the revolution in libya

[lumpenprol]

lol.

 

Until the recent unpleasantness, I have to say Gadhafi was one of the more entertaining world leaders. He has flair like Don King and looks like a sweaty rave burnout. Are we headed for a future with no Gadhafis or Berlusconis?

 

I'll tip a 40 oz for him...

[DerWaschbar]

I'm sure a man in his position has done it all, a la 120 Days Of Sodom. Still, no doubt he was an entertaining character for us all watching from the outside. The Berlusconi story reads like poorly written fiction, it's mind boggling and probably not all that uncommon amongst those who have the resources to oblige their every whim.

[chenGOD]

what I wanna know is what's the deal with the swedish masseuse? I always got the strong impression Khaddafi (Gadhafi, whatev) was g-a-y

 

 

He's an arab so there's nothing more heterosexual than sticking your penis up a young boy's arse, but I suspect he swings both ways.

 

And since Gaddafi loves his historical hyperbole and called one of his sons Hannibal we've totally missed a trick by not calling it 'Operation Scipio Africanus'.

 

That's a little highbrow for the typical daily mail reader, don't you think?

[awepittance]

Kucinich and Ralph Nadar both laid out pretty succinctly why Obama's push into Libya is an impeachable offense.

 

The 'international coalition' is an even bigger sham than the supposed coalition of the willing Bush setup for Iraq war pt 2. Good move having Sarkozy be the one to announce it, the smoke screen worked for a little bit

 

pretty creepy/disturbing to hear so many of Obama's supporters cheering on a 3rd middle eastern war while at the same time being ok with a political prisoner being stripped naked and in solitary confinement 23 hours a day. If the 'liberals' have now become this sociopath, jesus christ what are the republicans going to be like soon?

[awepittance]

Glenn Greenald my boyfriend verbally bodyslams the supporters of our 3rd theatrical middle eastern war.

 

 

The manipulative pro-war argument in Libya

Advocating for the U.S.'s military action in Libya, The New Republic's John Judis lays out the argument which many of his fellow war advocates are making: that those who oppose the intervention are guilty of indifference to the plight of the rebels and to Gadaffi's tyranny:

 

So I ask myself, would these opponents of U.S. intervention (as part of U.N. Security Council approved action), have preferred:

 

(1) That gangs of mercenaries, financed by the country’s oil wealth, conduct a bloodbath against Muammar Qaddafi’s many opponents?

 

(2) That Qaddafi himself, wounded, enraged, embittered, and still in power, retain control of an important source of the world’s oil supply, particularly for Europe, and be able to spend the wealth he derives from it to sow discord in the region?

 

(3) And that the movement toward democratization in the Arab world -- which has spread from Tunisia to Bahrain, and now includes such unlikely locales as Syria -- be dealt an enormous setback through the survival of one of region's most notorious autocrats?

 

If you answer "Who cares?" to each of these, I have no counter-arguments to offer, but if you worry about two or three of these prospects, then I think you have to reconsider whether Barack Obama did the right thing in lending American support to this intervention.

 

Note how, in Judis' moral world, there are only two possibilities: one can either support the American military action in Libya or be guilty of a "who cares?" attitude toward Gadaffi's butchery. At least as far as this specific line of pro-war argumentation goes, this is just 2003 all over again. Back then, those opposed to the war in Iraq were deemed pro-Saddam: indifferent to the repression and brutalities suffered by the Iraqi people at his hands and willing to protect his power. Now, those opposed to U.S. involvement in the civil war in Libya are deemed indifferent to the repression and brutalities suffered by the Libyan people from Gadaffi and willing to protect his power. This rationale is as flawed logically as it is morally.

 

Why didn't this same moral calculus justify the attack on Iraq? Saddam Hussein really was a murderous, repressive monster: at least Gadaffi's equal when it came to psychotic blood-spilling. Those who favored regime change there made exactly the same arguments as Judis (and many others) make now for Libya: it's humane and noble to topple a brutal dictator; using force is the only way to protect parts of the population from slaughter (in Iraq, the Kurds and Shiites; in Libya, the rebels); it's not in America's interests to allow a deranged despot (or his deranged sons) to control a vital oil-rich nation; and removing the tyrant will aid the spread of freedom and democracy in the Middle East. Why does that reasoning justify war in Libya but not Iraq?

 

In Foreign Policy, Stephen Walt argues that "liberal interventionists" and neocons share most of the same premises about America's foreign policy and its role in the world, with the sole exception being that the former seek to act through international institutions to legitimize their military actions while the latter don't. Strongly bolstering Walt's view is this morning's pro-war New York Times Editorial, which ends this way:

 

Libya is a specific case: Muammar el-Qaddafi is erratic, widely reviled, armed with mustard gas and has a history of supporting terrorism. If he is allowed to crush the opposition, it would chill pro-democracy movements across the Arab world.

Wasn't all of that at least as true of Saddam Hussein? Wasn't that exactly the "humanitarian" case made to justify that invasion? And wasn't that exactly the basis for the accusation against Iraq war opponents that they were indifferent to Saddam's tyranny -- i.e., if you oppose the war to remove Saddam, it means you are ensuring that he and his sons will stay in power, which in turn means you are indifferent to his rape rooms and mass graves and are willing to stand by while the Iraqi people suffer under his despotism? How can the "indifference-to-suffering" accusation be fair when made against opponents of the Libya war but not when made against Iraq war opponents?

 

But my real question for Judis (and those who voice the same accusations against Libya intervention opponents) is this: do you support military intervention to protect protesters in Yemen, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia and other U.S. allies from suppression, or to stop the still-horrendous suffering in the Sudan, or to prevent the worsening humanitarian crisis in the Ivory Coast? Did you advocate military intervention to protect protesters in Iran and Egypt, or to stop the Israeli slaughter of hundreds of trapped innocent civilians in Gaza and Lebanon or its brutal and growing occupation of the West Bank?

 

If not, doesn't that necessarily mean -- using this same reasoning -- that you're indifferent to the suffering of all of those people, willing to stand idly by while innocents are slaughtered, to leave in place brutal tyrants who terrorize their own population or those in neighboring countries? Or, in those instances where you oppose military intervention despite widespread suffering, do you grant yourself the prerogative of weighing other factors: such as the finitude of resources, doubt about whether U.S. military action will hurt rather than help the situation, cynicism about the true motives of the U.S. government in intervening, how intervention will affect other priorities, the civilian deaths that will inevitably occur at our hands, the precedents that such intervention will set for future crises, and the moral justification of invading foreign countries? For those places where you know there is widespread violence and suffering yet do not advocate for U.S. military action to stop it, is it fair to assume that you are simply indifferent to the suffering you refuse to act to prevent, or do you recognize there might be other reasons why you oppose the intervention?

 

In the very same Editorial where it advocates for the Libya intervention on the grounds of stopping government violence and tyranny, The New York Times acknowledges about its pro-intervention view: "not in Bahrain or Yemen, even though we condemn the violence against protesters in both countries." Are those who merely "condemn" the violence by those two U.S. allies but who do not want to intervene to stop it guilty of indifference to the killings there? What rationale is there for intervening in Libya but not in those places? In a very well-argued column, The Washington Post's Eugene Robinson today provides the only plausible answer:

 

Anyone looking for principle and logic in the attack on Moammar Gaddafi's tyrannical regime will be disappointed. . . . Why is Libya so different? Basically, because the dictators of Yemen, Bahrain and Saudi Arabia -- also Jordan and the Persian Gulf sheikdoms, for that matter -- are friendly, cooperative and useful. Gaddafi is not. . . .

 

Gaddafi is crazy and evil; obviously, he wasn’t going to listen to our advice about democracy. The world would be fortunate to be rid of him. But war in Libya is justifiable only if we are going to hold compliant dictators to the same standard we set for defiant ones. If not, then please spare us all the homilies about universal rights and freedoms. We'll know this isn’t about justice, it's about power.

 

I understand -- and absolutely believe -- that many people who support the intervention in Libya are doing so for good and noble reasons: disgust at standing by and watching Gadaffi murder hundreds or thousands of rebels. I also believe that some people who supported the attack on Iraq did so out of disgust for Saddam Hussein and a desire to see him removed from power. It's commendable to oppose that type of despotism, and I understand -- and share -- the impulse.

 

But what I cannot understand at all is how people are willing to believe that the U.S. Government is deploying its military and fighting this war because, out of abundant humanitarianism, it simply cannot abide internal repression, tyranny and violence against one's own citizens. This is the same government that enthusiastically supports and props up regimes around the world that do exactly that, and that have done exactly that for decades.

 

By all accounts, one of the prime administration advocates for this war was Hillary Clinton; she's the same person who, just two years ago, said this about the torture-loving Egyptian dictator: "I really consider President and Mrs. Mubarak to be friends of my family." They're the same people overseeing multiple wars that routinely result in all sorts of atrocities. They are winking and nodding to their Yemeni, Bahrani and Saudi friends who are doing very similar things to what Gadaffi is doing, albeit (for now) on a smaller scale. They just all suddenly woke up one day and decided to wage war in an oil-rich Muslim nation because they just can't stand idly by and tolerate internal repression and violence against civilians? Please.

 

For the reasons I identified the other day, there are major differences between the military actions in Iraq and Libya. But what is true of both -- as is true for most wars -- is that each will spawn suffering for some people even if they alleviate it for others. Dropping lots of American bombs on a country tends to kill a lot of innocent people. For that reason, indifference to suffering is often what war proponents -- not war opponents -- are guilty of. But whatever else is true, the notion that opposing a war is evidence of indifference to tyranny and suffering is equally simple-minded, propagandistic, manipulative and intellectually bankrupt in both the Iraq and Libya contexts. And, in particular, those who opposed or still oppose intervention in Bahrain, Yemen, Egypt, Iraq, the Sudan, against Israel, in the Ivory Coast -- and/or any other similar places where there is widespread human-caused suffering -- have no business advancing that argument.

 

yeah what the hell happened with Darfur? a country with actual genocide occurring we did absolutely nothing about, but we rush at the chance to start bombing libya? peculiar to say the least

[Guest Z_B_Z]

meh. of course oil is a factor but i found that article weak, and i usually like greenwald. its a hypocritical invasion, i get it, but i find some if his iraq parallels to be a bit shaky. and no, im not necessarily in support of this recent conflict.

[awepittance]

meh. of course oil is a factor but i found that article weak, and i usually like greenwald. its a hypocritical invasion, i get it, but i find some if his iraq parallels to be a bit shaky. and no, im not necessarily in support of this recent conflict.

 

i thought the part about how people who use the 'you don't care about the civilians there' line to make you feel embarrassed for not supporting the invasion, when mathematically unfortunately it's usually a greater net death toll on the civilian population. Sure Qadafi would be killing thousands, i get that, but American warships and planes will kill a far amount more, its inescapable. So it's interesting to me how heavily the humanitarian 'we're saving the populace' angle is used.

 

if you found it 'weak' it doesnt bode too well for the push against this invasion, very few people are actually opposing this war right now. I just sat here horrified as i read 5 michael moore tweets basically defending it.

[delet...]

Yeah, his iraq parallels are wrong, initially it was weapons of mass destruction. It was only later that they came up with the 'At least we got rid of a despot everybody' line

[awepittance]

Yeah, his iraq parallels are wrong, initially it was weapons of mass destruction. It was only later that they came up with the 'At least we got rid of a despot everybody' line

 

it wasn't that simple though, the Bush administration tried a triangulation campaign to launch us into war. They most definitely played the humanitarian angle during the first Iraq war exclusively, 2nd time around it was one of 3 or 4 different reasons the other ones being he helped the hijackers launch 9/11, people forget that one! then it become 'well he just supports terrorism and needs to be stopped' then it turned into a multi progned humanitarian and WMD search

[delet...]

meh. of course oil is a factor but i found that article weak, and i usually like greenwald. its a hypocritical invasion, i get it, but i find some if his iraq parallels to be a bit shaky. and no, im not necessarily in support of this recent conflict.

 

i thought the part about how people who use the 'you don't care about the civilians there' line to make you feel embarrassed for not supporting the invasion, when mathematically unfortunately it's usually a greater net death toll on the civilian population. Sure Qadafi would be killing thousands, i get that, but American warships and planes will kill a far amount more, its inescapable. So it's interesting to me how heavily the humanitarian 'we're saving the populace' angel is used.

 

if you found it 'weak' it doesnt bode too well for the push against this invasion, very few people are actually opposing this war right now. I just sat here horrified as i read 5 michael moore tweets basically defending it.

 

well also, he's been carefully targeting the very small number of rebels that there actually were. That's why it took him so long to push back. But anyway, through the fog of pro-war propaganda in the lead up to security council intervention and beyond. You'll never be told this. What actually happened won't come out until years later, when we're told "Oh, but it was all for a good cause in the end. And that was ages ago, who cares, stop whinging"

[Guest Z_B_Z]

Sure Qadafi would be killing thousands, i get that, but American warships and planes will kill a far amount more, its inescapable.

 

so, following that logic, its choice between the lesser of two evils?

[awepittance]

my buddy Ralph elaborates on why Obama's refusal to go through congress to launch his 3rd war is an impeachable offense

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R7rxbdvTDRA&feature=related

 

Sure Qadafi would be killing thousands, i get that, but American warships and planes will kill a far amount more, its inescapable.

 

so, following that logic, its choice between the lesser of two evils?

 

it doesn't have to be, it's a false choice. We didn't go into countless other countries that had actual humanitarian crisises happening, we are not going into Libya for humanitarian reasons. Anyone who actually believes this needs to study american history.

 

If one believes we just 'had enough' and couldn't stand by any longer watching what Libya was up to, it's a bullshit reason. Why do we stand idly by while the ivory coast implodes and Darfur's leaders commit ethnic cleansing over a long period of time?

[Guest Z_B_Z]

my buddy Ralph elaborates on why Obama's refusal to go through congress to launch his 3rd war is an impeachable offense

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R7rxbdvTDRA&feature=related

 

Sure Qadafi would be killing thousands, i get that, but American warships and planes will kill a far amount more, its inescapable.

 

so, following that logic, its choice between the lesser of two evils?

 

it doesn't have to be, it's a false choice. We didn't go into countless other countries that had actual humanitarian crisises happening, we are not going into Libya for humanitarian reasons. Anyone who actually believes this needs to study american history.

 

explain more on how its a false choice. i wouldnt completely rule out humanitarian reasons, although i dont think that they were the deciding factor in implementing the no fly zone.

[Eggs]

ah we're all goin to Hell in a handbasket.

[chenGOD]

Obama should just come out and say it: we went into Libya for the oil. He'd win over the republican core base in a heartbeat.

[Salvatorin]

Is there a part two to that vid w/ nader?

[marf]

can you imagine? people join the us military to become cannon fodder so we can pay a few cents less at the gas pump. What suckers.

[DerWaschbar]

I've pretty much resigned myself to the fact that humanitarian issues have little to do with international conflict; Either they are an excuse or a secondary priority. It's too complicated to try and attach morality to it. Partly greed, people in power who are dishonest with themselves and others. Fear and paranoia is rampant in regards to competition between nations for dominance. The resources we need here in the 'developed world' are dependent on exploitation and most people are not willing to realize the sacrifices that would have to be made to be more self reliant. From what I understand renewable energy technology is still at a point where it is more costly to produce than it returns, remember that these devices require oil to produce. From extracting the expensive and sometimes rare minerals that the technology is dependent on, to manufacturing and shipping, installing etc. It is by no means a closed loop. Add to that, that a the majority of rare earth minerals are coming from china and in order for anything to move, sacrifices and deals have to be made (See: Competition between nations). Ethanol is a joke, the only way it is viable commercially is because of the HUGE subsidies that the corn industry has and corn itself is not a very renewable crop, depletes soil, little nutrition, and most of it ends up being used indirectly, i.e. food additives, animal feed, fuels, plastics. It takes more oil to produce than it returns, largely I believe it was supported by the bush administration for that reason and that it puts more money the coffers of GMO firms. Anyways I digress. I've read that more efficient solar power is on it's way because of developments in nano technology, but is still 10-20 years off and we are expanding our consumption at an exponential rate. Nuclear power is a viable alternative, but is not without risks either, as we have seen recently in Japan. Another reality is that it costs a good deal of oil to run a military operation and I'm sure that is a consideration when it comes to who to support and who to condemn. Add to all this the varying levels of knowledge and vary states of belief amongst the masses and the need to placate or subvert these in order to function at all.

International politics are complex form of the school yard macro. At the end of the day, pettiness is standard to varying degrees in everyone. You and I operate on a smaller scale and thus have smaller consequences, some of us behave better and have less. Systems of all kinds, including nations and civilization, have a life or a mind to them and with life joy exists hand in hand with suffering and with a mind comes an element of madness. Reminding myself of this at least allows me to forgive and to tolerate and feel thankful for what we have here while we have it.

[Blir]

So I was reading about the Libyan stuff this morning, keeping abreast of the situation and reading a bit of background information and I came across a dude called Idris Al-Senussi, who according to Wiki did the following:

 

In 1991 it was announced that al-Senussi had taken control of a 400 man strong dissident Libyan paramilitary force that had received training from American intelligence, to fight against Gaddafi

 

Then I realised that I knew the Al-Senussi name... I know his daughter Alia, the princess of Libya. Never knew she was a princess, but a quick Google search proved it. Fucking weird!

[Guest inteeliguntdesign]

There was/is proof of substantial and on-going human-rights violations in Libya. He was advertising for mercenaries, there was photographic evidence of very recent and on-going violations. Saddam was indeed evil, but there was no proof of violation to such an extent in the recent term. I'm not saying there is, or is not, a point where intervention is okay, or even a sell-by date--just that this intervention in Libya is more justified.

 

His argument that you must also support intervention in, let's say, Saudi because they're also pretty evil is shaky, too. It's reasonable to argue that by arming rebels etc in Saudi would cause more loss of life than doing nothing to little due to the size of Saudi's army vis-a-vis the rebels. In Libya, leaving Gaddafi alone could leave him to slaughter the rebels, whereas the reverse will not happen. Basically, moral opposition to dictators does not always equate to support for intervention in country X

[awepittance]

There was/is proof of substantial and on-going human-rights violations in Libya. He was advertising for mercenaries, there was photographic evidence of very recent and on-going violations. Saddam was indeed evil, but there was no proof of violation to such an extent in the recent term. I'm not saying there is, or is not, a point where intervention is okay, or even a sell-by date--just that this intervention in Libya is more justified.

 

His argument that you must also support intervention in, let's say, Saudi because they're also pretty evil is shaky, too. It's reasonable to argue that by arming rebels etc in Saudi would cause more loss of life than doing nothing to little due to the size of Saudi's army vis-a-vis the rebels. In Libya, leaving Gaddafi alone could leave him to slaughter the rebels, whereas the reverse will not happen. Basically, moral opposition to dictators does not always equate to support for intervention in country X

 

i mean maybe you're right about all this, but how can one claim this is the United States motivation? humanitarianism? the fact that we rarely intervene in these situations unless they serve some ulterior strategic interest (oil, resources, land locking, etc) motive i think shows that we were just waiting for something to happen in Libya as an excuse for us to do this.

[chaosmachine]

So I was reading about the Libyan stuff this morning, keeping abreast of the situation and reading a bit of background information and I came across a dude called Idris Al-Senussi, who according to Wiki did the following:

 

In 1991 it was announced that al-Senussi had taken control of a 400 man strong dissident Libyan paramilitary force that had received training from American intelligence, to fight against Gaddafi

 

Then I realised that I knew the Al-Senussi name... I know his daughter Alia, the princess of Libya. Never knew she was a princess, but a quick Google search proved it. Fucking weird!

 

Back when I worked in tech support, I'd usually have lunch at this little sandwich shop in the mall. There was always this old guy in there, decked out with elaborate African clothing and an expensive looking cane, having little meetings with people... A few years later, I was reading the local newspaper, and there was his picture... turns out he's the exiled king of some small country...

[Blir]

So I was reading about the Libyan stuff this morning, keeping abreast of the situation and reading a bit of background information and I came across a dude called Idris Al-Senussi, who according to Wiki did the following:

 

In 1991 it was announced that al-Senussi had taken control of a 400 man strong dissident Libyan paramilitary force that had received training from American intelligence, to fight against Gaddafi

 

Then I realised that I knew the Al-Senussi name... I know his daughter Alia, the princess of Libya. Never knew she was a princess, but a quick Google search proved it. Fucking weird!

 

Back when I worked in tech support, I'd usually have lunch at this little sandwich shop in the mall. There was always this old guy in there, decked out with elaborate African clothing and an expensive looking cane, having little meetings with people... A few years later, I was reading the local newspaper, and there was his picture... turns out he's the exiled king of some small country...

 

*high five*

[Guest inteeliguntdesign]

There was/is proof of substantial and on-going human-rights violations in Libya. He was advertising for mercenaries, there was photographic evidence of very recent and on-going violations. Saddam was indeed evil, but there was no proof of violation to such an extent in the recent term. I'm not saying there is, or is not, a point where intervention is okay, or even a sell-by date--just that this intervention in Libya is more justified.

 

His argument that you must also support intervention in, let's say, Saudi because they're also pretty evil is shaky, too. It's reasonable to argue that by arming rebels etc in Saudi would cause more loss of life than doing nothing to little due to the size of Saudi's army vis-a-vis the rebels. In Libya, leaving Gaddafi alone could leave him to slaughter the rebels, whereas the reverse will not happen. Basically, moral opposition to dictators does not always equate to support for intervention in country X

 

i mean maybe you're right about all this, but how can one claim this is the United States motivation? humanitarianism? the fact that we rarely intervene in these situations unless they serve some ulterior strategic interest (oil, resources, land locking, etc) motive i think shows that we were just waiting for something to happen in Libya as an excuse for us to do this.

 

Yeah, I guess there's other stuff going on, and not just that this intervention makes the governing parties in the us, uk and france look good atm. But if these other motives aren't too horrendous, and helping remove gaddafi does lead fewer lives lost and a better human rights situation in libya, then I think supporting the intervention is fairly justified. Lots of ifs though.

[delet...]

I wouldn't agree that less people are dying now that we are actively involved in bombing gadaffi forces.