition of a UN-authorized no-fly zone, targeted rebel positions, not civilian concentrations. Despite ubiquitous cellphones equipped with cameras and video, there is no graphic evidence of deliberate massacre. Images abound of victims killed or wounded in crossfire — each one a tragedy — but that is urban warfare, not genocide.

Nor did Khadafy ever threaten civilian massacre in Benghazi, as Obama alleged. The “no mercy’’ warning, of March 17, targeted rebels only, as reported by The New York Times, which noted that Libya’s leader promised amnesty for those “who throw their weapons away.’’ Khadafy even offered the rebels an escape route and open border to Egypt, to avoid a fight “to the bitter end.’’

Boston Globe

We have been suckered in a most cynical way.

[L. Coyote]

1. HUGH D'oh!

[malaise]

25. Even "HUGER" DITTO!

Rec

[ProSense]

2. This guy:

There’s Only One Way to Stop Iran

<...>

Negotiation to prevent nuclear proliferation is always preferable to military action. But in the face of failed diplomacy, eschewing force is tantamount to appeasement. We have reached the point where air strikes are the only plausible option with any prospect of preventing Iran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons. Postponing military action merely provides Iran a window to expand, disperse and harden its nuclear facilities against attack. The sooner the United States takes action, the better.

Alan J. Kuperman is the director of the Nuclear Proliferation Prevention Program at the University of Texas at Austin.

"We have been suckered in a most cynical way."

Speak for yourself.

[PurityOfEssence]

5. So even an interventionist thinks it's unjustified...

What does that say?

[ProSense]

6. Kuperman :

But Human Rights Watch has released data on Misurata, the next-biggest city in Libya and scene of protracted fighting, revealing that Moammar Khadafy is not deliberately massacring civilians but rather narrowly targeting the armed rebels who fight against his government.

Human Rights Watch: Libya: Government Attacks in Misrata Kill Civilians

On edit: Bad Argument For Iran Strike: ‘The Worst Might Not Happen!’

[inna]

9. exactly.

:shrug:

[joshcryer]

18. Actually, I did some digging, he appears to be a hawk who is against humanitarian missions.

Basically, if a war has humanitarian aspect to it, he says fuck off.

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

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

[joshcryer]

22. Well, he wrote a book on Rwanda being unviable...

...and an article about bombing Iran over unproven nuclear bullshit.

You're being patently dishonest about the rest of your rambling post.

[Name removed]

35. Deleted message

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

[joshcryer]

40. Uh, reading comprehension fail.

I said it appeared that way. I found a better article where he basically says that he doesn't like how R2P can be used to do regime change. Big fucking whoop. I don't buy in to state sovereignty.

[gateley]

3. The people ASKED for help and the citizens ARE being massacred! This is bullshit. nt

[kiva]

7. There are people in the US dying everyday

for lack of health care, and they are asking for help too. Guess they are just stuck in the back of the funding line.

[gateley]

8. I'm addressing the article in the OP, not discussing the abysmal condition our

country is in, but thanks for condescending comment.

[kiva]

13. The point is that we are spending a great deal of $$

in Libya that our leaders are unwilling to spend on Americans who need assistance. I don't care if you find that irrelevant, because it is not - if the only criteria for our government to help is that people ask, then they are deliberately choosing to ignore the pleas from its own citizens.

And condescending? Not really, but if you like I'll work on it.

[gateley]

31. Usually I'd agree, but in this particular instance the money came out of funds

already awarded to the Military budget -- these aren't additional dollars.

And I'm well aware that our priorities are wrong, that with all the money we're throwing away on military budget we could be making a big difference at home. I don't agree with what they're doing, but the point still remains that wasn't the subject of my post. If you want to discuss that aspect, why not start a thread? Again, it has nothing to do with my comment - and it is irrelevant to my comment, not to the big picture.

[EFerrari]

10. Yes, they asked for "help" and the next thing you know

they're cutting oil deals with our blessing. They can't say the United States didn't help them.

I wonder who's making out in this boondoggle.

[Distant Observer]

79. The GCC (Saudi, Dubai, Abu Dhabi etc) has billions budgeted to manipulate world attention

[PurityOfEssence]

11. I have yet to see any video of anything approaching a massacre, nor any reports of such

The much-touted footage of Alex Crawford in Zawiyah shows a crowd marching and chanting toward a military roadblock that's out of frame, with some members--in the front, as she explains--who are armed, that is then fired up on by troops. In the ensuing melee, we see automatic weapon fire from a pickup truck among the unarmed protesters, and a three-man team retreating with a tripod-mounted heavy machine gun with its ammunition belt in place. She then goes on to tell of a young man taking an RPG, getting a quick lesson, then yelling "God is Great" and going off to face a tank.

These are not unarmed, innocent protesters. Remember, too, that Alex Crawford is a Rupert Murdoch employee, working for Sky News.

[joshcryer]

15. Uh, fucking Misrata?

[PurityOfEssence]

16. Urban warfare is ugly

The rebels are holding part of a city with civilians in it. Don't they share some responsibility for civilian deaths?

[joshcryer]

17. What do you think would've happened to Benghazi?

Urban warfare is ugly. I guess no one should intervene.

I'm glad that the UN intervened in the Ivory Coast.

[PurityOfEssence]

19. I think the rebellion would have collapsed right there, but unlike the warhawks, I know it's a guess

There is no evidence of massacres of civilians. There have been civilian deaths caused by both sides. There have been executions of rebels. The rebels have executed suspected mercenaries, they've hanged policemen, and they've killed captured government soldiers and said loyalists killed them.

Apparently Qaddafi has NOT threatened to kill civilians. He has his hands full killing rebels. Many of them he knows far too well: the same Islamists of LIFG who tried to assassinate him in 1996, who went on a killing spree in 1995 and 1996, and who also got arrested and sent to Abu Salim, where they rioted and caused a prison-wide incident that led to the oft-cited "massacre of his own people" that is held up as proof of his ignominy. (Nobody ever seems to point out that some 200 of the 1200 people who died were guards killed by the prisoners, by the way, or that the prisoners were of an organization that assassinated government soldiers and police.) Still, it was put down in a singularly brutal way, but then again, it's an organization that thinks he's an apostate.

There simply hasn't been any incident of real numbers, and there does not seem to be enough real support for the insurgency. It's ginned up from both directions.

Qaddafi threatened to nationalize the oil fields and the French wanted to take advantage of momentary instability, so they threw their lot in with a bunch who looked like they could pull it off. Then it fell apart, and suddenly there they were: shore up the mess or NEVER get any more of that light sweet crude. Yum.

[joshcryer]

21. The Abu Salim prison riots were over shitty conditions.

But of course, the smear that anyone who has any problem with Gaddafi must be a dirty filthy terrorist is clearly the most logical and thoughtful view. Law 75 in Libya is why over 100k people left Libya in the 80s, because, simply put, Gaddafi made it law that dissent be treated with execution.

Gaddafi said he was going to go house by house, ally by ally, rooting out those who were against him. Even if he was lying, even if wonderful sweet Gaddafi, brother leader heaven lovely awesome beautiful person having to clense his country from an insurgent terrorist imperialist force.

It changes no fact that Benghazi was being encroached upon by a fighting force that would have, certainly, irrevocably, killed civilians. I don't care how wonderful and narrow his approach is.

(That's the most hilarious part about the article in the OP, the author argues that deaths are disproportionate and that there would be as many women dead as men if it wasn't indiscriminate; that assumes that women leave the fucking house in Misrata, which they are told not to do. So in that vein it is discriminate, insomuch as "anyone who leaves the fucking house.")

I personally like R2P and I think it needs to be used more often.

[PurityOfEssence]

36. Yes, Islamists got a raw deal after their killing spree, assassination attempt & theocratic revolt

I'm sure there are plenty left right there in Misurata telling "their" women to not go outside, as you say.

Law 75 makes dissent illegal, but it doesn't make it punishable by death, as far as I can find. Can you show otherwise? Forming a political party is punishable by death, but that's more of an overt move.

Once again, he's not a saint, but he hasn't said he'd kill the innocents; he has said he'd go after those who want to overthrow him. Those who commit to violent revolution don't get treated gingerly anywhere that I can see, especially not at times of open insurrection

It's also most hilarious that you feel you know that women are "told not to" leave the house in Misrata. Qaddafi has done much for women's rights, even if he still believes it's up to their husbands and brothers whether they should drive. He's said that, in the Arab world, "Women are like a piece of furniture you can change when you want and nobody will ever question why you did so." Islamists hate him.

The prisoners at Abu Salim were largely from the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, who attempted to assassinate Qaddafi, went on a killing binge assassinating police and military personnel and got themselves captured as a result. If he really was the gulag-running kind of tyrant so many demand he be seen as, he'd have had more prison space for this influx, but apparently he didn't.

The prison was overcrowded and they were being kept under very tight controls and they rioted, killed guards and tried to take over. That's when things got out of control. Of the estimated 1200 killed, some 200 were guards, so it shows the level of chaos and danger that reigned at the time. This also shows that "he" didn't kill 1200, since 200 of them were his own guards.

The Libyan Islamic Fighting Group stated that Qaddafi's government was "an apostate regime that has blasphemed against the faith of God Almighty" and declared its overthrow to be "the foremost duty after faith in God." I'm sure those people are pretty good at ordering women around, too.

Many interventionists on this board have had no compunction about branding anti-interventionists as "pro-Qaddafi" or unfeeling or worse, but they need to take responsibility for their own actions. The revolt simply does not seem to have had enough inherent support, and was failing quickly. By all reasonable conjecture, the fighting would have fairly easily been over by now had we not meddled in their internal affairs, so it's fair to say that you and your cohorts have the blood of newly killed children on your hands. We have no pity for the downtrodden, you guys kill children; apparently neither group has a lock on decency.

I'm sure those dead children would have taken comfort knowing they died so that Mommy could be forced to wear a veil and Europeans could pillage their country's unrenewable resources.

I don't know the future anymore than you do, but this is much more than just defending the innocent, and to hide behind that is despicable. If people want to admit the complexity of the situation and the imperfections of their moral stance, I'm all for it. If people want to crush anyone who gets in the way of their illegal war of naked economic conquest, I've got some time on my hands.

[Name removed]

41. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

48. Deleted message

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

[joshcryer]

50. Any cites other than Gaddafi regime men?

[PurityOfEssence]

67. Human Rights Watch also cites him as a source, but it looks like everything traces back to him

This is from Human Rights Watch, June 27, 2006:

The Libyan government has denied that any crimes took place. In May 2005, Internal Security Agency head Khaled told Human Rights Watch that prisoners had captured some guards during a meal and taken weapons from the prison cache. Prisoners and guards died as security personnel tried to restore order, he said, and the government had opened an investigation on order of the Secretary of Justice.

http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2006/06/27/libya-june-1996-killings-abu-salim-prison

I may very well be wrong about the number of guards; it may be as few as one, the guard named Omar. To date, there has been no comment from anyone else I can find about other guard deaths. The story was reported very widely, by Reuters, China Times, etc., but upon inspection, they all trace back to the same Mohammed Bashir al-Khaled.

Still, though, the prisoners rioted and took at least two hostages, prompting an incident. Even if it was ruthlessly crushed, it was still prompted by something. Prison revolts don't get treated well anywhere, especially when some of them are religious terrorists whose organization was just recently on a very dangerous killing bent, including an assassination attempt on the nation's leader.

I should have researched the sources better, and I apologize for the carelessness, but the rest of the contention still stands: ALL accounts state that it started as a prisoner riot, and that the prisoners took hostages, so it's not completely unprovoked.

[Distant Observer]

84. It is so upsetting to see hospitals run out of supplies!

[ProgressiveProfessor]

24. Happening at higher levels in other countries and the west is not intervening

So why is Libya special?

[Red State Rebel]

30. This is my contention also - was Libya special because of the oil production?

[Distant Observer]

78. NO INDEPENDENT EVIDENCE of ANY Massacre has ever been presented. WHO ARE THESE PEOPLE

who are asking for their country to be bombed? The whole scam is diabolical.

[upi402]

4. Good Kuperman is digging into it. I don't trust CNN a bit

It IS an editorial. And the title has a '?' mark on the end.
Some dust needs to settle and I hope journalists stay on top of it -somehow.

[slipslidingaway]

12. kick for later n/t

[Gravel Democrat]

14. k/r Richard N. Haass, President, Council on Foreign Relations agrees

from a post by DUer Distant Observer:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x850998

"Richard Nathan Haass advised General Coin Powell at the State Department as Director of Policy and Planning under G.W. Bush. As such he is very familiar with the techniques used for creating rationales for war. He resigned publicly in protest over what he called false pretext for War in Iraq.

Now in calm, methodological testimony before congress, he pull the covers of the false pretexts used in Hilary Clinton’s State Department argument for intervention in Libya."



1. There were no real “massacres” of civilians in Libya prior to the call for intervention.
2. There was no reasonable evidence that civilian “massacre” would have occurred in Benghazi without coalition intervention.
(most “evidence” was based on out-of-context clips from Gaddafi threats directed explicitly at a small group of insurgents and that was accompanied by offers of unconditional amnesty and political reforms.)
3. The actions of the Libyan government and the destruction that came with the conflict was typical of a State’s response to armed insurrection.

http://www.cfr.org/africa/perspectives-crisis-libya/p24602

"We have been suckered in a most cynical way."

again. And worse, who will follow up on this? If it is true, will anyone be held accountable?

Not likely.

********

http://costofwar.com

[pampango]

23. If it were a unilateral US intervention, I would agree. As a UN-sanctioned humanitarian

intervention, I disagree. The UN has used its Responsibility to Protect to intervene in:

Darfur
Sudan
Burma
Zimbabwe
The Democratic Republic of Congo
Sri Lanka
Kenya
Guinea
Nigeria
Kyrgyzstan
Côte d’Ivoire

http://www.responsibilitytoprotect.org/index.php/crises

The others you mentioned (Rwanda, Kosovo and Cambodia ("killing fields")) occurred before R2P was adopted in 2005. Indeed it was the lack of UN action in those cases that spurred the adoption by the UN of R2P so that such humanitarian crises would not be ignored in the future.

Now if you're saying that the entire Security Council was duped or stupid, you may have a case.

[Poboy]

26. Bombimg of Lybia - punishment for Ghaddafi for his attempt to refuse US dollar

This may be true, or not. It is a fact he has an enormous gold stash. Unresearched by me but I came across this article-


----
Bombimg of Lybia - punishment for Ghaddafi for his attempt to refuse US dollar
Mar. 28th, 2011 at 9:27 PM

Source in Russian
Thanks Squid Room for translation

The last world economic crisis made a number of countries start discussion about interstate trading calculation in gold. China announced minting of golden yuan and the Eastern countries also discussed the possibility of golden standard. Mummar Ghaddafi became the main initiator of idea of refusing from dollar and euro. He called arabian and african world to start use one new currency - golden dinar. He suggested to establish united African country with 200 millions of population using this currency. The idea of making the one golden currency and uniting african countries into one powerful federative state was strongly approved by many arabian countries and almost all african countries during last year. The only opponents were Republic of South Africa and the head of League of Arabian states.

Such initiative of Lybia was very negatively estimated by USA and European Union. According to the words of french president Nickola Sarkozi, "lybian people caused a threat for financial security of mankind". Numerous arguments drawn by them to the leader of the Libyan revolution gave no results: Ghaddafi still made steps that led to the creation of United Africa.

There were two versions for hiding real reason for intervention to Lybia: the official one - protection of human rights and the unofficial - stealing oil. Both seem fake. The truth is that Mummar Ghaddafi tried to repeat plans of general De Gaulle - refuse from banknotes and start using gold coins again like in old times. This would lead the destruction of banking system.

http://kir-t34.livejournal.com/14869.html

[wuushew]

27. kick

:kick:

[David__77]

28. The intervention was to prevent peace, not create it.

They Western countries did not want a "peace" with Gaddafi in power. There would have been executions, but not a genocide. It is entirely possible that people would be shopping and going to school in Misrata right now, not cowering in their homes, trapped between two sides. I am not saying that Gaddafi remaining in power is a desirable outcome to the people of Libya. But I do argue that the West should not have intervened to give an advantage to the other side.

The elimination of an armed force is not genocide.

The fact that NATO air raids targeted peaceful places like Sirte shows this is not about "protection of civilians."

I hope that this fumbled intervention is a nail in the coffin of "humanitarian imperialism." It's time to return to principles of national sovereignty.

[Taverner]

29. Someone's been paying attention here

How dare you! Don't you know we're supposed to support anybody and everybody with a 'D' next to their name????

Think of the kittens!!!!

[PurityOfEssence]

34. Yes, and a very measured and decent assessment

Business usually abhors instability, to the point that it usually prefers totalitarian regimes over democracies. Democracies are unstable and evolutionary, whereas totalitarian regimes are an attempt to freeze everything as it is.

The only time a totalitarian regime isn't preferable to business is when the leader can't be bought or can't be bought for a good enough price. That's Qaddafi. As soon as he started to threaten nationalization a few years back, he was in trouble; when he coerced the French to reducing the amount they could keep from their production from 50% to 27%, he was in REAL trouble. Once the French recognized the Provisional Government, they HAD to make sure Qaddafi was taken out, or they knew they'd get nothing.

You are completely correct on the definition of genocide, and it is most tiresome to hear people use crazed hysteria-speak of ostracism to shut down anyone who doesn't agree with them.

The children killed in the crossfire in the last four weeks would be alive now if the "revolution" had been allowed to fail.

[joshcryer]

43. Misrata has gained very little from NATO intervention, even the humanitarian aid...

...isn't helping them much. Ultimately the rebellion in Misrata is how Benghazi would've looked, it's really a template. Now you can argue all day and night about numbers. I won't dispute them because it's a war and solid numbers never come out until after the fact. But it remains a fact that Misrata is under siege. It is highly fucking unlikely that Misrata would be "at peace" had the international community not intervened. We're talking about a city of 300k. It's easy enough to silence a city much smaller than that (Az Zawaiya, or a better example might be Zinten). Misrata is different, it's closer to Sarajevo with how the long term results would be. So you have to side with someone. And yes, not acting is the same as siding; we didn't act in the Siege of Sarajevo, and we saw what happened there. I hope you're not really trying to push off that view, because that is the ultimate outcome, I don't care what sort of rationalizations you try to make.

[Fool Count]

57. Both Misrata and Benghazi would have been long (and

with very low casualties) at peace without the NATO intervention. The intervention is the only reason they are still fighting and
causing death and destruction to the city. As with every example of double-speak, the results are exactly the opposite of
the declared goals. That's like almost an indication for them that everything is going according to plan. It's like they are
actually using the book as a manual: war = peace, killing people = protecting civilians, regime change = democracy,
bombing = humanitarian assistance, band of terrorists = people. What the hell did those pissants have to destroy perfectly
livable and functional country for? Democracy?

[joshcryer]

62. That's nonsense. How has NATO's "interference" changed the outcome in Misrata?

They've hit a few tanks but overall Misrata has hardly been helped by NATO.

I cannot believe people actually think that Gaddafi would've magically restored peace in two major cities that rose up against him in the beginning, it's preposterous. It would have taken him months if not years to "restore peace" to those cities.

edit: Note: I do think he would have, eventually, mind you. But it would've been a protracted slaughter. Gaddafi, if the international community turned a blind eye as it does in so many other places would have certainly squashed the uprising.

That is not reason to simply side with the "sovereign state of Gaddafi's Libya." Just because the other side will win is not reason to say "oh, the other side is worthless rebels."

[Fool Count]

69. How has NATO's interference changed the outcome in Misrata?

Very simple - without NATO bombing Benghazi would have fallen quickly and easily and Misrata resistance
would have just melted away without much casualties and destruction. No one would have fought for such
an obviously lost cause and peace would have prevailed in days, not months or years as you claim.
Why in the world would victorious Qaddafi forces engage in any kind of slaughter, most of all a "protracted"
one? That imaginary future "slaughter" is just a sick fantasy sucked out of their fingers by the Sarkozy/Cameron
cabal to justify the intervention with a real purpose of regime change in Libya - getting rid of Qaddafi
being their, as well as Saudis' and Gulf Arabs', ancient wet dream. I certainly agree that just because one
side is stronger and will win doesn't make it right. What does make it right though, is popular support
that side enjoys, and more often than not that is actually the main reason it is stronger and will win.
So going with a stronger side will quite often mean going with the popular will. When a fair election is
impossible or remote, it would not be a bad bet at all. That would certainly be a better general rule than
going with some obscure proteges of a narcissistic French pop-"philosopher". Why do the "rebels" reject
ceasefire and a fair internationally monitored election/referendum? How discovering what people of
Libya really want can be wrong? Why must Qaddafi leave as a precondition to anything? Who can decide that
he "lost all legitimacy" but the Libyan people themselves? If he, in fact, did lose his legitimacy and everyone
in Libya wants him out, would it not be more valuable to have that decision ratified by a referendum?
Qaddafi accepts such a roadmap that would, if everyone is right about him, would end his regime. That's
the rebels who refuse negotiations and direct democracy and demand unconditional surrender. That's all I need
to know to decide which side to support. In fact, no responsible leader would accept such conditions and
subject his country to uncontested rule by such blatantly unpatriotic force. Neither should Qaddafi.

[joshcryer]

73. Why must Mubarak leave? Why must Ben Ali leave? Maybe because they're tyrants?

Your premise is false, it makes too many assumptions about the nature of this war. As if these people would rise up, and then suddenly back down when the tyrant came calling. It would've fallen into urban warfare, 10x worse than it is now.

The rebels have rejected the cease fire because Misrata and other cities are besieged by Gaddafi, cities that did have that popular support you're asking for. We're talking huge percentages of their populations came out and protested. Look at the video of the tens of thousand strong protest in Misrata. Maybe three million Egyptians protested at most. That's 1/20th the population. Should Mubarak have stayed because it was "only" 3 million protesters? These premises are false, to begin with. If a large enough sector of the population wants you gone, it should be considered, full stop. At least 1/10th of the population in Libya wanted Gaddafi's ouster, going by the population numbers in the dozen cities that rose up. That's twice Egypt. Yet they're maligned as if they're fucking terrorists all because we are so short sighted we cannot appreciate a peoples rising up against a tyrant when it doesn't suit our sensibilities. Do you think I like that the fucking west is involved? Nope, because as I predicted very early on, progressives would throw the Libyans under the bus if the west got involved. I was 100% right. It was the most trivial prediction to make, too.

Misrata has at most received "psychological" support for their uprising, given how Az Zawiya lasted 3 weeks with no material support, I can safely assume that Misrata would have lasted at least several months with no material support. And given that "no material support" to a city of 300k is unlikely, I expect that they would've got it and we would've had another Seige of Sariavo on our hands. And the death toll would have been enormous.

[Fool Count]

74. "If a large enough sector of the population wants you gone,

it should be considered, full stop." What the hell does it even mean? Are you saying that any ruler without
100% support of the population is illegitimate? What president or prime minister in the world does not have
"large enough sector of the population" want him gone? How large is "large enough"? Obviously, for you 10%
is "large enough". Is 5% enough? And how should it be "considered"? Does "full stop" mean that I am not allowed
to ask those questions? Or is it there just to signify that you have ran out of arguments and decided to take
a rest? Tyrants or not, maybe Mubarak and Ben Ali should not have left. Maybe if they cared enough about their
nations' future they would not have. Talking of false premises, none is falser than assuming that getting rid
of Ben Ali or Mubarak or Qaddafi or Saleh is somehow magically going to solve all their countries' problems
and make everyone there richer and happier. Just as false is the assumption that anyone who hates a tyrant
is automatically a democrat. Want another false premise? Here is one - NATO and the West care about Libyans'
freedom and wellbeing. Get two more by substituting "Libyans" with "Tunisians" and "Egyptians". Get 120 more
by substituting with every other nation on earth. Here is one which is absolutely 100% not false - NATO and
the West love and want the oil. Start with that and see where it takes you.

[Gravel Democrat]

75. "at least 1/10th of the population in Libya wanted Gaddafi's ouster"

What do you think should happen if ~30 million people in this country want the "ouster" of one of our "leaders"? I'll bet ~30 million Democrats wanted the "ouster" of Bush.

It would be great if you wouldn't answer with a question. Thanks.

Oh, and one more thing: What do you think would happen in this country if just 5% (15m) or 2 1/2% (7m) started to implement plans to overthrow the current "leadership"? You know, massing tanks and firing missiles and stuff?

What do you think would happen then?????




"'Tis folly in one Nation to look for disinterested favors from another; that it must pay with a portion of its Independence for whatever it may accept under that character; that by such acceptance, it may place itself in the condition of having given equivalents for nominal favours and yet of being reproached with ingratitude for not giving more. There can be no greater error than to expect, or calculate upon real favours from Nation to Nation. 'Tis an illusion which experience must cure, which a just pride ought to discard..."
George Washington, Farewell Address, September 19, 1796

[PurityOfEssence]

63. Are you KIDDING? NATO is pinning down Qaddafi's heavy weapons and armor

The first thing the French did was attack a mechanized battle group outside of Benghazi, with estimates of 70 vehicles destroyed in the first few days. You're literally the first person I've heard to argue that NATO attacks have had little effect on Misrata.

Had no action been taken to stop Qaddafi, the rebels in Misrata wouldn't have as much reason to hang on as they do now, because the rebellion would probably be collapsing or have already collapsed elsewhere; they would also have been under much more deadly fire. We're not there, and we're speculating based on sketchy and skewed information, but there's a very serious probability that the revolution would have been put down by now. That's a big deal. It's also the argument that the interventionists have been using.

[joshcryer]

64. That's total garbage. Misrata held on past Zinten, past Azawiya, and likely would've...

...held on for months. Urban warfare is a different creature.

[PurityOfEssence]

81. and NATO has had little effect on that?

Their very presence bolsters the morale. Their targeting of heavy weapons makes them much less effective. Their targeting of the roads makes logistics much harder for Qaddafi. Their maintenance of a no-fly zone allows those ships to get into the harbor.

Is there anything in the future you don't absolutely KNOW? If so, why is it so very impossible for you to read treaties and laws or keep your stories straight?

[Distant Observer]

82. Basic principles of international law of national sovereignty have been abandonned

in an orgy of arrogance and greed.

[PurityOfEssence]

83. Makes ya proud, doesn't it?

Hey, but at least it's going to be done on the cheap and with vulgar displays of false decency.

When Obama, Cameron, Sarkozy, Ahmadinijad, Chalabi, Wolfowitz, Perle, McCain, Lieberman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the Muslim Brotherhood, the LIFG, Al-Queda, Hitchens and most of the Republican Party are all for something, I've got a problem. I've changed enough diapers to know this smell.

More than anything, this is about the inherently uncontrollable nature of Qaddafi and his threats of nationalization to various oil companies. We--especially the French--thought we could pull a fast one here and have other people do our dirty work for us. Now we've got a problem, and it doesn't seem like we're doing anything about it. Denial reigns supreme.

Sovereignty is, for me, the huge issue, along with adherence to US law and the ramifications of seizing the assets of people we don't like, whether in the ground or in banks we control. Couple this with the sheer cynicism of forcing an arms embargo and having at least our allies flout it completely, and making a farce out of the whole UN Resolution by continued offensive action, and our word means literally nothing. These people have just trashed our national integrity, even if such a concept is a bit of a stretch anyway.

On all levels, this is ridiculous: pompous, poorly led, ill-conceived, trumped-up, without clear aims and casual beyond all belief. Mister Rogers goes to war. Field Marshall Bing Crosby takes command. It's deplorable on every level.

If one is going to engage in war, one should have the decency to fully commit and prosecute it to a conclusive end with all dispatch. The idea of "starving Qaddafi out" will kill far more innocents than any much-heralded imminent exterminations the interventionists claim repeatedly as FACT. We've been had, and we've been had in beach shorts with a magazine and a canned mai-tai.

What an abomination.

[FlyByNight]

32. Gotta justify that $700+ billion "defense" budget somehow

:banghead:

[crickets]

33. Yup. *sigh*

[Fool Count]

37. Remove that question mark already.

There would not have been any "genocide" or even "massacre" in Benghazi.
From what we now have learned about the "rebels", there would not have
even been a fight. They would have junked or stashed their weapons and
blended right back into the general population. Only a couple of dozen
of most visible characters would have crossed into Egypt, but even
those were offered full amnesty by Qaddafi. This whole "rebellion" was
started by a bunch of pissed off lawyers. That's all one needs to know to judge
how grass-roots and people-power that thing was. How "despotic" and "totalitarian"
the Qaddafi regime could possibly be if there was enough grumpy lawyers in
the country to start a revolution? The reason the "revolutionaries" do and
will reject any peace plan involving a fair election is that in any remotely
democratic process they would be simply embarrassed by loyalist candidates.
Foreign occupation of Libya is their only chance to come and hold on to
power.

[Distant Observer]

38. The WHOLE OPERATION seems to be a SCAM. Question is whether the "protests" were

orchestrated and who are the parties behind it.

The best theory I have seen is the Saudi connection -- Gaddafi is the arch enemy and stirring a war in
Libya is a good distraction from their zone in interest -- the Arabian Gulf

[PurityOfEssence]

39. Hmmm...where DID those opposition flags come from, after all...

It's a flag that hasn't been in use for 42 years, yet somehow there were a bunch of nice-looking ones...

There are all sorts of "huh?" moments when looking at the chain of events.

[Fool Count]

60. The same place the "Gotov je" stickers in Serbia came -

some Western NGO (fronting for CIA) printed them out and flew in for distribution.

[Hannah Bell]

66. Egyptian revolt & Serbian revolt had the same logo, too:

Otpor Logo, Serbia 1998-2000





April 6 Youth Movement: Egypt 2008-2011

[Gravel Democrat]

72. Flashback: the Non-UN approved bombing of Kosovo was a PNAC project

http://newamericancentury.org/balkans.htm

Many of the same people that pressed for the bombing of a sovereign Serbia are the same ones that called for "helping" the unidentified Libyan "rebels"

"WASHINGTON, Feb 25, 2011 (IPS) – In a distinct echo of the tactics they pursued to encourage U.S. intervention in the Balkans and Iraq, a familiar clutch of neo-conservatives appealed Friday for the United States and NATO to “immediately” prepare military action to help bring down the regime of Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi and end the violence that is believed to have killed well over a thousand people in the past week.

The appeal, which came in the form of a letter signed by 40 policy analysts, including more than a dozen former senior officials who served under President George W. Bush, was organised and released by the Foreign Policy Initiative (FPI), a two-year-old neo-conservative group that is widely seen as the successor to the more-famous – or infamous – Project for the New American Century (PNAC)..

"...Among the letter’s signers were former Bush deputy defence secretary Paul Wolfowitz; Bush’s top global democracy and Middle East adviser; Elliott Abrams; former Bush speechwriters Marc Thiessen and Peter Wehner; Vice President Dick Cheney’s former deputy national security adviser, John Hannah, as well as FPI’s four directors: Weekly Standard editor William Kristol; Brookings Institution fellow Robert Kagan; former Iraq Coalition Provisional Authority spokesman Dan Senor; and former Undersecretary of Defense for Policy and Ambassador to Turkey, Eric Edelman.

It was Kagan and Kristol who co-founded and directed PNAC in its heyday from 1997 to the end of Bush’s term in 2005..."


http://www.lobelog.com/neo-con-hawks-take-flight-over-libya/


"The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government."

Patrick Henry

[tabatha]

65. The women of Libya made them and are still making them.

There was an article about it.

[tabatha]

71. Purity of facts

"Since the Libyan revolution began Feb. 17 and anti-government protesters seized on the former flag as their own, a cottage industry in Benghazi has sprung up to meet the demands of people wanting to hang it from their balconies, attach it to their cars or wave it during rallies.

At the fabric shops, only the black, red, green and white cloth is selling. Tailors do little other than sew thick strips of red, black and green together. Printers imprint the white star and crescent and make stickers and banners with revolutionary messages. Narrow black PVC piping works well as a flag pole.

"All of Benghazi is now in the service of making the flags," said Ashraf Ahmad, 45, an Egyptian who owns a tailor shop. "They come here before they go to fight, and get a bunch and take them to the front lines."

Sharif thought about making the flags on the first day of the protests, when he went to the courthouse. It was nothing like the images coming out of Egypt, where Tahrir Square was a sea of waving flags."

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/mar/13/world/la-fg-libya-flag-20110314

Guessing and making stuff up is so right-wing.

[PurityOfEssence]

80. I stand corrected about the flags

By what possible standard am I "right wing"? What instances can you find of me "making things up"?

Disagree with my posts or not, I generally do and present my homework, and stand by the results.

You're the one on the side of imperialistic intervention in this instance, so go explain that to your sense of moral perfection.

[ProSense]

42. "he suggested that Darfur’s victims kind of had it coming."

Kuperman has a history of providing intellectual cover for policy choices that result in huge numbers of deaths. In a 2000 Foreign Affairs essay, he argued that humanitarian intervention in Rwanda would’ve just made things worse. In 2006 op-ed, he suggested that Darfur’s victims kind of had it coming. It is utterly unsurprising that he should now apply his brand of human bean-counting to the thousands of Iranian (and American, and Iraqi, and Israeli) casualties that would very likely result from the action he advocates.

link

Bomb Iran, screw Darfur!

Again, Kuperman's bullshit claim from the OP:

But Human Rights Watch has released data on Misurata, the next-biggest city in Libya and scene of protracted fighting, revealing that Moammar Khadafy is not deliberately massacring civilians but rather narrowly targeting the armed rebels who fight against his government.

Human Rights Watch: Libya: Government Attacks in Misrata Kill Civilians

Enjoy propping up this asshole!

[EFerrari]

44. It's already been pointed out to you that "this asshole"

is by no means the only one who has come to this conclusion.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=888421&mesg_id=888626

[ProSense]

45. What the hell does someone else's opinion have to do with

the bullshit lie "this asshole" told about HRW report?

[PurityOfEssence]

51. We've already determined that only your opinion and those of people who agree with you matter

How dare anyone differ with you. How dare they present proof. The fiendishness of it all.

[ProSense]

52. Kuperman 2012:

Bomb Iran because humanitarian missions are teh suck!!!

[EFerrari]

53. You mean, what do other corroborating opinions have to do with

your attempt to kill the messenger?

[PurityOfEssence]

58. Odd...I click on your link labeled "lie", and it comes up as one of your posts...

Apparently, not only do you consider yourself a significant enough source to reference, but you're firmly convinced that you're wrong to the point of deserving invective.

[inna]

61. .

:spray:

[ProSense]

46. Also,

Haass' testimony was about Benghazi, not Misurata or HRW.

Analysis must be rigorous. In two critical areas, however, I would suggest that what has been asserted as fact was in reality closer to assumption. First, it is not clear that a humanitarian catastrophe was imminent in the eastern Libyan city of Benghazi. There had been no reports of large-scale massacres in Libya up to that point, and Libyan society (unlike Rwanda, to cite the obvious influential precedent) is not divided along a single or defining fault line. Gaddafi saw the rebels as enemies for political reasons, not for their ethnic or tribal associations. To be sure, civilians would have been killed in an assault on the city – civil wars are by their nature violent and destructive – but there is no evidence of which I am aware that civilians per se would have been targeted on a large scale. Muammar Gaddafi’s threat to show no mercy to the rebels might well have been just that: a threat within the context of a civil war to those who opposed him with arms or were considering doing so.

[EFerrari]

54. Your own quote shows that his testimony was not exclusively about Benghazi. n/t

[Name removed]

55. Deleted message

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

[David__77]

68. "Bomb Iran, screw Darfur?" "Bomb Darfur, screw Iran?"

There is an alternative, beyond these bleak scenarios. Start from today, diplomacy between states based on sovereignty and mutual benefit. It is other, belligerent policies that spawn so many problems.

[pokerfan]

47. War is a racket

"I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested. Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Is_a_Racket

[Octafish]

49. + 1 Constitution

Maj. Gen. Butler was correct.

[sad sally]

56. President Obama has ruled out use of US ground troops and spoken of an operation

that lasts days, not weeks. Let's see, started on March 18 - today is April 14...hmmm

Remember the questions asked last month? What happens if Qaddafi survives the next few weeks and the Libyan conflict hardens into a prolonged civil war? Will the US participate in a no-fly zone that stretches for years, as it did over Iraq in the wake of the 1990-91 Gulf War?

WASHINGTON, April 13 (Reuters) - U.S. fighter jets are still attacking Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi's air defenses even after NATO took over full command of Libya operations earlier this month, the Pentagon said on Wednesday.

The disclosure came as Libyan rebels struggle to gain ground from Gaddafi's forces and NATO allies squabble publicly over stepping up air strikes to help topple him.

The Pentagon said previously it would not conduct strike sorties after April 4 without a specific request from the Brussels-based NATO alliance. But it clarified on Wednesday that this did not apply to attacks on Gaddafi's air defenses, which have continued.

Pentagon officials said the attacks on Libyan air defenses did not mean the United States had reconsidered its decision to take a limited support role in the Libya conflict.

[deaniac21]

59. Just ask Farrakhan about that one. He has all the facts!

[David__77]

70. We don't need to ask Farrakhan.

But he has made some good points.

[KittyWampus]

76. A DU'er saying that Kuperman is a must-read. You certainly have been suckered.

[Distant Observer]

77. The Scam is exposed by the persistent resistance against any talk of ELECTIONS as a basis

for political reform. It is clear that neither the rebels nor the coalition believes that any
of the leaders they are offering would win free nationwide elections. There seems to be
a determination to bomb their way into power.