US actions in the Middle East. Is it Justified?

[Oxymoron]

Does a terrorist attack on U.S soil, justify the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan, including torture, rule by proxy and also the slaughter of millions of people including the use of heavily armed drones to 'take out' 'terrorists' and children alike?

Or is it a conspiracy to impose a Pax Americana, like the Romans and the British.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2251418/Revealed-U-S-carried-333-drone-strikes-Afghanistan-year--entire-drone-strikes-Pakistan-past-years-COMBINED.html


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ided-quit.html

Content from external source:

A former U.S. drone operator has opened up about the toll of killing scores of innocent people by pressing a button from a control room in New Mexico.

Brandon Bryant, 27, from Missoula, Montana, spent six years in the Air Force operating Predator drones from inside a dark container.

But, after following orders to shoot and kill a child in Afghanistan, he knew he couldn't keep doing what he was doing and quit the military.

[MikeC]

IMO the world did see a clear link to 9/11 and the invasion of Afghanistan, and was "tolerably happy" with the concept - even Iran offered to help!!

Not so much with Iraq - Iraq was, as was feared then and has been proved since, a totally manufactured "situation"

[Oxymoron]

IMO the world did see a clear link to 9/11 and the invasion of Afghanistan, and was "tolerably happy" with the concept - even Iran offered to help!!

Not so much with Iraq - Iraq was, as was feared then and has been proved since, a totally manufactured "situation"

Thanks for responding Mike. I realise it is a very difficult subject.

I think 'we' collectively in the West have tolerated the U.S led actions which has enabled our governments. I don't think I need restate my position that I am unhappy about what has transpired.

I am just hoping we can discuss on this forum, different perspectives in a logical way.

I am not so clear about Afghanistan. I think the West could have helped much much more when it was in disarray but before the Taliban took power. They basically said, they filled a power vacuum in desperation to bring back some order.

[Oxymoron]

Bill OReilly thinks it's clear cut and will brook no dissension, I think there is often a lot of intimidation used to quiet dissenters.

[MikeC]

I am not so clear about Afghanistan. I think the West could have helped much much more when it was in disarray but before the Taliban took power. They basically said, they filled a power vacuum in desperation to bring back some order.

I agree that "the West" could have - but there is a fine line between helping out and being seen to be interferring, and it is one that gets crossed often enough so that the "west" has becoem gunshy (sorry about the pun!) about intervening "too early".

nominally "good" interventions like Somalia have foundered on essentially political bickering (and not necessarily among the West - probably more importantly among locals) so it is much easier to eait until ther is an utterly clear and unequivical reason/need/excuse to step in.

My personal belief is that Afghanistan should now be "left alone"...and if it turns into a quagmire again then in 20 years time "we" go back anddo it all over again...but only for 2-3 years, and we repeat and rinse as required untl they cfan sot out some domestic arrangment for stability that suits themselves. And if they can't before "we" pull out then that is their problem - and if they let it spill over then they know what to expect again in 10 years......

IMO a "war" every 20 years is going to be cheaper in "our" lives and resources than trying to occupy and "country build" for 10. whether they consider it preferable to establishing a stable country is up to "them".

[Grieves]

What America/North America/NATO has done to the middle-east is a brutal and systematic destabilization, not a quest for 'democracy' or 'nation-building'. If you want to improve on and build nations, you don't decimate their infrastructure on the widest scale possible. Roads, factories, schools, hospitals, office buildings; the bombing of Iraq was extensive and devastating, essentially driving the nation as a whole back toward the stone-age. To suggest a free and peace-loving democracy is going to rise out of that kind of destruction is asinine, if not a most cynical lie. The effort isn't, and has never been to 'bring peace to the middle-east'. The goal is, in fact, to keep the Middle East as unstable as possible, and systematically remove all opposition to corporate global interests. Do you honestly believe the Libya situation was a popular uprising of good, upstanding Libyan citizens against a tyrant, and America's 'assistance' was out of the goodness of Obama's heart? There's no question that Gaddafi was a crazy bastard, but he wasn't anywhere near so despised by his own people as the American media will lead you to believe. Most of the 'freedom fighters' involved in the Libyan 'uprising' were foreign Muslim extremists, whom American and NATO forces were openly supporting with munitions, funding, and a 'no fly zone' while they conducted operations that would be labeled terrorism if we weren't backing them. Why do this, though, if not for peace, freedom, and democracy? Because Gaddafi was a constant thorn in the side of big business interests. It was him who put up the lions share of the money to launch the first African communications satellite, giving Africans an alternative communications network that didn't cost Africans (and make American companies) hundreds of millions of dollars a year. It was Gaddafi who was putting up the money to establish an African Central Bank/Monetary fund, steps that would have given African's, their businesses, and the nations of the continent an alternative to the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, and put an end to the stranglehold French currency has over many African nations. He was dragged through the streets and shot before he could complete these goals... not a saint by any stretch, but no more guilty than our leaders. Now we've got France and America garrisoning Africa at an unprecedented scale, Mali just the public face of a military presence being expanded across the entire continent, and bearing the tired old excuse of a 'fight against AlQueda'. Meanwhile NATO, and thus states, openly funds Muslim extremist elements in Syria, a largely secular nation, turning a relatively prosperous and peaceful country into a hellscape using tactics which again would be described as terrorism from any other perspective. Most sick and twisted about this funded offensive is that factions of the 'free Syria Army', the rebel movement, are groups labeled by the Defense Department itself as being a terrorist organization with direct ties to AlQueda, and they're funding these people! These are folks who openly align themselves with the supposed culprit of the 9/11 attacks, and we're paying them to go into a foreign nation and wreak havoc there.
There's strong evidence that most of the 'free Syria army' aren't even from Syria, but are foreigners being funneled in from Turkey. Again, the Assad regime is no picnic, but lets not pretend our aggression toward them is about peace and love. The only reason we haven't established a 'no fly zone' is that Syria's military is advanced enough that it could actually pose a threat to such an operation.
We all know it's not going to stop there. It's just a matter of time before we start doing the same to Iran. All of this is getting Russia extremely antsy however, and America's treatment of Russia in the media, the way its leaders talk about it, and the political dialogue taking place between America and Russia right now is more divisive than even during the Cold War. China too is eyeing all the military power being spread about them, particularly the missile-defense systems going up around them, rather warily.
It all seems to be escalating towards a tipping point, and WWIII, if we're not already elbow-deep in it, seems increasingly inevitable. Those who profit from these shames and horrors only stand to profit more if it comes to pass, failing to consider that it only takes one player to flip the whole damn board.

[SR1419]

Thats some serious gish gallop.

There's no question that Gaddafi was a crazy bastard, but he wasn't anywhere near so despised by his own people as the American media will lead you to believe. Most of the 'freedom fighters' involved in the Libyan 'uprising' were foreign Muslim extremists.

How do you know this?

The goal is, in fact, to keep the Middle East as unstable as possible, and systematically remove all opposition to corporate global interests.

This seems to be illogical. Corporations prefer doing business in stable environments where the risk is lower and the long term costs are stable.

Instability is an anathema to business. Having nations torn asunder and factions constantly fight does not make an environment conducive to business.

[Grieves]

SR, that's not true in the slightest. Stable governments often put limits on/prevent corporate interests from gaining the ground they seek. They impose regulations, they punish criminal behavior, they maintain their sovereignty. A ruined country with a ruined government is at the mercy of whoever is strong and brutal enough to take leadership. This leads to in-fighting, and the best way to get a leg-up over the competition is to accept monetary support from outside sources. This support inevitably comes with a price. In Iraq for example, the oil reserves used to be under national control, but with the Iraqi government now crippled beyond all healing and their infrastructure utterly decimated, Big Oil has 'saved the day' by taking control of the wells, increasing oil production in Iraq considerably while making a concerted effort with the help of a baught-and-paid-for government to put an end to all trade-unions in the country.
In Libya, a potentially powerful source of competition for the World Bank in Africa was eliminated by controlled instability, ensuring Africa would remain under their sway for the foreseeable future.
Warlords are much easier to do business with than political leaders. This has been a credo of American military and espionage action for decades and decades.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/06/wo...anted=all&_r=0
an article from the NY times on how weapons and funding from America was finding its way into the hands of Islamic extremist groups in Libya. It seems to suggest the administration didn't know this was a possibility, and is 'concerned'.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...82S0O120120329
Here's an article from Reuters about the same thing happening in Syria. Once more, the American administration is portrayed as being unaware its support of the uprising could lead to supporting Islamic extremism, and 'concerned' about what it might mean.

http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2013/01...ists-in-syria/
http://www.globalresearch.ca/us-offi...in-syria/30891
Some articles that demonstrate how the American administration is not at all in the dark about its funding of Islamic extremism in Syria, and how a contracted think-tank actually proposed the idea.

[SR1419]

SR, that's not true in the slightest.

It is completely true to the fullest.

You cannot run a business if your facilities are being attacked. Just ask Shell Oil.

Long-term investment- particularly in oil- requires a relatively stable environment (notice I didn't say national government- "warlords" can provide stability too) in order to achieve max investment return.

Iraq is a perfect example- it wasn't until the country became much more stable after 2007 (as opposed to the previous 5yrs) that the oil companies were able to proceed. Now the Kurdish north and southern Iraq are much more stable than the area around Baghdad and oil production has increased accordingly. The oil is owned by Iraq and the country controls production.

Business' much prefer to operate where there are property rights, rule of law and security- all things that tend to deteriorate- if they exist at all- during "instability".

Content from external source:

British Petroleum signed a $900 million exploration and production agreement with Libya’s National Oil Corporation in 2007 but the exploratory drilling was suspended during the revolution that led to the overthrow of former Libyan leader Colonel Muammar Gaddafi in 2011 and the ensuing instability forced it to keep the accord on the hold.

http://www.northafricapost.com/2386-...-drilling.html




None your articles even remotely addressed the claim that "Most of the 'freedom fighters' involved in the Libyan 'uprising' were foreign Muslim extremists"

That Islamic extremists participated in these uprisings is not in doubt. But the claim that "most" of the participants were "foreign...extremists" is not supported by anything you have shown. It seems like simply a knee-jerk claim based on bias.

Nor have you provided any evidence to your claim that Gaddafi "wasn't anywhere near so despised by his own people as the American media will lead you to believe."


I take it most of the people in these photos are all "foreign...extremists"?

[Grieves]

Those seem to be relatively peaceful protestors. I didn't say Libya was without dissent, but notice no one in those images is shooting anyone / lighting Molotov cocktails /committing any beheadings. They're also not flying planes that are dropping bombs on their own country. That seems an odd thing for locals to be in support of, wouldn't you say?

There's some protestors in support of Gaddafi. Apparently there was around 1.7 million of them, roughly 1/3 of the Nation's population, but I cant confirm that number. Still, its a hell of a lot of people, isn't it? Pretty huge number of Libyan citizens coming out and supporting a guy who's supposedly at war with them.
http://rt.com/politics/russian-commu...n-mercenaries/
the Russian perspective.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=079_1358361717
A compilation of bombs being dropped on Libya by NATO forces.


A video containing images of the Syrian Rebels. The first is of a few guys shooting off into the distance with AK's, seeming generally ill-equipped and inexperienced as they shoot off into the empty distance... they seem like the rebels as described, freedom-fighters doing their thing, only its not entirely clear who they're doing it against. Then you see 'rebels' marching the streets in uniforms, manning tanks and heavy artillery, not exactly looking like common citizens who've had enough.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=495_1358194364
A nice little video summing up the nature of the conflict in Libya, which I highly encourage you to watch. If this looks like a popular uprising to you, and not a foreign nation engaging in a war, you must have missed the whole Egypt thing. To quote a Libyan man standing in front of the rubble of what was once a peaceful community, "What kind of popular revolution needs the armies of the world to fight on its behalf? What kind of popular revolution needs billions and billions of dollars to fund it? Don't popular revolutions fight for themselves, by themselves, and win because they have the people on their side?"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1284016.html
Here's an article on post-Gaddafi Libya and what this 'popular uprising' has resulted in, a savage competition of mercenary bands over communities of ordinary citizens.

Also, why are you shying away from the use of the terms 'Islamic' and 'Muslim'? It isn't racist to point out the branch of extremism in question, especially when your nation is supposedly engaged in a world-scale conflict against it.

It's been proven the claim Gaddafi was hiring mercenaries to attack its own citizens are entirely unfounded in fact, so why exactly did we engage in this massive-scale bombing of a countries infrastructure who's people we claimed to be protecting? Doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. How about you?
Now we've got Syria, a secular nation, in which we're undeniably funding Islamic extremists to destabilize the country, on the basis that 'we're saving them from their own government', while at the same time going to fight Islamic extremists in Mali. Doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me, how about you?

[MikeC]

Which armies of the world fought in Libya??

[SR1419]

Those seem to be relatively peaceful protestors. I didn't say Libya was without dissent,

No, you said most of the fighters were foreign to Libya. Something you still have not provided any evidence for.

Yes, the protesters were peaceful...until Libyan forces began shooting at them on February 17th.

There were supporters of Gaddafi- no doubt. (BTW- The population if Libya is approx 6.4 million...1.7 is barely 25%)

Your video amounts to nothing more than a propaganda piece- sound bites and out-of-context clips. It doesn't accurately portray the entire scope of the uprising.

Yes, NATO bombed Libya. But that doesn't change the fact that your claim that "most" of the participants in the uprising were "foreign" is not supported by the facts.



Also- I am not "shying away" from using the terms 'Islamic' and 'Muslim"- I have used them several times. I omitted it once because it was superfluous to the context.

[jvnk08]

I think US presence in the middle east is questionable in some regards, as surely anyone does.

With that said, is our presence as brutal and imperialistic as it's made to sound in this thread? Please give this documentary a watch and contrast with Nazi or Soviet occupation:



People seem to ignore that the US military is also the best equipped organization in the world to deliver humanitarian assistance in remote regions.

http://www.historyofwar.org/articles...anitarian.html
http://www.globalhumanitarianassista...le/afghanistan

Is it ideal? Not by a long shot. But it's definitely not even on the same playing field with the atrocities committed by occupying armies WWII. I'd even venture to say that *gasp* some good has been done, but I'm sure some folks will be quick to give me some links which make it clear just how dismal the outlook is over there.

[Oxymoron]

I think US presence in the middle east is questionable in some regards, as surely anyone does.

With that said, is our presence as brutal and imperialistic as it's made to sound in this thread? Please give this documentary a watch and contrast with Nazi or Soviet occupation:

People seem to ignore that the US military is also the best equipped organization in the world to deliver humanitarian assistance in remote regions.

Is it ideal? Not by a long shot. But it's definitely not even on the same playing field with the atrocities committed by occupying armies WWII. I'd even venture to say that *gasp* some good has been done, but I'm sure some folks will be quick to give me some links which make it clear just how dismal the outlook is over there.

Yes, nice post, and btw, I really like your avatar... to me it says 'Peace man' .

I started the thread in the hope of getting a better understanding of 'the wide range of views' out there.

I think the first line is exceptionally pertinent and appears to be the 'general consensus'. I do wonder how many people who feel like that, actually realise the massive cost in civilian casualties... the 'collateral damage' if you will. And I must say, war makes it extremely easy to dehumanise people. How easily the stripping of our 'civilisational infrastructure' could make us appear less human to modern eyes.

I also wonder, if people tried to imagine themselves as citizens of an invaded Country, how they would imagine they may react?

Undoubtedly the Romans brought many benefits to the lands they conquered, as well as the brutality and oppression. Should we still be emulating, (to some degree), them?

I think there are also a lot of people who think America and the U.N are doing exactly the right thing... 'the public version of Bill O'Reilly' if you get my drift. I would also be interested in hearing how they rationalise that conviction.

[jvnk08]

To be clear, I think the reasoning for going into Iraq was completely contrived, but with that said we also didn't send them "back to the stone age" by any means. Iraq was already reasonably well-to-do(for the region) before we got involved, and they have since returned to and exceeded pre-invasion GDP years ago:

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

Personally I think it's a shame what has happened to Afghanistan, but this started a long time ago and the US was not the sole or even largest instigator by any means. Some interesting into on pre-1970s Afghanistan:

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/article...in_afghanistan

Yes, nice post, and btw, I really like your avatar... to me it says 'Peace man' .

I started the thread in the hope of getting a better understanding of 'the wide range of views' out there.

I think the first line is exceptionally pertinent and appears to be the 'general consensus'. I do wonder how many people who feel like that, actually realise the massive cost in civilian casualties... the 'collateral damage' if you will.

Thanks, I believe Mick picked it out for me

Personally I see myself sitting somewhere in the middle on the subject. Yes, I think the casualty statistics sound horrible, and there are indeed isolated incidents that have occurred which hark back to atrocities committed by invading armies less than a century ago, but there is a need for perspective here.

There are other ongoing conflicts with higher death tolls, civilians included. The Mexico Drug War for example has claimed more lives in the past 3 years than OEF and OIF combined during the same period. To me that conflict is a greater injustice as it is completely solvable for all parties involved with a simple shift away from entrenched thinking and policy...

And I must say, war makes it extremely easy to dehumanise people. How easily the stripping of our 'civilisational infrastructure' could make us appear less human to modern eyes.

I also wonder, if people tried to imagine themselves as citizens of an invaded Country, how they would imagine they may react?

Undoubtedly the Romans brought many benefits to the lands they conquered, as well as the brutality and oppression. Should we still be emulating, (to some degree), them?

Undoubtedly we should not, but I also don't think we really compare at all to the Romans. We're not 'conquering' in the same sense, at least. Considering the fact that we pour a massive amount of money into providing humanitarian assistance & rebuilding their infrastructure, as opposed to killing the men and shipping the women back home to become sex slaves for the rest of their lives, I'd say there really isn't much of a comparison.

I linked that documentary because it has a good example: if we are spending taxpayer dollars to fly a helicopter with highly trained medics out into some of the most remote regions of the world, potentially getting shot at, in order to pick up anyone from a child with a stomach ache to ISAF personnel to wounded enemy combatants and whisk them off to literally the best trauma care available in the world, then that says something about the nature of the occupation in comparison to, for example, the Nazis(which in my mind were more akin to the Romans).

I think there are also a lot of people who think America and the U.N are doing exactly the right thing... 'the public version of Bill O'Reilly' if you get my drift. I would also be interested in hearing how they rationalise that conviction.

Personally, I think the people who think everything is completely justified are just looking for an excuse for conflict, usually tied to their religious beliefs, and thankfully they are in the minority and likely won't be influencing policy much anymore.

Again, I'm in the middle on the subject - should we be using drones to target potential terrorists in countries that have specifically asked us not to? I don't agree.

Should we never have invaded in the first place? Well, arguably yes and no. Without it, the Taliban would still be enforcing a very strict form of Sharia law on some of the poorest people in the world. At least we can say that the living standards of some Afghanis have measurably improved. With that said, there is an argument to be made that there was at least relative stability in the country pre-invasion.

With that said, do you have any ideas as to how the US/UN could be doing things better over there?

[Grieves]

Which armies of the world fought in Libya??

Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Denmark, France, Greece, Italy, Jordan, the Netherlands, Norway, Qatar, Romania, Spain, *deep breath* Sweden, Turkey, The UK, the USA, and The United Arab Emirates all participated in/contributed too the military action against Libya. Several billion dollars were indeed spent on the effort. If a majority of the people of Libya wanted Gaddafi gone, do you think they'd need this much international 'help'? (quotes due to the fact this 'help' consisted of many, many bombs being dropped on their own country.) Consider that it was basically law in Libya that there be an AK47 in every household. It's not like the population there couldn't act for themselves because of a lack of the second amendment or something.

Equating the fact that a lot more money is flowing into/out of Iraq now with the notion things have significantly improved there is a fallacy. Business is maybe booming, but the people are sure as hell no better off. http://www.hrw.org/world-report-2012...port-2012-iraq In there you'll see reports of peaceful protestors demanding an end to the corruption of their 'Government' being indefinitely detained, tortured, intimidated, or simply 'disappearing'. http://www.aknews.com/en/aknews/1/291032/ a news article on the current poverty rates in Iraq. http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/fea...519385348.html a News article on how the infrastructure of Iraq remains in absolute shambles, a solid decade later. Similar estimations of the indeed very dismal situation in Afghanistan are abundant if they're looked for.

http://allafrica.com/stories/201108292336.html
Here's an article on how the rebel forces in Libya, supposedly all Libyan citizens fighting for their freedom, were rounding up and executing black people, either foreign nationals there for work or long-time residents. Libya traditionally has a relatively large black population, and the Gaddafi regime had extremely close ties with many African nations, Gaddafi often referred too, and I'm neither making up nor endorsing this title, 'The Lion of Africa'. There's many reasons for this which have been described previously in the thread, but the biggest is perhaps that he was the main proponent for pan-African union that would include all African nations equally. He had his own selfish reasons for this of course, wanting to be 'The King of Kings' in Africa, but the work he was doing could still have done Africa a whole lot of good, and now it's quite simply over... Africa now once more at more or less the sole mercy of the UN/NATO, which in this particular case essentially means America/France. For the foreseeable future Africa will remain in its less than fair and equitable relationship with the international community.

There were supporters of Gaddafi- no doubt. (BTW- The population if Libya is approx 6.4 million...1.7 is barely 25%)

Barely 25% of the entire population out in protest. That's a hoot. Again, I'm not saying the numbers were that large, that was the estimate by a Chinese newspaper... but it's a lot of people. So how they feel about their own nation is so meaningless the dissenting opinions of other citizens deserves massive military action from multiple foreign nations? Would you think it appropriate if Russia and China started taking military action in the United States in support of the 'tea-party', or 'Occupy Wallstreet'?

Yes, NATO bombed Libya. But that doesn't change the fact that your claim that "most" of the participants in the uprising were "foreign" is not supported by the facts.

So it was Libyans flying those bombers then...? Libyans driving those tanks? Libyans marching through the streets in uniform while other Libyans looked on confusedly, hardly seeming 'in support'? It was Libyans beheading other Libyans in the grotesque style of extremist executions seen in places like Iraq/Afghanistan/Pakistan, conducted by organizations like the Taliban / AlQueda? http://www.mathaba.net/news/?x=629346

[SR1419]

Equating the fact that a lot more money is flowing into/out of Iraq now with the notion things have significantly improved there is a fallacy.

What are you referring to? I did not equate that. I merely pointed out the fact that Business prefers stability. Iraq- particularly in the oil-rich parts is more stable now than 6yrs ago.

Consider that it was basically law in Libya that there be an AK47 in every household. It's not like the population there couldn't act for themselves because of a lack of the second amendment or something.

What? Basically law? ...on what basis do you make that comment? Clearly they DID act for themselves. But you seem to ignore the fact that Gaddafi had a well armed military that was used with some success- and indeed ignited the armed-rebellion by killing 150 peaceful protesters. The population DID act for themselves as the rebellion had begun well before the first NATO plane ever flew. Gaddafi attacked his own people using tanks, planes and artillery for over a month before NATO planes flew. It wasn't until he had surrounded Benghazi and was about to attack the people there that NATO took action.

Barely 25% of the entire population out in protest. That's a hoot. Again, I'm not saying the numbers were that large, that was the estimate by a Chinese newspaper... but it's a lot of people. So how they feel about their own nation is so meaningless the dissenting opinions of other citizens deserves massive military action from multiple foreign nations? Would you think it appropriate if Russia and China started taking military action in the United States in support of the 'tea-party', or 'Occupy Wallstreet'?

You seem to discounting the brutal legacy Gaddafi had with his own people during his 40+yrs reign and the genuine desire for change by a great number of his people. You cling to this highly dubious 25% number as if it means something...all the while ignoring the other 75%. The desire for changes can be evidenced by all the defections that took place almost immediately and throughout the conflict- from high ranking officials, diplomats to entire army brigades. Many before ANY NATO bombs fell. Even his own UN ambassador urged him to step-down. Read this report 5 days after the rebellion started. Does this sound like he had a lot of support?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011...ipoli-uprising

So it was Libyans flying those bombers then...? Libyans driving those tanks? Libyans marching through the streets in uniform while other Libyans looked on confusedly, hardly seeming 'in support'? It was Libyans beheading other Libyans in the grotesque style of extremist executions seen in places like Iraq/Afghanistan/Pakistan?

Not sure what you are referring to. The Libyan army did fly attack sorties until NATO intervened. NATO had no tanks or ground forces in Libya. Rebels did capture tanks and acquire them through defections.

War is hell. People are cruel. Libya is not exempt from the brutality and callousness of Man. What is your point? That its NATO's fault that that Libyans beheaded other Libyans?

You have still failed to show that the uprising and fighting was comprised of "most"ly foreigners. I think anyone who looks at this conflict objectively and within the historical political context of Gaddafi's path to power and legacy of his 40yrs in power know that this conflict was fought- to a very large extent- by the people of Libya and they paid with their blood- on both sides.

[jvnk08]

If a majority of the people of Libya wanted Gaddafi gone, do you think they'd need this much international 'help'?

Seeing as the current stalemate will likely go nowhere without foreign intervention, does this apply to Syria? There was a similar stalemate in Libya before NATO got involved.

Equating the fact that a lot more money is flowing into/out of Iraq now with the notion things have significantly improved there is a fallacy. Business is maybe booming, but the people are sure as hell no better off. http://www.hrw.org/world-report-2012...port-2012-iraq In there you'll see reports of peaceful protestors demanding an end to the corruption of their 'Government' being indefinitely detained, tortured, intimidated, or simply 'disappearing'.http://www.aknews.com/en/aknews/1/291032/ a news article on the current poverty rates in Iraq.http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/fea...519385348.html a News article on how the infrastructure of Iraq remains in absolute shambles, a solid decade later. Similar estimations of the indeed very dismal situation in Afghanistan are abundant if they're looked for.

I found a pretty concise look at economic statistics of pre- and post-invasion Iraq here:

http://musingsoniraq.blogspot.com/20...fter-2003.html

The conclusion was:

Content from external source:

It’s hard to make an exact comparison between Iraq before and after the 2003 invasion. Before the fall of the former regime, most figures about Iraqi society were held as state secrets. Many numbers immediately after 2003 were also unavailable or unreliable, because the fighting made it nearly impossible to collect many statistics. Now that’s beginning to change as Iraq is returning to a state of normality even though there are still major terrorist attacks. What the figures show is a country facing many problems, but not for the assumed reasons. Rather than the invasion or war being the root cause, today the fast growing population and the flawed economy are the leading issues. The number of people in Iraq is going up and up and up, but there are not enough jobs to employ them. The state-run system means that the resources available are often mismanaged. At the same time, life expectancy and the infant mortality rate has recovered to what it was in the 1990s, but that also means more people in Iraq. The economy has to be diversified, but that’s unlikely to change as the government is almost solely focused upon boosting its oil sector, which will make it even more dependent upon petroleum than before. That means even more issues will arise in the future.

I agree the situation is not optimal. Of course there are still shortages of essential goods and general squalor, but my point was the invasion was hardly "driving the nation as a whole back to the stone age". Take a look at the destruction of Warsaw in WWII for an example of a city literally being bombed back into the stone age, then contrast with the sort of destruction caused by guided munitions... devastating, yes, but at the least they are precise and far less prone to collateral damage than conventional bombing.

It's a shame the US companies contracted to rebuild their infrastructure short-changed the job(personally I think they should be held accountable), but your article about the state of infrastructure also makes plenty of mentions of things that are under construction now. Infrastructure takes a long time to build. Regardless, under Saddam, I doubt things like this would have happened, but I guess we'll never know.

The invasion of course didn't help, but the real problem is the lack of diversity in the Iraqi economy, that is why even during the height of the Saddam regime they were still at best in the middle of the other Middle Eastern countries in terms of per-capita GDP. Yes, GDP isn't a great indicator of the general population's wellbeing, but it's worth pointing out the GDP declined sharply well before the any US boots ever set foot there. Also worthy of note: average life expectancy has increased and infant mortality is lower than it has ever been. For what it's worth, Iraq has half the unemployment rate and less people living under the poverty line than Libya, while having roughly 6 times the population. So I think it's safe to say that at least some things have improved.

Afghanistan, on the other hand, has been in the stone ages for the last 30 years or so. I fail to see how our presence could negatively affect the general welfare of the Afghani people beyond that which the Taliban did. The fact that some Afghan women are now able to get an education at all is a huge step forward.

[Grieves]

But you seem to ignore the fact that Gaddafi had a well armed military that was used with some success- and indeed ignited the armed-rebellion by killing 150 peaceful protesters.

On the first day of protest, the numbers went from 200 people to 600 people. The protests became rowdy, police forcefully (and yes, violently) intervened, there were several dozen injuries (40 in all), but not a single protestor was killed. Later that day, several police stations and other government buildings were burned to the ground by these protesters. The following day, protests continued in Benghazi, police attempted to disperse the crowds with water cannons, but eventually retreated. Protestors then burned down the local traffic office, as well as a few cars. The 'day of revolt', the 17th in which you seem to suggest 150 peaceful protestors were killed, commemorated a day of protest of Jyllands-Posten for drawing some Muhammad cartoons. Amnesty international stated that this was around the time Gaddafi started hiring mercenaries to execute Libyans, but that has since proven to be a rumor with no evidential basis, as now openly admitted by Amnesty. None the less, several people were shot, and though the Gaddafi administration insists it was pro-Gaddafi protestors being shot at and killed, the story as we know it is that it was the police shooting anti-Gaddafi protestors. 15 people were said to have been shot in Benghazi, and an additional 16 in other regions. Police stations and other unaffiliated buildings continued to be burned down.
The following day, there are unconfirmed reports that riot police had started joining the rebels, but its unquestionable that at least two police officers, accused of shooting protesters, were lynched. On that same day, 50 Africans were murdered and mutilated by these protestors, on the claim they were mercenaries. There is no substantial evidence mercenaries were being hired by Gaddafi. All the current evidence suggests these were just black people who happened to be on the airfield at the wrong time. An undocumented number of other 'conspirators' were also apparently locked in the cells of a police station which was subsequently burned down with them inside. Both of these events were referred too as 'executions'.

All of this occurred in the first three days of protest. If this is your idea of a 'peaceful protest', we're on entirely separate pages. This sounds to me like a Government struggling, undoubtedly violently, to quell an outbreak of anarchistic rebel behavior. There were legitimate attempts to appease the protestors as well, over a hundred prisoners were released in these early days in an effort to calm the violence, but it only rapidly escalated. By the 19th, the country-wide deathtoll was estimated at 109 people by Human Rights Watch. That would suggest that at least as many people had been killed by the protesters as protesters had been killed themselves.

Gaddafi attacked his own people using tanks, planes and artillery for over a month before NATO planes flew. It wasn't until he had surrounded Benghazi and was about to attack the people there that NATO took action.

Islamic extremist elements had seized Benghazi (a coastal city) and were burning down government buildings, killing government employees, and generally terrorizing those locals who didn't support them. Gaddafi intended to use military action to retake the city. I'm not saying what Gaddafi and the military did was 'right', but it's not exactly unprecedented or unexpected given the circumstances. Just a nation struggling to handle its own internal strife by questionable means, as happens all around the world/is happening currently in several African nations without any foreign intervention.

You seem to discounting the brutal legacy Gaddafi had with his own people during his 40+yrs reign and the genuine desire for change by a great number of his people.

Not in the slightest. Gaddafi wasn't a nice guy. But keep in mind many of the human rights abuses during his rule were at the 'state' level, committed by his 'Revolutionary Committees', sort of a communist equivalent to state/provincial government. He actually decried many of the crimes perpetrated by these Committees, his rule of the nation supposedly symbolic in nature (like the queen of England), and worked to pass laws expanding personal freedoms in Libya in the wake of them. Were his hands clean? Not a snowball's chance in hell. But his human rights abuses are hardly uncommon or unique. Compared to a place like Saudi Arabia, pre-uprising Libya would probably have seemed like a liberal haven, but then nobody talks about how absolutely messed up Saudi Arabia and how it treats its people is, because they're a long-standing business partner.

You cling to this highly dubious 25% number as if it means something...all the while ignoring the other 75%. The desire for changes can be evidenced by all the defections that took place almost immediately and throughout the conflict- from high ranking officials, diplomats to entire army brigades. Many before ANY NATO bombs fell. Even his own UN ambassador urged him to step-down. Read this report 5 days after the rebellion started. Does this sound like he had a lot of support?

I'm hardly 'clinging' too it, I myself stated I couldn't confirm it. Still, if it was even close to that number, isn't it rather telling? The protest which sparked this whole event started with no more than 600 people. It rose from there to 'tens of thousands', some reports even state that Benghazi eventually housed as much as 'a hundred thousand' anti-Gaddafi 'protesters', though at that point its far more accurate to call them Rebels. So you've got a reported 1.7 million people (give or take) engaging in actual peaceful protest, and a hundred-thousand (give or take) people engaging in anarchistic protest actions. You say I'm treating the 25% as though it outweighs the 75%... why does the 1-10% outweigh the 99-80% so much as to warrant full international military support? Are you aware that a majority of the troop defections were reported by a rebel-controlled media-outlet, and that most are entirely unconfirmed by outside sources? It's true, many officials resigned and decried Gaddafi when it was clear which way the wind was blowing, but many of these were high-ranking members of Revolutionary Committees that often were already at odds with Gaddafi, as state/provincial representatives often are at odds with their administrations.

NATO had no tanks or ground forces in Libya. Rebels did capture tanks and acquire them through defections.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ANWG_dCAXII , http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=894_1320340656 <- an armed American fighting in Libya. 'Just a reporter', apparently, who decided to take up arms. From what I recall about investigative journalism of war-zones, you don't typically pick up a gun and start shooting at people unless your life is in the most immediate peril. The guy seems pretty calm and relaxed to me. You also don't typically direct forces as a journalist.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JI-nQx6rPgM a fellow wearing helmet and body-armor in the style of European NATO forces present at the lynching of Gaddafi. No proof he's NATO, but he certainly looks the part. Were you aware that the lynching of Gaddafi, as well as the 60 people in his convoy, is being investigated as a War Crime? A Canadian citizen who worked as a Bodyguard for the Gaddafi family has just been judged as 'Culpable for the crimes of the Gaddafi regime' and is being expelled from the country for participating in efforts to rescue his wife and son from an equally gruesome fate. Despicable shit, so far as I'm concerned.

War is hell. People are cruel. Libya is not exempt from the brutality and callousness of Man. What is your point? That its NATO's fault that that Libyans beheaded other Libyans?

my point is that NATO acted in heavy support of an extremist movement that was by no means 'the majority', an extremist movement that lead to many countless unspeakable crimes and a devastating bombing campaign, and has left the country in such an unstable state that America couldn't even protect its own embassy there. Islamic extremism, once at the fringe of Libyan society, is now one of the dominant forces in the country, which has turned a country once relatively tolerant of its ethnic minorities into a xenophobe state where black people are routinely abused, discriminated against, or murdered.

NATO's actions were not for the good of the Libyan people. Surely you must see that.

but the real problem is the lack of diversity in the Iraqi economy

Right. Countless bombs dropped, countless families destroyed, countless businesses brought to an abrupt end, countless children growing up in fear of the sky, hatred of the west, and/or stark distrust of their neighbors.... but the REAL problem is a lack of economic diversity, and that's got nothing to do with the campaign.

[Oxymoron]

Seeing as the current stalemate will likely go nowhere without foreign intervention, does this apply to Syria? There was a similar stalemate in Libya before NATO got involved.



I found a pretty concise look at economic statistics of pre- and post-invasion Iraq here:

http://musingsoniraq.blogspot.com/20...fter-2003.html

The conclusion was:

Content from external source:

It’s hard to make an exact comparison between Iraq before and after the 2003 invasion. Before the fall of the former regime, most figures about Iraqi society were held as state secrets. Many numbers immediately after 2003 were also unavailable or unreliable, because the fighting made it nearly impossible to collect many statistics. Now that’s beginning to change as Iraq is returning to a state of normality even though there are still major terrorist attacks. What the figures show is a country facing many problems, but not for the assumed reasons. Rather than the invasion or war being the root cause, today the fast growing population and the flawed economy are the leading issues. The number of people in Iraq is going up and up and up, but there are not enough jobs to employ them. The state-run system means that the resources available are often mismanaged. At the same time, life expectancy and the infant mortality rate has recovered to what it was in the 1990s, but that also means more people in Iraq. The economy has to be diversified, but that’s unlikely to change as the government is almost solely focused upon boosting its oil sector, which will make it even more dependent upon petroleum than before. That means even more issues will arise in the future.

I think it pretty disingenuous, (not you personally but as an argument), to compare pre invasion with to date circumstances. The fact is, Iraq was wrecked, (rightly so IMO), after the first Gulf War. However, I think it was criminal to deny Iraq the opportunity to rebuild their infrastructure and economy after that war under the pretext of sanctions due to WMD's when everyone knew what a terrible state the Country was in and how the people were dying and suffering.

I believe it was a ploy by the west to induce an uprising of the people to get rid of Saddam for them.

Any economic comparisons are undoubtedly difficult due to the long wars and coups. Britain has played a significant role in the power struggles and undoubtedly the U.S has utilised Iraq to carry out it's agenda re the Iran Iraq war.

Throughout this, the people have suffered as a result of little say in what happens in their Country.

http://www.casi.org.uk/info/alnasrawi9905.html

Content from external source:

Based on this brief review of Iraq's political history several observations can be made. First, the most important feature of this history between 1921 and 1958 was the predominant position of Britain in the affairs of Iraq. The nature and implications of the mandatory system were assessed by Peter Sluglett as follows:

In any balance sheet for the Mandate, the Iraqi people outside the small circle of government... were the losers. The Government was not carried on for their benefit, but for the benefit of the Sunni urban political class within a framework created and supported by the British authorities. When it was clear that British interests would no longer be at risk, and when the necessary mechanism to protect them had been perfected it was time to withdraw...It is profitless to blame the British Mandatory authorities for failing to ensure that the Iraq Government concerned itself with wider interests of the nation, or made efforts to reconcile rather than exacerbate the tensions within the state: to do so would be to misunderstand the nature of imperialism (cited in Stavrianos 1981: 535).

Second, the country's political history can be written as a series of coups and counter coups, conspiracies, purges and counter purges, violent seizure of power and ruthless suppression of dissent and last but not least wars, adventures and sanctions. In all this history the people had no voice as there has been a virtual absence of democratic institutions and civil society.

[jvnk08]

I think it pretty disingenuous, (not you personally but as an argument), to compare pre invasion with to date circumstances. The fact is, Iraq was wrecked, (rightly so IMO), after the first Gulf War. However, I think it was criminal to deny Iraq the opportunity to rebuild their infrastructure and economy after that war under the pretext of sanctions due to WMD's when everyone knew what a terrible state the Country was in and how the people were dying and suffering.

I believe it was a ploy by the west to induce an uprising of the people to get rid of Saddam for them.

Any economic comparisons are undoubtedly difficult due to the long wars and coups. Britain has played a significant role in the power struggles and undoubtedly the U.S has utilised Iraq to carry out it's agenda re the Iran Iraq war.

Throughout this, the people have suffered as a result of little say in what happens in their Country.

http://www.casi.org.uk/info/alnasrawi9905.html

To be fair, Iraq was wrecked before Desert Storm due to the Iran-Iraq war. Whether or not that is the direct result of US actions, I'm not sure. From what I've read I think they would have gone to war regardless, but perhaps their hostilities were artificially created by western meddling?

In my mind I don't think the situation could be handled much better given that we are stuck with it now. If we want to go all the way back to the 50's when the US gov't started meddling with middle eastern governments, then yes I agree we should never have gotten involved in the first place and in that regard our presence is not justified.

[SR1419]

This sounds to me like a Government struggling, undoubtedly violently, to quell an outbreak of anarchistic rebel behavior.

Ummm..yes, it was, in fact, a revolt. A rebellion. A repudiation of the then-current government.

Islamic extremist elements had seized Benghazi (a coastal city) and were burning down government buildings, killing government employees, and generally terrorizing those locals

You never source your narrative- why is that? Can you back up that claim? I encourage you to watch this footage of the first days of protests and interviews with some of the participants. Hardly "extremists".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lP-WFr0oziA

Your repeated characterization of this rebellion as some purely Islamic extremist endeavor is simply false. Read this article by a reporter who spent 6 weeks in Libya at the start of the revolt.

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Backc...rebels-exactly

Content from external source:

"Look, we are part of the Islamic world and Islam is an expression of who we are," Mr. Terbil said. "But the revolution didn't start with religious people, and it's not about religion. This is about basic rights, and holding elections."

I actually know Libyans who had been in the US for years and left to go participate in the rebellion. They were not extremists.

Do these look like "extremists"?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MA41wRci-fY

The protest which sparked this whole event started with no more than 600 people.

So? It could be said that the protest that started this whole event was one Tunisian man setting himself on fire.

So you've got a reported 1.7 million people (give or take) engaging in actual peaceful protest

Indeed. Most dictators are quite able to assemble a large crowd when the situation calls for it. However, your 1.7 million is highly dubious. Other observers put the number at 15-30,000. See here for a different perspective and analysis of the crowd:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/0...lion-Man-March

Content from external source:

So when a member of one Qaddafi's revolutionary committees told Ahmed's father, "We have your son, he is being held at Abu Salim prison. If your family does not come out to demonstrate on Friday you will never see your son again.", they paid him no never-mind and an extended clan of around 50 adult males and family refused to attend the rally. A few hours after the rally Ahmed's still warm body was dumped outside the family home with two bullets in his head.

I am sorry but those videos are weak- One guy happens to have an American accent and a helmet on and supposedly that is evidence of NATO troops on the ground? Could have been an ex-pat, could have been a mercenary. His weapon and helmet sure were not standard Western military issued. Same with the other video- a hazy clip of a guy in a flak jacket and helmet?? Did not a single Libyan have access to a helmet? Sorry. not convincing.

my point is that NATO acted in heavy support of an extremist movement that was by no means 'the majority',

NATO's actions were not for the good of the Libyan people. Surely you must see that.

I disagree entirely. You have provided NO evidence that this rebellion was borne of religious extremism. None. No evidence that this campaign was carried out by "mostly" foreign extremists. None. This was a popular uprising against a long despised, brutal dictator. That the current democratically elected government is a relatively secular is a testament to the lack of religious extremism involved in this event.


...as For NATO? NATO's actions were for the good of NATO as one would expect.

[Oxymoron]

To be fair, Iraq was wrecked before Desert Storm due to the Iran-Iraq war. Whether or not that is the direct result of US actions, I'm not sure. From what I've read I think they would have gone to war regardless, but perhaps their hostilities were artificially created by western meddling?

In my mind I don't think the situation could be handled much better given that we are stuck with it now. If we want to go all the way back to the 50's when the US gov't started meddling with middle eastern governments, then yes I agree we should never have gotten involved in the first place and in that regard our presence is not justified.

Well that is a fair and reasoned argument, given what has transpired but...
In a year or two are we going to be saying... 'yes we agree the west should have stopped playing games a year (or two), ago; I don't think the situation could be handled much better given that we are stuck with it now. That type of dialogue could go on ad infinitum.

I really think the west's governments, especially the U.S need to reassess what they are doing. Israel has apparently now bombed Syria, Obama likely to send drones into N. Africa, preemptive nuclear strike sanctioned on China...

Things are escalating not getting better.

[Grieves]

Right, right... so we're acknowledging they were by no means 'peaceful protesters' as you initially and adamantly claimed, but now they're not Islamic extremists, just people commemorating a protest of a cartoon of Muhammad by burning police stations, lynching police officers, and conducting mass murders of blacks.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/ar...rayed-for.html

For not all the rebels are chaotic. One of their commanders, Abdel-Hakim Al-Hasidi, has been a member of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) since the Nineties.

This is a violent jihadist outfit that, for decades, had been waging a holy war against the Gaddafi regime with an aim of creating an Islamic state.

It was banned worldwide after the 9/11 attacks, when Al-Hasidi fled to Afghanistan.

Now he admits he recruited dozens of Al Qaeda members to the insurgent cause in Iraq, where the LIFG made up the second largest group of foreign fighters; and, worse, that many of his jihadists have joined the rebellion in Libya.

Al-Hasidi said his fighters in Libya ‘are patriots and good Muslims’, but added that Al Qaeda men ‘are also good Muslims and are fighting against the invader’ in Iraq.

Even as the rebels continue to pour into Tripoli, the numerous Islamist militias, who have been fighting independently, are still refusing officially to join their ranks.

There is very little question really that the majority of fighters on the rebel forces were Islamic. That's easily researched. Whether or not they're 'extremists' is dependent on their actions in my opinion. Murdering and mutilating minorities strikes me as pretty damn extreme.

[lee h oswald]

Seeing as the current stalemate will likely go nowhere without foreign intervention, does this apply to Syria? There was a similar stalemate in Libya before NATO got involved.



I found a pretty concise look at economic statistics of pre- and post-invasion Iraq here:

http://musingsoniraq.blogspot.com/20...fter-2003.html

The conclusion was:

Content from external source:

It’s hard to make an exact comparison between Iraq before and after the 2003 invasion. Before the fall of the former regime, most figures about Iraqi society were held as state secrets. Many numbers immediately after 2003 were also unavailable or unreliable, because the fighting made it nearly impossible to collect many statistics. Now that’s beginning to change as Iraq is returning to a state of normality even though there are still major terrorist attacks. What the figures show is a country facing many problems, but not for the assumed reasons. Rather than the invasion or war being the root cause, today the fast growing population and the flawed economy are the leading issues. The number of people in Iraq is going up and up and up, but there are not enough jobs to employ them. The state-run system means that the resources available are often mismanaged. At the same time, life expectancy and the infant mortality rate has recovered to what it was in the 1990s, but that also means more people in Iraq. The economy has to be diversified, but that’s unlikely to change as the government is almost solely focused upon boosting its oil sector, which will make it even more dependent upon petroleum than before. That means even more issues will arise in the future.

I agree the situation is not optimal. Of course there are still shortages of essential goods and general squalor, but my point was the invasion was hardly "driving the nation as a whole back to the stone age". Take a look at the destruction of Warsaw in WWII for an example of a city literally being bombed back into the stone age, then contrast with the sort of destruction caused by guided munitions... devastating, yes, but at the least they are precise and far less prone to collateral damage than conventional bombing.

It's a shame the US companies contracted to rebuild their infrastructure short-changed the job(personally I think they should be held accountable), but your article about the state of infrastructure also makes plenty of mentions of things that are under construction now. Infrastructure takes a long time to build. Regardless, under Saddam, I doubt things like this would have happened, but I guess we'll never know.

The invasion of course didn't help, but the real problem is the lack of diversity in the Iraqi economy, that is why even during the height of the Saddam regime they were still at best in the middle of the other Middle Eastern countries in terms of per-capita GDP. Yes, GDP isn't a great indicator of the general population's wellbeing, but it's worth pointing out the GDP declined sharply well before the any US boots ever set foot there. Also worthy of note: average life expectancy has increased and infant mortality is lower than it has ever been. For what it's worth, Iraq has half the unemployment rate and less people living under the poverty line than Libya, while having roughly 6 times the population. So I think it's safe to say that at least some things have improved.

Afghanistan, on the other hand, has been in the stone ages for the last 30 years or so. I fail to see how our presence could negatively affect the general welfare of the Afghani people beyond that which the Taliban did. The fact that some Afghan women are now able to get an education at all is a huge step forward.

This goes for your post and the equally ignorant one just prior to it. Outrageous apologist defence of indefensible actions.

Iraq and Afghanistan invasions were illegal - followed by a murderous brutal occupation that so far - in the case of Iraq alone - has led to an estimated 1.3 million Iraqi dead; 4 million displaced; an epidemic of mental illness; a huge increase in certain cancers due to the environment being poisoned with uranium weapons. Before Gulf war 1, Iraq was one of the most advanced societies in the region, secular, with free health care and education for all. After the war, it wasn't just sanctions, the result of some of that meaning that operations had to be performed without anaesthetic - it was also bombed on a daily basis - alll through the nineties - US and British pilots blew the whistle on this false-meme of 'no-fly-zone' which is a euphemism for we can murder with impunity. British pilots told of being out on patrol - 'protecting' the Kurds - when they'd get a RTB message because there was a TSM inbound - TSM? Turkish Special Mission. The pilots said that as thy returned to base they saw Turkish F16's, loaded to the gills with munitions heading out the other way. When the TSM returned, their munitions were expended. When the British pilots went back to their patrols they reported 'dozens of villages destroyed, lots of smoke and fire'. Nice.

What should be remembered is that this is all very simple really. It's called theft. In the case of Libya: there were thirty thousand Chinese workers in Libya - now there are none. Libya was one of three main suppliers of oil to China - the other two are also in Africa. This is all about war for resources, but sooner or later the Chinese will have had enough and they'll make a stand. Since the US military has its arse kicked by just about everyone - defeated by an army of peasants in Vietnam (despite the usual genocidal brutality of the invaders) and everywhere else since - I'd like to see how they cope with the Chinese.
What was intolerable about Gaddafi's Libya, to the gangsters in charge (Gics), was Libya's independence from any Rothschild style central bank - meaning they couldn't get their sticky fingers on his cash - and there's a lot of Libyan cash being stolen. Same goes for Iran. And, ofcourse, there's the oil.
And, btw, just for the record, Gaddafi - a man in his eighties - that's a MAN, as in human being - was tortured, sodomized and then murdered.
All this NATO sweet talk is total bullshit. NATO (USUK really) is just a private army for elite interests that gets used when all the other tactics of bribery and coercion and attempted assassination have failed. And to add to the insult, the public has to pay for it. Send in the military to do the job. And the job is 'stealing other people's stuff' for the benefit of a few deeply corrupted and criminal organizations known as corporations. The same corporations that run the US and UK govts.

You quote some blog as a source of reliable information? Piss off.

I agree the situation is not optimal. Of course there are still shortages of essential goods and general squalor, but my point was the invasion was hardly "driving the nation as a whole back to the stone age". Take a look at the destruction of Warsaw in WWII for an example of a city literally being bombed back into the stone age, then contrast with the sort of destruction caused by guided munitions... devastating, yes, but at the least they are precise and far less prone to collateral damage than conventional bombing.

You agree it's not 'optimal'. That must be a great comfort to all those affected. You know absolutely shit all, that much is clear from the utter rubbish you spew. You believe all that bullshit about 'clinical' 'strikes'? 1.3 million dead Iraqis might just disagree with that. Your comments are insulting and ignorant in almost equal measure.

look at the destruction of Warsaw in WWII for an example of a city literally being bombed back into the stone age

Really? So we've discovered the art and science of time travel, have we? All we need to do is bomb a lot and hey presto! we're 'literally' back in the stone age.

The invasion of course didn't help, but the real problem is the lack of diversity in the Iraqi economy, that is why even during the height of the Saddam regime they were still at best in the middle of the other Middle Eastern countries in terms of per-capita GDP. Yes, GDP isn't a great indicator of the general population's wellbeing, but it's worth pointing out the GDP declined sharply well before the any US boots ever set foot there. Also worthy of note: average life expectancy has increased and infant mortality is lower than it has ever been. For what it's worth, Iraq has half the unemployment rate and less people living under the poverty line than Libya, while having roughly 6 times the population. So I think it's safe to say that at least some things have improved.

The invasion didn't help? But the 'real problem' is the 'lack of diversity in the Iraqi economy'? You think 'it's safe to say'? Do you now.

I'm not sure you've been 'thinking' at all. But seeing as I had to endure your apologies for rampant abuse of power, I'll tell you what I think - I think you're a despicable apologist for illegal war and invasion, war by proxy, mass murder, rampant fascistic brutality and thieving corporations who don't care how much blood they get soaked in just so long as the bottom line holds up. You should know what you are. Don't bother replying - that'll be all.












Fancy a spot of 'liberation' - 'freedom' - 'democracy' US style. Anyone?

By the way, the answer to the question is, No. It's not justified, neither is it justifiable, despite the apologists' efforts.

[SR1419]

Right, right... so we're acknowledging they were by no means 'peaceful protesters' as you initially and adamantly claimed but now they're not Islamic extremists

Nope. Initial protest were peaceful until the government used force against them.

The protest was in anniversary of the February 17, 2006, protests in Benghazi when security forces killed several protesters who were attacking the city's Italian consulate (to protest the cartoon of Mohammed).

They were utilizing to the anniversary as a catalyst to seize the "Arab Spring" momentum.

The motivation was NOT religious.

read yet another first hand account of the initial protest:

http://www.gq.com/news-politics/news...?currentPage=1

Why are you so opposed to the fact that the vast majority of participants in this popular rebellion are not Islamic extremists?

As I have mentioned before, they most def were extremists involved (and are still active in Libya) but the bulk of the participants were NOT.

Nothing you have provided shows anything different.

Of course, you simply ignore all the evidence to the contrary that I provide.

[SR1419]

Classic- More rabid, bitter hyperbole from lee...

For the record- I never defended US or NATO actions anywhere. In your knee-jerk spewing of hate you failed to recognize that.

I merely participated in this thread to point out some inaccuracies in some posters comments...like yours-

Libya was NOT China's third largest supplier of oil:






But whatever- don't let the facts get in the way of good screed.

[Grieves]

Lord.
http://www.time.com/time/world/artic...091744,00.html

Abdel Hakim Belhadj, 45, is one of the most powerful men of the new Libya. From this point on, the security of Tripoli depends on him. This former jihadist, arrested by the CIA and secretly handed over to the Gaddafi regime in 2004, is the commander-in-chief of the rebel forces in the Libyan capital.

If a former jihadist, an open proponent of Islamic extremism, becomes the COMMANDER IN CHIEF of your rebel movement, something tells me your rebel movement is predominantly Islamic extremist in nature.
http://analysisintelligence.com/osin...iliar-fighter/ a profile on Sufian bin Kumu, one of Abdel Hakim Belhadj's right hand men. It seems he's under suspicion of having something to do with the attack on the American embassy.

Lee might be uncouth, but in this instance I can hardly say he's wrong. Some of the things said in this thread have struck me as callous, thoughtless, and heartless to a very high degree.

[MikeC]

Sort of like Washinton becoming President really....

[Grieves]

Sort of like Washinton becoming President really....

Reading this comment gives me a distinct sensation of my brains being blown out the back of my skull. How-so, exactly..?

[MikeC]

militant who becomes a political leader - it happens a lot all over the world. Why does it surprise you??

[Grieves]

I'm just surprised you're equating the founder of your nation with a guy who recruited fighters for Al Queda to fight Americans in Afghanistan, and openly admits to using the same fighters in Libya. It's indicative of a somewhat inordinate level of respect, is all.

And it doesn't surprise me in the slightest. It's just a clear demonstration of who's taking power now that Gaddafi is gone. It so happens that their leader is a well-known Islamic extremist. Thus, as a direct result of NATO intervention, Islamic extremism has more influence in Libya than ever. That the Rebel Movement, supported by NATO, resulted in bringing self-admitted Islamic extremists into positions of high power suggests to me one of the major driving forces, if not the major driving force of the rebellion was Islamic extremism.

[MikeC]

He wasn't the founder of my nation - I am not American.

[Grieves]

sorry man, news to me

[SR1419]

Lord.

If a former jihadist, an open proponent of Islamic extremism, becomes the COMMANDER IN CHIEF of your rebel movement, something tells me your rebel movement is predominantly Islamic extremist in nature.

Lee might be uncouth, but in this instance I can hardly say he's wrong. Some of the things said in this thread have struck me as callous, thoughtless, and heartless to a very high degree.

..and so it goes...never address ANY of the evidence I present that contradicts your claims...simply move on to the next one.


Really? you want to cherry pick one person from the entire Libyan revolution? grasping at straws.

First of all- he is NOT the Commander in Chief of "the rebel movement"-he is in charge of the security of the capitol.

Moreover, did you even read what he said:

Content from external source:

The February 17 revolution is not the product of any particular political current, of any ideology. It's the revolution of the Libyan people in their entirety. The youth were the first to peacefully protest. They were received by the regime with bullets, and that's what provoked the militarization of the revolution....We are members of the Libyan society and we are simply Muslim. We do not distinguish the application of justice. All that we want is protection, security, and confidence for our country, our neighbors, and all countries with which we have relations.

In Libya, we have lived 42 years without a constitution, without law, without justice. That's what led to the fall of this dictatorial regime. We want a civil state that respects the law and rights, a state that applies justice. As far as the form of the regime and of the government, that is up to the Libyan people. We will give back our weapons; we are not here to establish a Taliban-like regime through a coup d'état.

As I have mentioned several times before, there is an element of Islamic extremism in Libyan society. I am sure you can find more extremist bad guys to link too...good on ya.

That doesn't change the fact that your characterization of this popular rebellion as being of of Islamic extremists origin and execution is wholly and irrefutably false.

I assume the "callous, thoughtless, heartless" comment was directed at me. I encourage you to point anything i have said that fits that bill. I certainly didn't mean to offend you.

What seems callous to me is to discount a society's freeing it self from 40yrs of brutal dictatorship as merely an "extremist" uprising.

[SR1419]

I'm just surprised you're equating the founder of your nation with a guy who recruited fighters for Al Queda to fight Americans in Afghanistan, and openly admits to using the same fighters in Libya. It's indicative of a somewhat inordinate level of respect, is all.

And it doesn't surprise me in the slightest. It's just a clear demonstration of who's taking power now that Gaddafi is gone. It so happens that their leader is a well-known Islamic extremist. Thus, as a direct result of NATO intervention, Islamic extremism has more influence in Libya than ever. That the Rebel Movement, supported by NATO, resulted in bringing self-admitted Islamic extremists into positions of high power suggests to me one of the major driving forces, if not the major driving force of the rebellion was Islamic extremism.

Are you just making things up?? Abdel Hakim Belhadj is not "their leader". He is simply WAS charge of security of Tripoli. He no longer is. He resigned to run for office. Unfortunately for him, his party garnered only 3% of the vote and did not win any seats. He did NOT recruit fighters for AQ- again- did you even read what he said?? Exaggerating does help your case.

Content from external source:

Do you belong to al-Qaeda?
A lot of false information is circulating concerning this subject. Yes, I was a member of the Islamic Fighting Group whose area of operation was always and exclusively Libya. The goal of this organization was to deliver the Libyan people from the dictatorship of Muammar Gaddafi. We never had any interest outside of our country. The Islamic combat group was never a part of al-Qaeda, neither from an ideological viewpoint, nor at an operational level, nor in its goals. It happened that we found ourselves in the same place at the same time as al-Qaeda: in Afghanistan, where we sometimes fought next to them when it was to liberate the country, but we were never at their service. On the contrary, when Osama Bin Laden founded the Global Islamic Front to fight against the Jews and crusaders, in the autumn of 1998, we refused to become members of it. How could we want to kill all Christians? Or all Jews? That's absurd! And why not the Chinese or Japanese? Christians and Jews are the people of the Book, we have to protect them.

The Leader of Libya is Mohammed Magariaf. He was the member of the National Front for the Salvation of Libya- NFSL "called for a democratic government with constitutional guarantees, free and fair elections, free press, separation of powers, non-discriminatory rule of law, gender equality, multi-partyism, sustainable development, and a realistic democratic road-map that benefits from Libyan, Arab and Islamic traditions as well as democratic learning from Nelson Mandela's democratisation experience, amongst others."

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

That is who is in power.

That Islamic extremists have more influence now than before is because there is not a dictator crushing all dissent and alternative thought.

The fact is Libya is now a democracy. If the Libyan people want to vote to become a Sharia-law state- they have that right.

But judging by the results from the most recent elections, secular and moderates are in firm control

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

(sorry for the crappy table- could find the image)

Parties Votes % Seats
National Forces Alliance 714,769 48.14% 39
Justice and Construction 152,441 10.27% 17
National Front 60,592 4.08% 3
Union for the Homeland 66,772 4.50% 2
National Centrist Party 59,417 4.00% 2
Wadi Al-Hayah Party 6,947 0.47% 2
Moderate Ummah Assembly 21,825 1.47% 1
Authenticity and Renewal 18,745 1.26% 1
National Party For Development and Welfare 17,158 1.16% 1
Al-Hekma (Wisdom) Party 17,129 1.15% 1
Authenticity and Progress 13,679 0.92% 1
Libyan National Democratic Party 13,092 0.88% 1
National Parties Alliance 12,735 0.86% 1
Ar-Resalah (The Message) 7,860 0.53% 1
Centrist Youth Party 7,319 0.49% 1
Libya Al-'Amal (Libya – The Hope) 6,093 0.41% 1
Labaika National Party 3,472 0.23% 1
Libyan Party for Liberty and Development 2,691 0.18% 1
Arrakeeza (The Foundation) 1,525 0.10% 1
Nation and Prosperity 1,400 0.09% 1
National Party of Wadi ash-Shati 1,355 0.09% 1
Al-Watan (Homeland Party) 51,292 3.45% 0
Others 218,562 14.72% 0
Independents - - 120
Valid votes 1,484,723 84.13% –
Invalid/blank votes 280,117 15.87% –
Total (turnout 61.58%) 1,764,840 100% 200
Registered voters 2,865,937
Sources: Libya Herald, Project on Middle East Democracy,
High National Election Commission

[Clock]

The situation in the Middle-East reminds me of Vietnam, in which the questions "What in the world are we doing over there" was constantly being asked, sort of like today with Iraq. (At least that's what I always wondered... but it turned out to a anti-communism wars) So much for The Times they 'a' changin'


But all of you, keep up on the posting, you are all doing wonderfully. Very interesting subject matter.

[Oxymoron]

Really? you want to cherry pick one person from the entire Libyan revolution? grasping at straws.

But it is not one person or even a dozen... it is the same jihadists, (your word), that fight in Afghanistan, Mali, Pakistan, Syria and elsewhere... the same ones who were funded and supplied by America decades ago and are now being drone attacked with massive collateral damage = civilians and kids murdered.

Earlier, when it suits you, you characterise them as Muslim extremist terrorists who hate all Americans and Jews.

Make up your mind... Oh you cannot because the American Government cannot decide what they are either from one minute to the next.

Seriously... you think another OBL will not emerge from this? Get real!

That doesn't change the fact that your characterization of this popular rebellion as being of of Islamic extremists origin and execution is wholly and irrefutably false.

It may be 'popular' to America and you but Gaddaffi had a very large following. Gaddaffi was the first leader to seek an arrest warrent for OBL, but no he was America's darling then.

What seems callous to me is to discount a society's freeing it self from 40yrs of brutal dictatorship as merely an "extremist" uprising.

And what about the Saudi etc brutality or the Iranian Shah... no one worried about that did they and Gaddaffii was ok when he was carrying out U.S instructions to torture ... that was fine.

Double standards?

[jvnk08]

Lee, I think you misunderstand. I'm by no means defending the motivations behind the invasion in Iraq. I completely agree the WMD claims were bogus and we should not have invaded for that fact alone.

It is, however, important to contrast between what a military as powerful as the US could be doing in comparison to what they are actually doing. The differences are stark. I am attempting to provide perspective on the situation to contrast the hyperbole that characterizes discussion of the subject. Said hyperbole directly contradicts the discussions I've had with veterans.

What should be remembered is that this is all very simple really. It's called theft. In the case of Libya: there were thirty thousand Chinese workers in Libya - now there are none. Libya was one of three main suppliers of oil to China - the other two are also in Africa. This is all about war for resources, but sooner or later the Chinese will have had enough and they'll make a stand.

Well that's just utter hogwash.Why do you think the workers being evacuated had anything to do with NATO? It seems they left out of self preservation:

http://mqvu.wordpress.com/2011/05/07...kers-in-libya/

Furthermore, it is important to understand the nature of Chinese investment in Libya. From the Chinese Minister of Commerce:

Content from external source:

Chen made a clarification on Chinese investment in Libya. He said: "Media reported that we have billions of dollars in investment there, which actually is wrong. We have no investment in Libya. However, we do have 10-odd billion dollars in projects there. Some of these projects have been completed and need check and approval, and some are near completion. Most of them are residential projects in Libya's urban and suburban areas."

http://www.china.org.cn/china/NPC_CP...t_24833572.htm

China has actually increased their imports from Libya since things have stabilized. Oh, and they've decreased their imports from Iran.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...8E113820120301

Other "communist" east asian countries have since re-entered the country:
http://www.thanhniennews.com/2010/pa...s-caution.aspx

With all that said, I'm not really surprised the Chinese are viewed unfavorably by the NTC:
http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/n...i-regime-libya

And, btw, just for the record, Gaddafi - a man in his eighties - that's a MAN, as in human being - was tortured, sodomized and then murdered.

He was 69, actually. I do agree, however, that his death was barbaric and unnecessary.

Since the US military has its arse kicked by just about everyone - defeated by an army of peasants in Vietnam (despite the usual genocidal brutality of the invaders) and everywhere else since - I'd like to see how they cope with the Chinese.

That's funny - here I was thinking we "lost" the conflict in vietnam through attrition and lack of public support, instead it was apparently the peasants.

Wanna know the real reason the US has "lost" any recent conflicts? Because they aren't the Nazi's or Soviets, they have not relentlessly pursued victory in those theaters regardless of the costs. It does not justify the rationalé behind invasion, however I think it is important to understand this difference. When you say "usual genocidal brutality of the invaders" it completely ignores the fact that that same military is running the largest ongoing humanitarian operation in the world.

What was intolerable about Gaddafi's Libya, to the gangsters in charge (Gics), was Libya's independence from any Rothschild style central bank - meaning they couldn't get their sticky fingers on his cash - and there's a lot of Libyan cash being stolen. Same goes for Iran. And, ofcourse, there's the oil.

As, I see where this is coming from.

Before Gulf war 1, Iraq was one of the most advanced societies in the region, secular, with free health care and education for all.

Oh please - that's a gross hyperbole of the situation before the first Gulf War. The Iran/Iraq war tore both of the countries apart.

After the war, it wasn't just sanctions, the result of some of that meaning that operations had to be performed without anaesthetic - it was also bombed on a daily basis - alll through the nineties - US and British pilots blew the whistle on this false-meme of 'no-fly-zone' which is a euphemism for we can murder with impunity. British pilots told of being out on patrol - 'protecting' the Kurds - when they'd get a RTB message because there was a TSM inbound - TSM? Turkish Special Mission. The pilots said that as thy returned to base they saw Turkish F16's, loaded to the gills with munitions heading out the other way. When the TSM returned, their munitions were expended. When the British pilots went back to their patrols they reported 'dozens of villages destroyed, lots of smoke and fire'. Nice.

Please provide citations for this.

You agree it's not 'optimal'. That must be a great comfort to all those affected. You know absolutely shit all, that much is clear from the utter rubbish you spew. You believe all that bullshit about 'clinical' 'strikes'? 1.3 million dead Iraqis might just disagree with that. Your comments are insulting and ignorant in almost equal measure.

For the purposes of this discussion my point was clear. I don't know where you get the 1.3 million civilian casualties figure, the most liberal estimate I've found is half of that. I won't claim that the lower figure justifies things, however.

Surely you can grasp that the collateral damage from precision munitions is vastly less than conventional "dumb" munitions? If the US bombed Iraq like did in WWII or Vietnam, which was very much within the realm of possibility, collateral damage and general devastation would have been astronomical in comparison.

Really? So we've discovered the art and science of time travel, have we? All we need to do is bomb a lot and hey presto! we're 'literally' back in the stone age.

Please go read about the destruction of Warsaw in WWII before attempting a comparison to the bombing of Iraq.

You quote some blog as a source of reliable information? Piss off.

I suggest you have a look at before being so dismissive. Care to enlighten me as to why his citations fail to provide an suitable basis for his claims?

The invasion didn't help? But the 'real problem' is the 'lack of diversity in the Iraqi economy'? You think 'it's safe to say'? Do you now.

It is precisely why there was poverty and suffering on a relatively large scale before the US ever set foot there. It is precisely why their economy has not recovered at an exponential rate as one might hope. The wars didn't help, but it is not the root cause of their ongoing problems. I remain optimistic about the recovery they are capable of, however. Please take a look at this for example: http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/...shops?ref=live






In a large occupation there will always be warcrimes committed by both sides. The difference I'm trying to illustrate here is whether they are isolated incidents or the modus operandi of the occupying army(as you seem to imply). It's not a bunch of jar-heads shooting everything that moves, believe it or not there are actually people in the military working to do good over there(it is an entirely voluntary force after all). Believe it or not there is accountability, many people are in military prison for warcrimes.

Did you watch the documentary I posted? Do you understand what dustoff crews are doing over there? When you say things like "the usual genocidal brutality of the invaders" it just shows your ignorance as to what genocidal brutality actually is.

Again, I ask you to contrast with Nazi or Soviet occupation, the likes of which is well within the capabilities of the US military.




Fancy a spot of 'liberation' - 'freedom' - 'democracy' Nazi style. Anyone?



Spot any differences here?

[SR1419]

But it is not one person or even a dozen... it is the same jihadists, (your word), that fight in Afghanistan, Mali, Pakistan, Syria and elsewhere..

Is it? They are all the "same" - to be lumped together without any context to understand of their actual, specific beliefs? No.

Earlier, when it suits you, you characterise them as Muslim extremist terrorists who hate all Americans and Jews.

..and some DO- the quote came right from OBL...so, HE was characterizing himself like that.

Make up your mind... Oh you cannot because the American Government cannot decide what they are either from one minute to the next.

Seriously... you think another OBL will not emerge from this? Get real!

Make up my mind about what? I am not defending NATO actions or Islamic extremists. I was pointing out that it was false to consider the Libyan revolution an Islamic extremist event.

It may be 'popular' to America and you but Gaddaffi had a very large following. Gaddaffi was the first leader to seek an arrest warrent for OBL, but no he was America's darling then.

And what about the Saudi etc brutality or the Iranian Shah... no one worried about that did they and Gaddaffii was ok when he was carrying out U.S instructions to torture ... that was fine.

Double standards?

No sure what you are getting at here...but if Gaddafi still has a large following, his followers can form a political party and get themselves voted into office to carry on his legacy.

I won't hold my breath.