Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff
StarmanSkye wrote:From the z-net article AD posted:
--quote--
So, to sum up, I believe that from an anti-imperialist perspective one cannot and should not oppose the no-fly zone, given that there is no plausible alternative for protecting the endangered population. The Egyptians are reported to be providing weapons to the Libyan opposition -- and that's fine ...
--unquote--
What a huge, slippery-slope canard THAT nut is. An end to American hypocrisy and NATO duplicity would have gone a LONG way to reestablish the integrity of the Interntional Community and rule of law based on self-rule and sovereignty of nation states. The west propped-up Gaddafi on the one hand, while on the other provoking his radicalization as a principled progressive that wanted to do his best for his nation. Isn't that a major reason why there isn't a legitimate, effective opposition in Libya, because Gaddafi couldn't trust the west not to exploit any increase in political pluralism thru back-door intrigues and schemes? Hasn't that been a common theme in nation after nation the west targetted for neoliberal plundering -- from Panama and Haiti to Yugoslavia, Iran, Phillipines, Cuba, Venezuela, Guatamala, Honduras, Nicaragua and now Libya?
The 'liberal humanitarian' justification for foreign interventions is dishonest, based on a fictitious 'last resort' premise as the ONLY way to solve a problem the west was 99% responsible for creating.
Disgusted ...
23 wrote:
slimmouse wrote:And Jack - seriously ?
JackRiddler above on this thread and a mere four days ago on March 15 wrote:The Arab client autocracies and oil kingdoms have been enthusiastic client states in the capitalist world order and US military allies against the perceived nationalist threats like Iran (before that Iraq, in the old days, the Soviets). Any USG interest in seeing them replaced would be predicated on the idea that they are doomed anyway, so it would be good to get more modern regimes in place, assuming (crucially) that these continue to play ball. And if possible. And the risk is great that it goes wrong from a USG perspective, so there's no way they're too excited about the genuinely popular, secular and nationalist uprisings we've seen in Tunisia and Egypt.
Popular uprisings (mostly secular, and all economic) have challenged all of the client autocracies and oil kingdoms, even Saudi Arabia. Every time one of these uprisings succeeds, as you say, it will encourage more. Under some circumstances USG and NATO might like an intervention to finish off a now-discredited Gaddafi if it creates a more modern client state with which business can resume. They might also quasi like it for "fun," i.e., to meet the requirement of an occasional war to justify the warfare state, prove their indispensability, etc. They like proving that military solutions "work." But not in the present context of the Middle East, where it would indeed serve to keep the wave of uprisings going. And that's even if an intervention is essentially destructive of the Libyan society and/or creates a new client state, because that would only become obvious long after the fall of Gaddafi provides all the other uprisings with new impetus.
Therefore I expect to see USG reluctance to go along with the neocon/humanitarian imperialist push (those who do believe in military solutions). If things continue to favor Gaddafi, a no-fly zone will become likely but there's no reason to think that will alter the ground outcome.
JackRiddler today March 19 at DU wrote wrote:Libyan massacres condemned -- Saudi Arabian, Bahraini & Yemeni ignored.
Given that these events (in Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Yemen, Libya) are all happening at the same time in the same region as part of the same wave of uprisings, I think we're seeing a kind of controlled experiment in assessing how the interests of Western realpolitik play out.
What's the difference?
Not just in the willingness to intervene militarily, but also in the attention paid and the willingness to take sides at all, to condemn the state conducting repression against its own people?
JackRiddler today on March 19 at DU wrote wrote:It should go without saying that imperialist powers never intervene except for interest.
This thread is about what motivates the states now intervening in Libya.
This is not addressed to those who think the Pentagon, the State Department, the UK or French militaries ever launch hostilities in any country for any reason other than that they perceive self-interests that are material (political and economic) or geopolitical (i.e., based in one of their quasi-mystical theories of power, face and grand strategy).
They never do such a thing simply because they think it's right. To be caught thinking so behind the scenes would be an embarrassment (and possibly a career hindrance) to most of the decision makers involved.
They never do such a thing simply because it's requested by one of the sides, good or bad. They never do so because international organizations like the Arab League ask for it (funny idea, given the history of Palestine!). They never do so because humanitarian interventionists think it's a good idea.
The intervention may or may not be justified in moral terms. This is almost never the case, if ever, and in any case is never used except as the pretext.
The intervention may or may not achieve the truly intended purpose. There is much debate whether the US-led illegal aggressive war on Iraq did so, for example, now that Iran has become the regional hegemon as a result of the attack on Iraq, and China and Russia and EU nations have landed the best of the Iraqi oil concessions.
In the case of the Libyan intervention, many partners are involved. Various EU countries called for intervention. The UK and France seem to be leading the political push and making the military decisions. (I doubt China and Russia would have withheld a veto if this was mainly a US drive.) The US is following them to underline its status as first among equals--and to unload a few hundred cruise missiles that will need to be replaced at however many million dollars.
I'll be truthful, I wouldn't have expected it this quickly, because Gaddafi's fall will produce new hope for the other Middle East uprisings, which I think is the last thing the powers conducting the intervention actually want.
So given all that, what's the difference between Libya and Saudi Arabia's massacre of domestic protesters as well as its intervention in Bahrain, where the kingdom is massacring its own people? Or Yemen's repeated massacres of protesters?
I would guess some mix of the following:
- Unlike genocide in Central Africa, a long civil war in Libya will produce large numbers of refugees to the EU. (See above: "The intervention may or may not achieve the truly intended purpose.")
- The Libyan uprising has made much better use of global media tools in gaining Western interest in their plight.
- Gaddafi is a loose cannon and has become dangerous to the interests of two other high-level bastards who until last month were very close friends and cronies: Sarko and Berlusconi.
- Egypt reportedly shipped arms to Libyan uprising, which if true means they threaten to gain hegemonic position if the rebels win without Western help. (I am aware the latter possibility had become unlikely.)
- In general, "we" like oil kingdoms a lot better than quasi-secular Arab states. They look more stable as clients, based on the track record so far.
- Historically Gaddafi has been a back-and-forth case, only accepted fully into the bosom of the Empire since he declared full support for the Bushian global war of terror after 9/11. He's not comparable in importance to the Saudi monarchy, who consider him an enemy (and apparently do not fear the example his downfall might set for their own domestic opposition).
- Intervene in Yemen? The US is already conducting an intervention – a bloody war -- in Yemen, murdering civilians by drone bombings regularly, and doing so on behalf of the government that is killing the protesters! Hello?!
- Saudi Arabia? Alliance with the Saudi monarchy has been a main pillar of the US empire since the establishment of the world order in the mid-1940s. They've played a key role in the global oil economy, obviously, but also as a recycler of petrodollars and as a partner in covert operations globally.
- Unlike Libya, the Arabian peninsula will not produce many refugees for Europe to absorb. Unlike the Libyan rebels, leaders of the peninsular uprisings apparently do not possess the same skills and position or status to influence the global media.
Arguments that the relative numbers killed are greater in Libya (FrenchieCat, JoshCryer) and that this is the reason for the intervention of the NATO countries are laughable. As though things would be different if the Saudis had killed a few hundred more, or Gaddafi a few hundred less.
These numbers come to us as documented in the Anglophone media, by the way. I would think the Yemeni casualty figures are the most easily suppressed. In Yemen the cities are not as big and modern, the reporters are not present, the protesters not "sexy" to the cynical measures of the Western media, the war started several years ago, much of the action is outside cities, and opponents of the government were long ago framed as "terrorists."
Furthermore, compare this to the situation in so many other places that don't prompt "humanitarian" interventions -- places that are far from Europe and less central to US-EU interests. Millions have died in the Congo.
It won't matter what the Saudi monarchs do to their people: excuses will always be found, both for them and for the kingdoms and dictatorships ringing their place on the Arabian peninsula. If there is finally an intervention, don't be surprised if it's FOR the monarchy and cast as a "defense" against "al-Qaeda."
Wow, this is bizarre (or maybe CNN is always bizarre, I wouldn't know because I don't watch it anymore except for ...... now):
CNN is really trumping a "if Qadaffi falls, it will be catastrophic" thing right now. I mean they're pushing it hard.
Heaven forbid the country would break up into autonomous regions that would actually MAKE SENSE and actually prevent having to "need" a hard-assed dictator to keep the country "together"!
It's so weird to watch someone go on CNN and just shove some serious alarmist propaganda right down my gullet.
This tool's name is Brian Todd, talking to everybody's favorite admitted Zionist, Wolf Blitzer.
Wow, now they're turning to a big big R named Pete Hoekstra.
This is like Pure GovernmenTV
Oh, and part of the spiel is "OMG your gasoline prices are gonna go through the roof!"
Qadaffi is a glue sniffing madman, and can't possibly hold the country together ....... but gosh we just can't let the country fall apart .......
What was Castro saying again a few days ago .....?
I"m telling you, after watching CNN I'm convinced the U.S. is gonna make a play for Libya, at least the oil fields. In the name of "protecting civilians populations" and "providing stability".
US about to order Libya invasion - Castro
From correspondents in Havana, Cuba From: AFP February 23, 2011 10:42AM
CUBA and Nicaragua have sprung to the defence of embattled Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, with Fidel Castro claiming Washington plans to order a NATO invasion of Libya to seize oil interests.
"To me, it's absolutely clear that the Government of the United States is not interested in peace in Libya," said the 84-year old former Cuban leader, who still heads the Cuban Communist Party.
Washington, he said, "will not hesitate to give the order for NATO to invade that rich country, perhaps in the coming hours or days."
Anti-war filmmaker Michael Moore tore into President Obama for taking military action in Libya on Saturday.
Moore, a frequent critic of President Bush for launching the Iraq War, unleashed a string on tweets comparing the U.S. military's mission in Libya to Iraq and Afghanistan, using a mantra coined by Charlie Sheen:
It's only cause we're defending the Libyan people from a tyrant! That's why we bombed the Saudis last wk! Hahaha. Pentagon=comedy
And we always follow the French's lead! Next thing you know, we'll have free health care & free college! Yay war!
We've had a "no-fly zone" over Afghanistan for over 9 yrs. How's that going? #WINNING !
Khadaffy must've planned 9/11! #excuses
Khadaffy must've had WMD! #excusesthatwork
Khadaffy must've threatened to kill somebody's daddy! #daddywantedjeb
Moore also suggested that Obama should return the Nobel Peace Prize he won in 2009:
May I suggest a 50-mile evacuation zone around Obama's Nobel Peace Prize? #returnspolicy
Moore's comments came after the U.S. launched 110 Tomahawk missiles at military targets in Libya as part of an allied effort to prevent forces loyal to Libyan leader Col. Moammar Gadhafi from overtaking the rebel-held city of Benghazi.
The strikes on Libya began on the eighth anniversary of the beginning of the Iraq War.
Obama explained Saturday the U.S. and its allies acted to protect the Libyan people from a potential massacre.
"Make no mistake, today we are part of a broad coalition," the president said. "We are answering the calls of a threatened people, and we are acting in the interest of the United States and the world."
The Michigan native and prominent left-wing activist supported Obama during the 2008 Democratic primary race. But since then, he has criticized the president for escalating the conflict in Afghanistan.
Moore penned an open letter to Obama in 2009 on the eve of his decision to send an additional 30,000 troops to Afghanistan, warning him not to do it.
"If you go to West Point tomorrow night and announce that you are increasing, rather than withdrawing, the troops in Afghanistan, you are the new war president," he wrote to Obama. "Pure and simple. And with that you will do the worst possible thing you could do -- destroy the hopes and dreams so many millions have placed in you."
Make no mistake, today we are part of a broad coalition
LibyaNewMedia LibyaNewMedia
Gaddafi using new tactics in cities: plainclothed Gaddafi militias drive around Benghazi shooting people from their cars sowing chaos!
23 minutes ago Favorite Retweet Reply
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 157 guests