Meanwhile in Libya...

[innonimatu]

Or maybe "Generally speaking, some people should kiss the idea of substantially greater personal freedoms goodbye if its aquisition needs to overcome the opposition of a thughish, violence prone dictator"?

To my thinking, that would seem to be the gambit for the Libyans.

And they are free to attempt it. Isolated dictators with no support inevitably fall. But sometimes they do have support, and win. Minority support or even majority support. We don't know which is the case in Libyam, but it doesn't matter. "Democracy" does not justify foreign meddling. Else the idea of national sovereignty would be dead, because it's trivial to create small groups of rebels inside another country to justify an invasion. Hell, in happened in Kosovo just recently. It happened in Georgia even more recently, and that mess originated was a retaliation for Kosovo...

Also, just how many libyans are willing to fight against the government? And how many for the government? By now the lie which was the tale of "Qaddafi's foreign mercenaries" has been exposed - the libyan government is still fighting, despite the bombardment, the embargo, and the theft of the libyan government's funds abroad. It can't be just foreign mercenaries, the lie that libyans universally opposed the goverment has been exposed. It is clear that the war has two sides, and neither had engaged in "massacres" prior to the "humanitarian bombing". Worse, the rebel side has no discernible political agenda, it just got one for propaganda purposes in London yesterday - a very desperate effort by the humanitarian bombers, really.

So, how will our wonderful humanitarians get rid of the libyan government? Why, I guess that they'll have to bomb any civilians who dare stick to supporting it! Terrorize them into submission to a new regime. Which is indeed the standard procedure for warfare. How humanitarian!

The humanitarians were fooled into supporting a side in a civil war. Nations are meddling into that civil war for political and economic reasons which have nothing to do with "protecting civilians". And now the humanitarian fools are in denial. If you want to support war and occupation, by all means do it and state logical motives. But don't fool yourselves and don't try to fool others by claiming that it's a "humanitarian intervention".

 

[Verbose]

You're speculating.

 

[onedreamer]

And they are free to attempt it. Isolated dictators with no support inevitably fall. But sometimes they do have support, and win. Minority support or even majority support. We don't know which is the case in Libyam, but it doesn't matter. "Democracy" does not justify foreign meddling. Else the idea of national sovereignty would be dead, because it's trivial to create small groups of rebels inside another country to justify an invasion. Hell, in happened in Kosovo just recently. It happened in Georgia even more recently, and that mess originated was a retaliation for Kosovo...

The case of Kosovo is completely different. Kosovan terrorists wanted a scission from Serbia and obtained it thanks to foreign intervention. In Libya people are rebelling against a regime and claimed they are the rightful authority and asked for help. And please stop giving false news you just made up. You're not the first I hear claiming "a small group of rebels here and there". Do you make up your news or you heard them somewhere? How do you explain the fact that half or more a country fell in the hands of "a small group of rebels"? How do you explain disertion of aviators who were asked to bomb their own cities?

 

[innonimatu]

The case of Kosovo is completely different. Kosovan terrorists wanted a scission from Serbia and obtained it thanks to foreign intervention. In Libya people are rebelling against a regime and claimed they are the rightful authority and asked for help. And please stop giving false news you just made up. You're not the first I hear claiming "a small group of rebels here and there". Do you make up your news or you heard them somewhere? How do you explain the fact that half or more a country fell in the hands of "a small group of rebels"? How do you explain disertion of aviators who were asked to bomb their own cities?

I never, ever, gave a single false news here. I doubt the news served in mainstream media about people's rebellion, while you will believe them unconditionally. That's the difference.

DO I speculate about this war? Certainly. I and everybody else. You speculate that there is a widespread popular rebellion against the libyan government, but fail to explain how said government found it so easy to roll it back before the humanitarian bombings. I provided a simple explanation long ago: it's a palace coup riding on the turmoil around Libya, a fight for power among the past and still present power-brokers in Libya, with the people as cannon-fodder. Check the british news today: rebels "jubilat" with the arrival of the former libyan interior minister and newly appointed (by whom?) commander of the rebels at Brega. You take this to be a popular rebellion?

You speculate that the libyan army bombed civilians, but fail to provide evidence - no, phone "testimonials" unidentified witnesses don't cut it. You can do no better that a couple of pilots who deserted and were reported to have stated that they had been ordered to bomb civilians. No videos, no photos, no live testemonials recorded by journalists. I'd expect NATO, with complete air control over the country, and the rebels, with the eastern half of the country again under their control, would have been able to provide hard evidence of their claims by now. They didn't.

The excuses now used to bomb Libya could easily be used to bomb most of the countries in the world. To support such warmongering justified with such flimsy evidence is to support an implicit right of militarily powerful countries to impose governments of their choosing, through warfare, anywhere where there are armed anti-government revolts. And they can even choose to support the government or the rebels. There is no difference between the war against Libya now and the war against Serbia over Kosovo in 1999, or the original russian meddling in Gerogia (the most recent one was caused by the foolish georgian president trying to revert it without the power to do so, though), or the saudi meddling in Bahrain. They were all done to "defend civilians". Hell, Hitler annexed Czechoslovakia to "defend the german civilians there". It's just like every government, every regime (except Saudi Arabia and the Vatican, apparently) is a "democracy" and "represents the people" - so it is with war, every war is just and justified for those who start it...

So, I consider you a credulous fool and an (involuntary) warmonger. And you're consider me an unrepentant cynic. So be it. In this as in so many political discussions, the outcome will resolve the argument. You know my prediction: a dragged-out civil war, a split country impoverished by that war, and finally foreign invasion and yet another new colony added to the string of existing ones from Afghanistan to Kosovo. Also, the beachhead and precedent for turning Africa again into a collection of "protectorates" where europeans warmongers can repeat the imperial folly of half a century ago.

 

[Abaddon]

So are we going to Arm them or what?

 

[onedreamer]

I never, ever, gave a single false news here. I doubt the news served in mainstream media about people's rebellion, while you will believe them unconditionally. That's the difference.
[...]
DO I speculate about this war?

More precisely, you never ever gave any news here, you only speculated, which is what I said and what you confirmed. How I believe news or not is nothing you can remotely speculate on, since you can't even make a distinction between Kosovo and Libya which are worldwide known events, figures if you can grasp what are my thoughts, and for the records your speculations on my take on news are yet again wrong.

 

[innonimatu]

So, how's the humanitarian bombing going? Why is it taking so long to destroy Libya? NATO better start carpet bombing the place, that UN-approved excuse for it expires in 5 weeks.

OTOH, I've read that the rebels actually had the gall to ask for part of the Libyan money stolenfrozen by the western banks. That's not going to gain them any friends...

 

[Ajidica]

So, how's the humanitarian bombing going? Why is it taking so long to destroy Libya? NATO better start carpet bombing the place, that UN-approved excuse for it expires in 5 weeks.

Not well. Democracy isn't taking hold.

 

[MeteorPunch]

Here's a good story I've been meaning to post: Former U.S. congresswoman McKinney speaks on state TV in Libya

(CNN) -- A former U.S. congresswoman slammed U.S. policy on Libyan state TV late Saturday and stressed the "last thing we need to do is spend money on death, destruction and war."

"I think that it's very important that people understand what is happening here. And it's important that people all over the world see the truth. And that is why I am here ... to understand the truth," former Rep. Cynthia McKinney said during a live interview.

She said she was invited to Libya by the "nongovernmental organization for fact-finding," adding that she intends to bring more people to the country soon so that "they too can understand."

Gadhafi's government has repeatedly urged the international community to send fact-finding teams to Libya to report what's happening on the ground.

She's a total conspiracy theorist, and I applaud her for having balls once again.

 

[innonimatu]

Here's a good story I've been meaning to post: Former U.S. congresswoman McKinney speaks on state TV in Libya


She's a total conspiracy theorist, and I applaud her for having balls once again.

Wait, she's in Libya now? And was in Iran? NATO wouldn't accidentally drop a bomb on her, would they? That's be going too far?

 

[Princeps]

People rebel all the time against governments, that doesn't automatically mean other govements should get involved.

When Gaddafi massacred his own people his government lost its sovereignty, which was dubious to begin with. In my opinion dictatorships that have no elective democratic mandate, are not sovereign entities and can be toppled by other democratic governments if the goal is to replace that regime with a radically more representative one. Iraq war, for example, was an example of a situation where a democratic government overthrew a dictatorship in an operation that was a humanitarian disaster and did not replace the government with a significantly more democratic alternative (in addition to other unjustifiable meddling) and therefore it was an illegitimate war.

In this case, its obvious that the uprising has widespread support: it would most certainly not have been so spontaneous and successful (initially at least) if it didn't. The main reason why Gaddafi has been able to resist the rebels is strictly military: he has better trained men with better equipment.

 

[emzie]

Wait, she's in Libya now? And was in Iran? NATO wouldn't accidentally drop a bomb on her, would they? That's be going too far?

Nothing of value would be lost.

 

[bestrfcplayer]

Not well. Democracy isn't taking hold.

This is so true (well, at least for the US and maybe NATO).

 

[innonimatu]

Iraq war, for example, was an example of a situation where a democratic government overthrew a dictatorship in an operation that was a humanitarian disaster and did not replace the government with a significantly more democratic alternative (in addition to other unjustifiable meddling) and therefore it was an illegitimate war.

Sorry, but you're splitting straws. At the beginning of a war you just cannot know how it'll turn out. You can make a guess, but you can't know. And it's before the war that the big decision must be made: after that people are committed for better of for worse.

So, if you accept that bombing Libya or Kosovo under cover of "democracy" is acceptable, then bombing Iraq was also acceptable to start with and the war was just "mismanaged" afterward. That's the present excuse for the ongoing occupation there.

In this case, its obvious that the uprising has widespread support: it would most certainly not have been so spontaneous and successful (initially at least) if it didn't. The main reason why Gaddafi has been able to resist the rebels is strictly military: he has better trained men with better equipment.

Is it obvious? Widespread support for a revolution means hundreds of thousands of people throwing away their lives for it. We haven't seen that in Libya. In fact all we've seen were rebels running back and fro in the desert and shooting to the air.

Perhaps the libyans just got lucky: none of the sides was strong enough to forcefully conscript them en masse into government or rebel armies, as it happened in the French Revolution, and the Russian Revolution, and so many other real revolutions with "widespread support".
Do you happen to like Sergio Leone's movies? Try "A Fistful of Dynamite". Has some good stuff about what a revolution is.

 

[r16]

hopefully not an unworthy comment . But there was this interview with a retired British general where he said the batle in Libya was not going well enough and boots on the ground were needed . Grand , the European couple started a war to show they were even badder when it came to walking the valley yet they seem to have lack troops . So Arabs and Muslims in the area have to shoulder the grandeur of the West lest it gets buried in the muck . Since the only Muslims in the area that won't be labelled as Arabian are us with some Balkan people ( and ı doubt the Bosnians or the Albanians have anything to do with Libya ) . Getting fed up with tales of what might happen if we don't follow the hints . We survived the admittedly distracted attention given 100 or so years ago . Being thugs call for muscle power , preferably one of own . And the call to arms is to be ignored even by those who are entitled to think about it . The story is that next month's wargames are about the Sealion , probably because the yearly Aegean exercises were cancelled . Though this should not discourage the future owners of the oil empire to be . The reception could be unhideable enough to make them think at least once before starting and supporting bloody civil wars in their competitors . Shooting with dollar bills is not all there is to war .

 

[innonimatu]

Any news about the ongoing humanitarian demolition of Libya? Last I heard NATO had announced it would ignore the expiry of the UN resolution used as an excuse and carry on with the attempt to reduce Libya to yet another protectorate.

Any news from inside Libya? How's the "popular rebellion" going? Which side killed the most people so far? How's the vital irrigation infrastructure? The food situation in that embargoed country? Then only recent thing in the media is a pathetic exchange of accusations about which side raped the most women so far, as if any of the sides could benefit from carrying out such a policy!

Some news about "funding" (loans!) to the rebels. And what kind of rebels need constant loans from abroad just to keep on fighting? They couldn't possibly be... mercenaries, could they?

 

[MeteorPunch]

Here's some good articles, the second one is great - definitely worth reading. I could only highlight and post a few things.

Libyan rebels accused of arbitrary arrests, torture

As NATO airstrikes continue to pound pro-government facilities in Libya, Human Rights Watch charged Sunday that Libyan rebels are arbitrarily detaining dozens of civilians suspected of loyalty to ruler Moammar Gadhafim, holding them without trial or due process.

At least one person is thought to have died in custody, with his body showing signs of torture, the group said in a report based on visits to rebel-held parts of Libya.

It is difficult to tell exactly how many civilians are being held without charge because some are held by militias and because the rebels do not clearly distinguish between civilian detainees and captured pro-Gadhafi fighters, Human Rights Watch said.

Libya: All About Oil, or All About Banking?

Several writers have noted the odd fact that the Libyan rebels took time out from their rebellion in March to create their own central bank - this before they even had a government. Robert Wenzel wrote in the Economic Policy Journal:

"I have never before heard of a central bank being created in just a matter of weeks out of a popular uprising. This suggests we have a bit more than a rag tag bunch of rebels running around and that there are some pretty sophisticated influences."


Another anomaly involves the official justification for taking up arms against Libya. Supposedly it's about human rights violations, but the evidence is contradictory. According to an article on the Fox News web site on February 28:

"As the United Nations works feverishly to condemn Libyan leader Muammar al-Qaddafi for cracking down on protesters, the body's Human Rights Council is poised to adopt a report chock-full of praise for Libya's human rights record.

The review commends Libya for improving educational opportunities, for making human rights a "priority" and for bettering its "constitutional" framework. Several countries, including Iran, Venezuela, North Korea, and Saudi Arabia but also Canada, give Libya positive marks for the legal protections afforded to its citizens - who are now revolting against the regime and facing bloody reprisal."


Whatever might be said of Qaddafi's personal crimes, the Libyan people seem to be thriving. A delegation of medical professionals from Russia, Ukraine and Belarus wrote in anappeal to Russian President Medvedev and Prime Minister Putin that after becoming acquainted with Libyan life, it was their view that in few nations did people live in such comfort:

"[Libyans] are entitled to free treatment and their hospitals provide the best in the world of medical equipment. Education in Libya is free, capable young people have the opportunity to study abroad at government expense. When marrying, young couples receive 60,000 Libyan dinars (about 50,000 US dollars) of financial assistance. Non-interest state loans and as practice shows, undated. Due to government subsidies the price of cars is much lower than in Europe and they are affordable for every family. Gasoline and bread cost a penny, no taxes for those who are engaged in agriculture. The Libyan people are quiet and peaceful, are not inclined to drink and are very religious."

And that brings us back to the puzzle of the Libyan central bank. In an article posted on the Market Oracle, Eric Encina observed:

One seldom mentioned fact by western politicians and media pundits: the Central Bank of Libya is 100% State Owned.... Currently, the Libyan government creates its own money, the Libyan Dinar, through the facilities of its own central bank. Few can argue that Libya is a sovereign nation with its own great resources, able to sustain its own economic destiny. One major problem for globalist banking cartels is that in order to do business with Libya, they must go through the Libyan Central Bank and its national currency, a place where they have absolutely zero dominion or power-broking ability. Hence, taking down the Central Bank of Libya (CBL) may not appear in the speeches of Obama, Cameron and Sarkozy but this is certainly at the top of the globalist agenda for absorbing Libya into its hive of compliant nations.

Libya not only has oil. According to the International Monetary Fund (IMF), its central bank has nearly 144 tons of gold, in its vaults. With that sort of asset base, who needs the BIS, the IMF and their rules?

 

[innonimatu]

Any news about the ongoing humanitarian demolition of Libya? Last I heard NATO had announced it would ignore the expiry of the UN resolution used as an excuse and carry on with the attempt to reduce Libya to yet another protectorate.

Actually, Norway seems to have already told NATO to do its humanitarian bombings without norwegian planes, it's leaving when the resolution expires by the end of the month. Note that if Norway's government had any reason to believe that the war could be won earlier than August they would not be announcing their departure from this war now. The libyan government is putting up much more resistance that the french dwarf expected when he jumped to lead this little adventure - it must already be messing up the schedule for Syria!

The libyan rebels, claiming to control over half the country along with several oil fields and ports, seem strangely unable to run it. Libya had been running a huge commercial surplus for decades but the rebel would-be government, having already exhausted what it pillaged from the national bank's branches, has seen fit to borrow over €1bn from their foreign sponsors. Popular support for them seems to be expensive, but they sure are the right guys to improve the lot of the libyans - at least those they're paying out!

Of course, the other half of Libya got not only the humanitarian bombings but also a full embargo. Terrorizing the government through bombings into fleeing the country didn't work so far, nor did damaging the economic interests of the ruling class, nor will the usual tactic of suddenly discovering that there are "war crimes" to be prosecuted by that puppet international criminal court. So I'm guessing that the current strategy is to simply starve the libyans into submission.

 

[GamezRule]

The problem is they have no leader and they are untrained. We would do much better for Libya if we sent troops then continued this bombing campaign. Given the time it would likely take to for the rebels to take the entire country, even with air support from NATO, it would probably cause less damage, cost less, and have fewer loss of life if NATO sent troops.

 

[innonimatu]

Of course NATO could use theoretically march in and conquer the country (but it's a though sell, domestically, yet another imperial war).

Then what? The rebels do not have the full support of the libyan population. If they did they'd already have taken the country. NATO cannot be that incompetent that it couldn't have already bombed away the alleged "mercenaries" working for the government. Mercenaries are notorious for a) working only so long as they get paid; b) not insisting on fighting against the odds; c) bbe willing to switch sides if offered enough money. Qatar and some other countries are pouring billions into financing the rebels, and yet they haven't managed to buy off the "mercenaries". The inevitable conclusion is that the initial story for the war was a string of lies: the government's army is not one or mercenaries, it's one of libyans who are not selling out to the foreign attackers and their local agents. The rebels may have the support of one portion of the population, but the government has been showing remarkable resistance, and therefore support, too.

So, suppose NATO attached and conquered the place directly, it's doable. Then it would set up another protectorate, with another puppet government. Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan, Iraq, now Libya. And why not Syria, while we're at it? How many countries can NATO afford to occupy? How many will it be allowed to occupy before the rest of the world feels so threatened that it actively attacks it in its protectorates, like the US did with the USSR in Afghanistan?