The Libya thread

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Re: The Libya thread

Postby StarmanSkye » Sat Mar 19, 2011 7:12 pm

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 ...
StarmanSkye
 
Posts: 2670
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2005 11:32 pm
Location: State of Jefferson
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Libya thread

Postby 23 » Sat Mar 19, 2011 8:05 pm

"Once you label me, you negate me." — Soren Kierkegaard
User avatar
23
 
Posts: 1548
Joined: Fri Oct 02, 2009 10:57 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Libya thread

Postby American Dream » Sat Mar 19, 2011 8:38 pm

Here are a few quick thoughts of mine on Libya and interventions:

Is the official story of Gaddafi's history accurate? Doubtful, he seems to be more like the Noriega of North Africa, playing bad boy but wheeling and dealing with everybody, including Uncle Sam. The Wilson/Terpil case alone suggests that this is so...

Are the NATO forces to be trusted? Definitely not, look what they did in the Balkans. That said, neither Miosevic nor Gaddafi seem like commendable figures to me.

What will be the outcome of the intervention? We certainly don't know although the powers-that-be may or may not have a clear plan...
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Libya thread

Postby 8bitagent » Sat Mar 19, 2011 8:40 pm

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 ...


I agree. Even so called fellow anti war people I know are all "but the rebels are wanting intervention" and "The 22 Arab nations want it too"(to that I say most those Arab nations are run by psychopathic corrupt pedo tyrants who are protected by Western economic interests)

I forget where it was, but in the early 2000's(like 2002/2003 period) I read only this really great article talking about how the West always invades and destroys a country under the false aegis of "humanitarian"ism. Indeed, it's a favorite amongst Democratic Presidents. None of the Slick Willy worshippers ever talk about how many Kosovo civilians were killed by US planes, how many Iraqis died from 8 years of US carpet bombing and crippling sanctions, nor how the Clintons secretly were bankrolling al Qaeda elements in the Balkan wars(as well as the Taliban's win in 1996)

Panama was just flat out evil. Noone ever talks about that. Even Obama worships at the feet of George Poppy Magog Bush Sr. What was it, nearly 3000-3500 civilians murdered by US stealth planes, turning some people into gelatanous globs from experimental death rays? Dear God, the horror. And all to nab Bush Sr's former CIA drug pal Noriega.

The School of Americas/Negroponte/CIA backed evil that happened in Latin America in the 80's and 90's as well, just terrible. I'm sure you've seen The Panama Deception, Plan Columbia, and The War On Democracy(all three on video.google.com I believe)
"Do you know who I am? I am the arm, and I sound like this..."-man from another place, twin peaks fire walk with me
User avatar
8bitagent
 
Posts: 12244
Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2007 6:49 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Libya thread

Postby 8bitagent » Sat Mar 19, 2011 8:47 pm

23 wrote:



Man I love this guy. I definitely will be spreading that video around. How duplicitously sickening is it to see Hillary and Obama talk endlessly about Gadhafi killing protestors, when Yemen has killed just as many or more protesters. Bahrain too, committing massacres.

Also, I love this guy's particular accent/way of speaking. We need more people like him, Jeremy Scahill, John Pilger, etc.
"Do you know who I am? I am the arm, and I sound like this..."-man from another place, twin peaks fire walk with me
User avatar
8bitagent
 
Posts: 12244
Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2007 6:49 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Libya thread

Postby slimmouse » Sat Mar 19, 2011 8:56 pm

Always remember that the reptiles will never spend a dime of your money, as you pay for their bloodfest through their weapons, on anything that isnt beneficial to them - be that esoterically or exoterically ( I personally feel that the astrological timing of all of this- biggest moon - March solstice and all of that to be more than likely extremely significant )

And Jack - seriously ?
slimmouse
 
Posts: 6129
Joined: Fri May 20, 2005 7:41 am
Location: Just outside of you.
Blog: View Blog (3)

Re: The Libya thread

Postby 23 » Sat Mar 19, 2011 9:06 pm

"Once you label me, you negate me." — Soren Kierkegaard
User avatar
23
 
Posts: 1548
Joined: Fri Oct 02, 2009 10:57 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Libya thread

Postby ninakat » Sat Mar 19, 2011 9:48 pm

Thanks for the videos, 23. Especially the Galloway one.

Chris Floyd seems to have it pretty well sussed out, in my view:

First Blood: American Missiles Rain Down on Libya
Written by Chris Floyd
Saturday, 19 March 2011 23:51

When the UN intervention into Libya was first announced, we immediately heard how the United States would not be in the forefront of the military action; the lead would be taken by other nations, with US acting largely as a supplier and facilitator for the "broad-based coalition" arrayed against Libya (including some real live Ay-rabs! as the interventionists enthusiastically noted.) But it took less than two days to give the lie to this claim.

On Saturday, just after the French -- who have extensive oil interest in Libya -- jumped the gun on the UN coalition and started attacking Libyan ground forces, the United States joined in with a missile attack on Libyan cities. Not a few missiles; not 10 or 30 or 50 missiles -- but a full barrage of 110 Tomahawk missiles, slamming into Tripoli and Misurata.

This was always in the cards, from the earliest mooting of a "no-fly zone." This PR concept conjures up the idea of knightly pilots chasing the aircraft of the evil ones from the sky -- a jousting between combatants high in the heavens, far removed from the people below. But "no-fly zones" are always accompanied, of necessity, by attacks to "degrade" the "command-and-control centers" of the designated enemy of the day. (Almost always a heinous dictator swimming in arms and money given to him by the West before he did something to displease his patrons and business partners.) This means attacks on ground installations and headquarters -- which, as in the United States, are often located in the midst of civilian areas, and, as in the United States, filled with civilian workers. It also means, invariably, attacks on regular miltary forces of the designated enemy who are helping sustain the miscreant's operations. A "no-fly zone" always means a full-scale military attack with everything except ground troops, with an inevitable harvest of civilian deaths. Hell, you can even conduct a whole war with this mechanism, as the United States and its allies did against Serbia.

In any case, the game is now afoot. Barack Obama has drawn his first blood from Libya, which now becomes the sixth (at least) Muslim nation in which he has launched deadly military actions, joining Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia. (Of course, the Administration has bragged that it is carrying out secret wars and covert operations in more than 70 countries, with several other Muslim nations certainly among that number.) The West and its reliable dictators in the Arab world are now fully committed to one side in the Libyan civil war, and are actively seeking to bring to power an armed opposition group led by a man who was a chief agent of Gadafy's repression. (As As'ad AbuKhalil has noted, Gadafy's erstwhile strongmen have "hijacked" the Libyan revolution.) Meanwhile, the autocratic allies of Barack Obama and the other interventionist powers continue to kill and repress unarmed civilians in Yemen and Bahrain without the slightest negative consequence, beyond a few hackneyed harrumphs served up briefly for public consumption by their string-pullers back in Washington.

But this too is another invariable by-product of armed intervention: murderous hypocrisy.

Meanwhile, Abdel al-Bari Atwan (editor-in-chief of Al-Quds Al-Arabi, the pan-Arab newspaper based in London) asks some pertinent questions about the intervention in a Guardian piece aptly titled, "Relief will fade as we see the real impact of intervention in Libya":

    First, what motives lie behind this intervention? While the UN was voting to impose a no-fly zone in Libya, at least 40 civilians were killed in a US drone attack in Waziristan in Pakistan. And as I write, al-Jazeera is broadcasting scenes of carnage from Sanaa, Yemen, where at least 40 protesters have been shot dead. But there will be no UN no-fly zone to protect Pakistani civilians from US attacks, or to protect Yemenis. One cannot help but question the selective involvement of the west in the so-called "Arab spring" series of uprisings. ...

    Gaddafi knows how to play the Arab street, too. At the moment he has little, if any, public support; his influence is limited to his family and tribe. But he may use this intervention to present himself as the victim of post-colonialist interference in pursuit of oil. He is likely to pose the question that is echoing around the Arab world – why wasn't there a no-fly zone over Gaza when the Israelis were bombarding it in 2008/9? ...

    Finally, there is the worry that the Arab spring will be derailed by events in Libya. If uprising plus violent suppression equals western intervention, the long-suffering Arab subjects of the region's remaining autocrats might be coerced into sticking with the status quo.

The last point may be the crux of the matter. Western leaders have obviously been casting about for some way to put the brakes on the Arab Awakening before it sweeps away any more of their reliable client-dictators. Libya presents the perfect opportunity for them to muddy the waters, and try to turn the whole movement into the usual murky, bloody quagmire of global power politics. In any case, it is hard to believe that a burning, yearning solicitude for the people of Libya is what is actually motivating our noble interventionists -- who haven't shown the slight crumb of concern for the Libyan populace until now.

NOTE: To decry the course of action being taken by the interventionists in Libya is not to "support" Gadafy. (Unlike his present attackers, who have supported him most sumptuously for years.) This should go without saying, but of course it can't; this witless denunciation is invariably trotted out against anyone who does not immediately jump on the bloodsoaked bandwagon whenever our leaders start killing people. (You can only oppose this mass production of foreign corpses after it's over -- and even then, you can only describe it as a mistake, or an example of good intentions gone awry through incompetence or happenstance.) But as I noted in the comments here recently:

    To oppose an outside military invention is not the same thing as "supporting" whomever the intervention is aimed against. It is simply to look at the historical record and see what the fruits of these interventions actually are. They are, invariably, a widening of the conflict, a vast increase in civilian suffering (even in interventions ostensibly launched specifically to prevent civilian suffering), years of widening, rippling instability, pervasive corruption by war profiteers, and a further militarizing of world society. It is exacerbating an evil by contributing an equal or even greater evil to the mix.

    This is especially true in this case, as at present, the Libyan opposition is being led by a breakaway faction of Gadafy's own thuggish regime. The leader of the opposition was, until just a few weeks ago, an integral part of Gadafy's use of "brutality against his people." If he and his clique are the ones who take power after an intervention, we will have merely exchanged one faction of Gadafy's regime for another. But I doubt if this would bother our humanitarian interventionists; they have been making profitable deals with Gadafy for years. They can go on making profitable deals with one of his former henchmen just as well.
User avatar
ninakat
 
Posts: 2904
Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2006 1:38 pm
Location: "Nothing he's got he really needs."
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Libya thread

Postby ninakat » Sat Mar 19, 2011 10:01 pm

User avatar
ninakat
 
Posts: 2904
Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2006 1:38 pm
Location: "Nothing he's got he really needs."
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Libya thread

Postby JackRiddler » Sun Mar 20, 2011 12:17 am

slimmouse wrote:And Jack - seriously ?


If you mean a certain one-liner above, read it again, carefully.

I have more complicated clarifications, however.

Guess I must now say the following was wrong?

QFT:

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.


No, I don't think that was strictly wrong, but go ahead and make fun of me for it.

I was looking at US motivations, not the full picture.

My impression is that the EU powers and, perhaps ironically, Gaddafi's enemies in the Arab world (the aforementioned oil kingdoms) have led the way in pushing for the immediate and massive intervention.

But once a military action starts, the US can never play second fiddle. I believe the Pentagon would consider the spread of such a perception to be its own kind of threat.

Exceptionally, I think the intervention is only about oil insofar as it is about stabilizing Libya so that the oil can continue to flow as before. Given present EU immigration politics, I believe it is also as important to prevent a flow of refugees north over the Med.

Remember, until a few weeks ago Libya was integrated into Western business arrangements and Gaddafi was a valued friend. To reintegrate Libya, the West had to pick a side in public. This was no longer feasible with the friend of two minutes ago, Gaddafi.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/di ... 439x691986

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?


Later in that thread, after the typical DU confusion, nastiness and fighting:

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."
We meet at the borders of our being, we dream something of each others reality. - Harvey of R.I.

To Justice my maker from on high did incline:
I am by virtue of its might divine,
The highest Wisdom and the first Love.

TopSecret WallSt. Iraq & more
User avatar
JackRiddler
 
Posts: 16007
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:59 pm
Location: New York City
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Libya thread

Postby Nordic » Sun Mar 20, 2011 1:55 am

On February 23, I wrote:

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 .....?


Then on February 24 I wrote this:

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".


I'm not pointing this out to brag. I'm pointing it out to show that the media was in on this from the very get-go, and those of us who study them and pay attention to them can easily read what it is they're doing.

CNN is 100% the U.S. government's bitch.

Not that I had any doubt, but this is some fairly empirical proof of it.

Oh, and by the way, here's what Castro said, reported on Feb 23, and posted here by 23 (weird coincidence!)

http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/us ... z1Ek50NWEH

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."


"He who wounds the ecosphere literally wounds God" -- Philip K. Dick
Nordic
 
Posts: 14230
Joined: Fri Nov 10, 2006 3:36 am
Location: California USA
Blog: View Blog (6)

Re: The Libya thread

Postby 23 » Sun Mar 20, 2011 11:33 am

http://thehill.com/blogs/twitter-room/o ... ver-libya-
Michael Moore rips Obama over Libya

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."
"Once you label me, you negate me." — Soren Kierkegaard
User avatar
23
 
Posts: 1548
Joined: Fri Oct 02, 2009 10:57 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Libya thread

Postby 23 » Sun Mar 20, 2011 11:48 am

Farrakhan seems to feel that the "humanitarian intervention" may backfire:

"Once you label me, you negate me." — Soren Kierkegaard
User avatar
23
 
Posts: 1548
Joined: Fri Oct 02, 2009 10:57 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Libya thread

Postby JackRiddler » Sun Mar 20, 2011 12:50 pm

Make no mistake, today we are part of a broad coalition


a. intentional?

b. accidental because of the day?

c. in your face?

We all remember the hour when the attack on Iraq was called Operation Iraqi Liberation (O.I.L.), which no one can argue credibly was anything other than C, a big fuck-you to war opponents. Does "Odyssey Dawn" (OD) anagram into the equivalent of Ha, Ha I'm Bush What You Gonna Do About It? Hmmm...

http://wordsmith.org/anagram/anagram.cg ... t=1000&a=n

Days' Ends - Yow!

.
We meet at the borders of our being, we dream something of each others reality. - Harvey of R.I.

To Justice my maker from on high did incline:
I am by virtue of its might divine,
The highest Wisdom and the first Love.

TopSecret WallSt. Iraq & more
User avatar
JackRiddler
 
Posts: 16007
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:59 pm
Location: New York City
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Libya thread

Postby Plutonia » Sun Mar 20, 2011 1:54 pm

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
[the British] government always kept a kind of standing army of news writers who without any regard to truth, or to what should be like truth, invented & put into the papers whatever might serve the minister

T Jefferson,
User avatar
Plutonia
 
Posts: 1267
Joined: Sat Nov 15, 2008 2:07 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)
PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 157 guests