Thomas
PROFESSIONAL
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2009
- Messages
- 2,688
- Reaction score
- 0
And yet many here seem to support him.
Libya: Qaddhafi Violates Ceasefire, Foreign Forces Mount Attack
- Thread starter temujin
- Start date
And yet many here seem to support him.
monitor
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2007
- Messages
- 8,570
- Reaction score
- 7
- Country
- Location
Another Obama War
by Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.
Following the US-lobbied UN authorization of military murder in Libya, the death-dealing regime of Colonel Gaddafi said immediately that it would stop all killing.
That put Obama’s war on hold, for a little while. The crazy Colonel has learned a thing or two about American foreign policy. If you pretend to favor the stated goals of the empire and comply with its stated dictates, you can otherwise do what every government in the world is structured to do: stay in power at all costs.
Gaddafi learned this lesson about a decade ago, when, with much fanfare, he announced that he would stop his nuclear weapons program and join the war on terror. The US then decided to rank him and his regime among the world’s good guys, and proceeded to hold him up as an example of wise statesmanship. Then he proceeded to dig in more deeply and tighten his despotic control over his citizens, all with the implied blessing of the US.
But this time it may not work. For weeks, American officials have been decrying Gaddafi’s bloody attacks on his people, but does the US really have a problem with dictatorship of his sort? This fact is unknown to Americans, but in the Middle East, and in Arab nations in particular, American commercial interests are regarded as a force for liberation but not the US government. The US has been the key to the power of Middle East dictatorships for decades, among which are Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Yemen. I leave aside the killing of hundreds of thousands of Iaqi civilians to liberate them.
So it is something of a joke that the US would push a war against Libya in order to save that country from dictatorship. More likely, the real issue here is the same one that inspired the wars against Iraq: the ownership and control of the oil. And even if freedom were the driving motivation, when in modern history has war ever actually brought that to people? All war by nation states today ends in massive civilian deaths, destruction of infrastructure, political upheaval without end (see Afghanistan and Iraq), vast expense, and bitterness all around.
War will not achieve its claimed objective. It might even end up entrenching Gaddafi’s power. But let’s say that he ends up dead, like Saddam Hussein. What then? The new government will be handpicked by the victor, and never gain any credibility, just as in Iraq. People resent foreign conquerors even more than local despots, and this resentment is not a good foundation for a future of liberty.
President Obama probably looks at the prospect of war rather lustily, just as Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan, et al. did before him. But this time, there is a problem. The US simply cannot afford to be seen as attacking yet another Muslim country, though that is what it is doing, at a time when all the world knows that US foreign policy is primarily based on whipping up anti-Islamic feelings the world over, and taking over the oil.
For this reason, the Obama administration must seek the cover of the UN and the cooperation of other Arab states. England and France have been reliable, but not Germany and not other Arab states, so the operation could end up more tricky than he initially supposed.
Let’s just pretend for a moment that the US government really does want to free the people of Libya from a wicked man. What is the right way to go about it? There is the assassination option, which I oppose but which would nonetheless be a much better choice than war. What of the US’s legendary CIA hitmen that can take down anyone on the planet following a few orders from on high? Where are they now?
Recall that in the last days before the last war on Iraq, a spokesman for Saddam actually did propose a duel between Bush or Cheney and Saddam or his vice president. It was not an unserious suggestion. This would have been a much better option for both Iraq and America, but then the government doesn’t really get what it wants out of war, which is a chance to blow things up, spend gobs of money, whip up the population in war frenzy, and inspire another bout of nationalistic hysteria that helps consolidate power for the war-making regime.
Is it possible to both oppose Gaddafi and oppose a war on Gaddafi? Absolutely. This is a position that all Americans should adopt. In the same way, it is possible to oppose the Obama administration but also oppose having a foreign army oust him in order to liberate us.
In the early days of the protests in Libya against Gaddafi, the protesters held up signs opposing any foreign intervention. This is still the right approach. There should be no war, no blockades, no impositions of a “no-fly zone,” or anything else. The US has been a supporter and backer of Gaddafi for a decade. That damage is already done. Going to war would only compound it.
For the sake of freedom and human rights, we must say no to war. We must also say no to all forms of foreign intervention that support dictatorships until they become too politically embarrassing to Washington, D.C.
March 19, 2011
Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr. [send him mail], former editorial assistant to Ludwig von Mises and congressional chief of staff to Ron Paul, is founder and chairman of the Mises Institute, executor for the estate of Murray N. Rothbard, and editor of LewRockwell.com.
Copyright © 2011 by LewRockwell.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.
by Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.
Following the US-lobbied UN authorization of military murder in Libya, the death-dealing regime of Colonel Gaddafi said immediately that it would stop all killing.
That put Obama’s war on hold, for a little while. The crazy Colonel has learned a thing or two about American foreign policy. If you pretend to favor the stated goals of the empire and comply with its stated dictates, you can otherwise do what every government in the world is structured to do: stay in power at all costs.
Gaddafi learned this lesson about a decade ago, when, with much fanfare, he announced that he would stop his nuclear weapons program and join the war on terror. The US then decided to rank him and his regime among the world’s good guys, and proceeded to hold him up as an example of wise statesmanship. Then he proceeded to dig in more deeply and tighten his despotic control over his citizens, all with the implied blessing of the US.
But this time it may not work. For weeks, American officials have been decrying Gaddafi’s bloody attacks on his people, but does the US really have a problem with dictatorship of his sort? This fact is unknown to Americans, but in the Middle East, and in Arab nations in particular, American commercial interests are regarded as a force for liberation but not the US government. The US has been the key to the power of Middle East dictatorships for decades, among which are Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Yemen. I leave aside the killing of hundreds of thousands of Iaqi civilians to liberate them.
So it is something of a joke that the US would push a war against Libya in order to save that country from dictatorship. More likely, the real issue here is the same one that inspired the wars against Iraq: the ownership and control of the oil. And even if freedom were the driving motivation, when in modern history has war ever actually brought that to people? All war by nation states today ends in massive civilian deaths, destruction of infrastructure, political upheaval without end (see Afghanistan and Iraq), vast expense, and bitterness all around.
War will not achieve its claimed objective. It might even end up entrenching Gaddafi’s power. But let’s say that he ends up dead, like Saddam Hussein. What then? The new government will be handpicked by the victor, and never gain any credibility, just as in Iraq. People resent foreign conquerors even more than local despots, and this resentment is not a good foundation for a future of liberty.
President Obama probably looks at the prospect of war rather lustily, just as Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan, et al. did before him. But this time, there is a problem. The US simply cannot afford to be seen as attacking yet another Muslim country, though that is what it is doing, at a time when all the world knows that US foreign policy is primarily based on whipping up anti-Islamic feelings the world over, and taking over the oil.
For this reason, the Obama administration must seek the cover of the UN and the cooperation of other Arab states. England and France have been reliable, but not Germany and not other Arab states, so the operation could end up more tricky than he initially supposed.
Let’s just pretend for a moment that the US government really does want to free the people of Libya from a wicked man. What is the right way to go about it? There is the assassination option, which I oppose but which would nonetheless be a much better choice than war. What of the US’s legendary CIA hitmen that can take down anyone on the planet following a few orders from on high? Where are they now?
Recall that in the last days before the last war on Iraq, a spokesman for Saddam actually did propose a duel between Bush or Cheney and Saddam or his vice president. It was not an unserious suggestion. This would have been a much better option for both Iraq and America, but then the government doesn’t really get what it wants out of war, which is a chance to blow things up, spend gobs of money, whip up the population in war frenzy, and inspire another bout of nationalistic hysteria that helps consolidate power for the war-making regime.
Is it possible to both oppose Gaddafi and oppose a war on Gaddafi? Absolutely. This is a position that all Americans should adopt. In the same way, it is possible to oppose the Obama administration but also oppose having a foreign army oust him in order to liberate us.
In the early days of the protests in Libya against Gaddafi, the protesters held up signs opposing any foreign intervention. This is still the right approach. There should be no war, no blockades, no impositions of a “no-fly zone,” or anything else. The US has been a supporter and backer of Gaddafi for a decade. That damage is already done. Going to war would only compound it.
For the sake of freedom and human rights, we must say no to war. We must also say no to all forms of foreign intervention that support dictatorships until they become too politically embarrassing to Washington, D.C.
March 19, 2011
Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr. [send him mail], former editorial assistant to Ludwig von Mises and congressional chief of staff to Ron Paul, is founder and chairman of the Mises Institute, executor for the estate of Murray N. Rothbard, and editor of LewRockwell.com.
Copyright © 2011 by LewRockwell.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.
President Camacho
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2011
- Messages
- 1,680
- Reaction score
- 0
That's because all the people like you and I want this killing to end. Just to oppose us, no other reason.
dbc
PDF THINK TANK: ANALYST
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2009
- Messages
- 6,551
- Reaction score
- 14
- Country
- Location
Western 'oil' interests are better served by Muammar Muhammad al-Gaddafi as evidenced by the Libyan oil production graphic below.
By your rationale, Western nations should be intervening to keep Gaddafi in power there by securing oil revenues for its oil firms, not remove him.
hembo
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2009
- Messages
- 3,395
- Reaction score
- -3
- Country
- Location
110319-N-7293M-003 MEDITERANEAN SEA (March 19, 2011) Seen through night-vision lenses aboard amphibious transport dock USS Ponce (LPD 15), the guided missile destroyer USS Barry (DDG 52) fires Tomahawk cruise missiles in support of Operation Odyssey Dawn. This was one of approximately 110 cruise missiles fired from U.S. and British ships and submarines that targeted about 20 radar and anti-aircraft sites along Libya's Mediterranean coast. Joint Task Force Odyssey Dawn is the U.S. Africa Command task force established to provide operational and tactical command and control of U.S. military forces supporting the international response to the unrest in Libya and enforcement of United Nations Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 1973. (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 1st Class Nathanael Miller/Released)
-----------------------
110319-N-XO436-134 MEDITERRANEAN SEA (March. 19, 2011) The Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyer USS Barry (DDG 52) launches a Tomahawk missile in support of Operation Odyssey Dawn. This was one of approximately 110 cruise missiles fired from U.S. and British ships and submarines that targeted about 20 radar and anti-aircraft sites along Libya's Mediterranean coast. Joint Task Force Odyssey Dawn is the U.S. Africa Command task force established to provide operational and tactical command and control of U.S. military forces supporting the international response to the unrest in Libya and enforcement of United Nations Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 1973. (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 3rd Class Jonathan Sunderman/Released)
---------------
110319-N-2593S-164 MEDITERANEAN SEA (March 19, 2011) The Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyer USS Stout (DDG 55)launches a Tomahawk missile in support of Operation Odyssey Dawn. This was one of approximately 110 cruise missiles fired from U.S. and British ships and submarines that targeted about 20 radar and anti-aircraft sites along Libya's Mediterranean coast. Joint Task Force Odyssey Dawn is the U.S. Africa Command task force established to provide operational and tactical command and control of U.S. military forces supporting the international response to the unrest in Libya and enforcement of United Nations Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 1973. (U.S. Navy photo by Sonar Technician (Surface) 3rd Class Jeramy Spivey/Released)
hembo
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2009
- Messages
- 3,395
- Reaction score
- -3
- Country
- Location
Gaddafi's Latin American allies - most prominent among them Hugo Chávez, the Venezuelan president - have lined up to condemn the military strikes. The presidents of Bolivia and Nicuragua, Evo Morales and Daniel Ortega, joined him in denouncing the attacks as being aimed at getting hold of Libya's oil. Fidel Castro, ex-president and father of Cuba's revolution, also chimed in, saying the attacks represent western capitalist excess doing its worst.
Chávez had this to say:
More death, more war. They are the masters of war. What irresponsibility. And behind that is the hand of the United States and its European allies. They want to seize Libya's oil. The lives of Libya's people don't matter to them at all.
It is deplorable that once again the warmongering policy of the yankee empire and its allies is being imposed, and it is deplorable that the United Nations lends itself to supporting war, infringing on its fundamental principles instead of urgently forming a commission to go to Libya.
Chávez had this to say:
More death, more war. They are the masters of war. What irresponsibility. And behind that is the hand of the United States and its European allies. They want to seize Libya's oil. The lives of Libya's people don't matter to them at all.
It is deplorable that once again the warmongering policy of the yankee empire and its allies is being imposed, and it is deplorable that the United Nations lends itself to supporting war, infringing on its fundamental principles instead of urgently forming a commission to go to Libya.
hembo
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2009
- Messages
- 3,395
- Reaction score
- -3
- Country
- Location
Here's video of the USS Burke, a guided-missile destroyer, firing a Tomahawk cruise missile at Libya. According to a tweet from CNN's Wolf Blitzer, each Tomahawk costs around $1 million, and the United States has fired more than 100 so far.
DVIDS - Video - Operation Odyssey Dawn: USS Barry Launches Tomahawk Missile
DVIDS - Video - Operation Odyssey Dawn: USS Barry Launches Tomahawk Missile
hembo
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2009
- Messages
- 3,395
- Reaction score
- -3
- Country
- Location
The African Union has reportedly joined China in expressing disapproval of the coalition's military action against Libya. The AU's Libya committee met in Mauritania and released a statement on Sunday calling for an "immediate halt" to the attacks, the AFP news agency reported.
The AU was created in 1999 after a summit in Sirte, Muammar Gaddafi's hometown, and Libya has both funded the AU and established extensive economic interests throughout sub-Saharan Africa.
Add Russia to the list of those disapproving of military action in Libya. China has "expressed regret," the African Union has called for an "immediate halt," and now Moscow has "reacted 'with regret'" to the air strikes, according to a report by CNN.
The Russian statement said that the UN Security Council resolution on Libya - which came more than a month after the regime began killing civilian protesters - was "hastily adopted".
If they are condemning it so much, why didn't (Russia and China) they vetoed the resolution?
Someone rightly said; "Is Hamam mein Sab Nange hain" (Everybody is naked inside this bathroom).
The AU was created in 1999 after a summit in Sirte, Muammar Gaddafi's hometown, and Libya has both funded the AU and established extensive economic interests throughout sub-Saharan Africa.
Add Russia to the list of those disapproving of military action in Libya. China has "expressed regret," the African Union has called for an "immediate halt," and now Moscow has "reacted 'with regret'" to the air strikes, according to a report by CNN.
The Russian statement said that the UN Security Council resolution on Libya - which came more than a month after the regime began killing civilian protesters - was "hastily adopted".
If they are condemning it so much, why didn't (Russia and China) they vetoed the resolution?
Someone rightly said; "Is Hamam mein Sab Nange hain" (Everybody is naked inside this bathroom).
hembo
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2009
- Messages
- 3,395
- Reaction score
- -3
- Country
- Location
Here is a timeline of the major developments in Libya since the start of protests inspired by uprisings in Tunisia and Egypt. It's been chopped down from a lengthy Press Association filing. It shows that when civilians began taking to the streets calling for change, Gaddafi responded immediately with deadly force.
17 February: Libyan protesters start demonstrating. Security forces respond with snipers and live fire.
18 February: 35 protesters are reportedly shot by Libyan security forces and taken to hospital after attempting to march on one of leader Colonel Muammar Gaddafi's homes.
22 February: Gaddafi vows to fight to his "last drop of blood" and on television calls for his supporters to "fill the streets" and "attack (the protesters) in their lairs".
23 February: British government begins its delayed evacuation of Libya. A day later, the EU and Russia condemn governments in north Africa and the Middle East for using force to break up peaceful demonstrations. Gaddafi rolls out his now-familiar tactic of blaming al-Qaida for the uprisings.
4 March: Interpol issues an "orange notice" worldwide alert against Gaddafi and 15 associates.
15 March: Gaddafi's troops begin bombing the eastern city of Ajdabiya to retake it from Libyan rebels. A day later the UN security council starts debating a no-fly zone. The Arab League, Britain and France back the resolution, tabled by Lebanon, while Russia and Germany express doubts. The UN secretary general, Ban Ki-moon, calls for an immediate unilateral ceasefire in Libya.
17 March: The security council approves a no-fly zone and "all necessary measures" to protect civilians in Libya. The resolution is backed by 10 Security Council members, with five abstentions, but crucially there is no veto.
18 March: The Gaddafi regime responds to the resolution by announcing an immediate ceasefire and "the stoppage of all military operations" but its forces continue to attack the opposition-held cities of Misrata and Adjadbiya.
19 March: Leaders from Europe, the US and Arab League meet in Paris and switfly agree to send in the jets. The French jump the gun, sending in warplanes before the official agreement. Overnight the attacks begin on Gaddafi bases and positions
17 February: Libyan protesters start demonstrating. Security forces respond with snipers and live fire.
18 February: 35 protesters are reportedly shot by Libyan security forces and taken to hospital after attempting to march on one of leader Colonel Muammar Gaddafi's homes.
22 February: Gaddafi vows to fight to his "last drop of blood" and on television calls for his supporters to "fill the streets" and "attack (the protesters) in their lairs".
23 February: British government begins its delayed evacuation of Libya. A day later, the EU and Russia condemn governments in north Africa and the Middle East for using force to break up peaceful demonstrations. Gaddafi rolls out his now-familiar tactic of blaming al-Qaida for the uprisings.
4 March: Interpol issues an "orange notice" worldwide alert against Gaddafi and 15 associates.
15 March: Gaddafi's troops begin bombing the eastern city of Ajdabiya to retake it from Libyan rebels. A day later the UN security council starts debating a no-fly zone. The Arab League, Britain and France back the resolution, tabled by Lebanon, while Russia and Germany express doubts. The UN secretary general, Ban Ki-moon, calls for an immediate unilateral ceasefire in Libya.
17 March: The security council approves a no-fly zone and "all necessary measures" to protect civilians in Libya. The resolution is backed by 10 Security Council members, with five abstentions, but crucially there is no veto.
18 March: The Gaddafi regime responds to the resolution by announcing an immediate ceasefire and "the stoppage of all military operations" but its forces continue to attack the opposition-held cities of Misrata and Adjadbiya.
19 March: Leaders from Europe, the US and Arab League meet in Paris and switfly agree to send in the jets. The French jump the gun, sending in warplanes before the official agreement. Overnight the attacks begin on Gaddafi bases and positions
hembo
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2009
- Messages
- 3,395
- Reaction score
- -3
- Country
- Location
Timothy Katungi in the UK writes: "Has the West considered the demographics of Libya? Is any of the leaders in the West aware of the tribal divisions in Libya? Western democracy can not work in Libya, the events unfolding in Libya will only succeed if at all by dividing the Libya into tribal settings, for Libya to stay as one country, it has to be led by a dictator. The west is once again displaying its double standards by ignoring events happening in other Arab States because they are poor and concentrating on Libya because of its wealth."
---------- Post added at 08:14 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:13 AM ----------
A report from the BBC that Gaddafi's forces have been up to their now-familiar body snatching tricks, previously used to try and conceal the death toll among protesters.
Abdel, a doctor in the town of Misrata, Libya, about 200km east of Tripoli, tells BBC World television that Gaddafi loyalists have been moving the bodies of people killed in clashes between rebels and government forces to sites that have been bombed by the coalition to make it appear they have died in the strikes.
---------- Post added at 08:14 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:13 AM ----------
A report from the BBC that Gaddafi's forces have been up to their now-familiar body snatching tricks, previously used to try and conceal the death toll among protesters.
Abdel, a doctor in the town of Misrata, Libya, about 200km east of Tripoli, tells BBC World television that Gaddafi loyalists have been moving the bodies of people killed in clashes between rebels and government forces to sites that have been bombed by the coalition to make it appear they have died in the strikes.
hembo
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2009
- Messages
- 3,395
- Reaction score
- -3
- Country
- Location
More information on the force that has been deployed against Libya in the past 24 hours. CBS News reports: Three U.S. B-2 stealth bombers dropped 40 bombs on a major Libyan airfield.
The CBS Report Link
The CBS Report Link
hembo
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2009
- Messages
- 3,395
- Reaction score
- -3
- Country
- Location
The New York Times reports that hundreds of Col Gaddafi's supporters on Saturday offered themselves up as human shields outside his heavily fortified compound in Tripoli. The crowd included women and children, and some said they had family among the government's forces. The paper said shouted: "House by house, ally by ally," the catchiest song went, quoting a speech by the brother leader, "Disinfect the germs from each house and each room."
Link to the report
Similar threads
