The Libya thread

[jingofever]

I've been in the "What constitutes misogyny?" thread too long
I read the headline
'Make no mistake, today we are part of a broad coalition'
in a Nu Joisey accent and thought "That's a bit sexist,isnt it?"

How do you know that isn't exactly what he meant? They Know Who Wears the Pants in This Country:

Look, I’m a sensitive New Age guy — I cook, I do laundry, I choke up at movies (well, Gladiator, anyway). But does anyone think our enemies abroad are as enlightened as we are about feminism? Steyn is right that the specific lesson they’re learning is that nukes are the best insurance against invasion — but a broader one is that our commander-in-chief is an effete vacillator who is pushed around by his female subordinates. Prof. Althouse notes, “A feminist milestone: Our male President has been pulled into war by 3 women,” and Senator Graham scored points with “I Thank God for Strong Women in the Obama Administration,” but we’re going to pay for this.

[Nordic]

I'm amazed at how often our government can trot out the same old plotline, and have everybody fall for it. Or maybe it just SEEMS like everybody is falling for it.

But it sure reminds me a lot of Afghanistan! Let's support "the rebels!" Yeah, that's all we're really doing here, just helping the rebels whip the bad guys who are armed and have an unfair advantage! We're just here to level the playing field, then we'll go home.

HA!

Oh, but the horror, the horror! They're executing women in soccer stadiums, they're killing freedom fighters, they're using mercenaries, it's SOOO unfair!

You've got to bomb the civilians to save the civilians! Break a few eggs, you know?

I suppose the government is working from an "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" angle on this -- hell, this narrative worked in Panama, it's worked twice now in Iraq (!), it's worked in Afghanistan, it's working in Pakistan, we even had a little serving of it in Somalia ......

Why change something that works soooo well?

BTW some photos:

http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2011/0 ... ebels.html

Here's the deal:

(and the deal has already been made):

America and it's corporate/governmental allies are blowing up all of Quadaffi's hardware, right? So they can sell the new government NEW hardware!

And get big construction contracts AND get big sweet deals from those oilfields.

Yeah baby!

Who's next?

[tazmic]

"The de facto role of the US armed forces will be to keep the world safe for our economy and open to our cultural assault. To those ends, we will do a fair amount of killing." - Constant Conflict, Ralph Peters (From Parameters, Summer 1997, pp. 4-14)

[anothershamus]

Exactly eight years to the day that President George W. Bush took America and his "Coalition of the Willing" to war with Iraq, President Barack Obama has taken America and his "Broad Coalition" to war with Libya.

Exactly eight years to the day
Is that a creepy coincidence or what?

From Gerald Celente via rense.com here: http://rense.com/general93/trend.htm

I'm not a huge fan of rense or Celente but it is striking.......

on edit: Oh yeah, he goes on to say this is the start of WWIII. Just so you know.

[JackRiddler]

[Nordic]

"The de facto role of the US armed forces will be to keep the world safe for our economy and open to our cultural assault. To those ends, we will do a fair amount of killing." - Constant Conflict, Ralph Peters (From Parameters, Summer 1997, pp. 4-14)

Best and most telling post on this thread so far.

I saw that, too, in the Big Picture series, and wanted to do something with it. You nailed it.

[anothershamus]

This is dated July 2010! Got sucked in again!

24 July 2010 Last updated at 11:28 ET
BP set to begin oil drilling off Libya

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-10751128
BP set to begin oil drilling off Libya

Oil giant BP has confirmed it will begin drilling off the Libyan coast in the next few weeks.

The deepwater drilling will take place in the Gulf of Sirte following a deal signed in 2007 with Libya on oil and gas development.

The news comes amid major concerns over BP's environmental and safety record following the Gulf of Mexico spill.

It also follows claims, denied by BP, that it lobbied for Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi's release.

The Libyan was convicted of blowing up a Pan Am jumbo jet over the Scottish town in 1988, killing 270 people, but was freed by the Scottish government on medical grounds last August.
Lessons

When the deal with Libya's National Oil Company was announced in 2007 BP set a minimum initial exploration commitment of $900m.

Chief executive Tony Hayward at the time hailed it as "BP's single biggest exploration commitment" and "a welcome return to the country for BP after more than 30 years".

BP spokesman David Nicholas told AFP news agency on Saturday: "We expect to begin the first well in the next few weeks", adding that the wells "can take six months or more to drill".
Continue reading the main story
“Start Quote

There is no evidence that corroborates in any way the allegation of BP's involvement in the Scottish Executive's entirely separate decision to release [Megrahi] on compassionate grounds”

The Libyan well is deeper than the well that ruptured under the Deepwater Horizon rig in the Gulf of Mexico. Deepwater Horizon blew up on 20 April, killing 11 workers.

Mr Nicholas said: "If there are any lessons obviously that come out of the investigation into what happened on the Deepwater Horizon, we will apply those to our drillings across the world."

BBC business correspondent Joe Lynam says that although the Libyan deal was signed three years ago the timing of the drilling is not ideal for BP, given the Gulf of Mexico spill and the forthcoming US Senate hearing on the release of Megrahi.

In a letter to Senator John Kerry, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, UK Foreign Secretary William Hague said the decision to release Megrahi was "wrong and misguided".

However he said it was a "legally and constitutionally proper" decision by the Scottish government.

Although BP did have discussions with then foreign secretary on the matter, Mr Hague said this was a "perfectly normal and legitimate practice" for a British company.

"There is no evidence that corroborates in any way the allegation of BP's involvement in the Scottish Executive's entirely separate decision to release him on compassionate grounds," Mr Hague wrote.

Mr Hayward has been asked to attend the hearing and is said to be considering the invitation.

However, Scottish Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill has again refused to attend the hearing. He said the only material not in the public domain was correspondence between the UK and US governments which the US had not given permission to publish.

Former UK Justice Secretary Jack Straw has also declined an invitation.

A US senator, Frank Lautenberg, said he had pleaded with Scottish ministers to attend to help shed light on the claims BP had influenced the release.

Meanwhile, ships involved in the effort to secure the blown-out Gulf oil well are preparing to resume work after Tropical Storm Bonnie weakened.

The storm had forced workers to prepare for an evacuation but Bonnie has now diminished.

A driller that was detached is now returning to the site to resume work on drilling a relief well to permanently seal the rupture.

[Nordic]

I saw that, too, but in the long run, and considering BP's connections to our government, I think the date is fairly irrelevant.

[justdrew]

1. so everyone would be happier if, right now, Gaddafi's thugs were killing everyone in Benghazi?

2. does anyone really think the alliance forces are intentionally targeting civilians with the intention of killing them? You could do a better job of selecting targets? Gaddafi's entire loyal military ALREADY deserve to die for what they've already done. Lot's of them quit a long time ago.

3. I know, this can be fit into a pre-determined narrative, but just maybe Europe and the US decided to actually act, for once, weeks late, to help a pro-democracy revolution before it's exterminated? and bear in mind, this wouldn't seem to be happening at all if France and Brittan hadn't insisted, on principle, that they were not going to stand idly by and watch another mass slaughter unfold.

4. hopefully they get someone to blow Robert Mugabe's skull off soon. too.

fuck the Arab League. Since when do we give a shit what they say. Of course those two-faced jackals what it both ways.

[Nordic]

Well, justdrew, this seems like a repeat of the Afganistan dealio, where we were just supporting the rebels against those evil well-armed bad guys, The Taliban.

We got out of there in a hurry, didn't we?

And where's Palestine's no-fly zone? Why aren't we bombing Uzbekistan for boiling its people alive (oh right, because we paid them to do that)? Why aren't we acting all noble about how Saudi Arabia treats its people and why aren't we making a big deal out of them moving into Bahrain?

I mean c'mon, this is how the quagmire in Afghanistan started, and you know it's all about money.

It's the hypocrisy that's the most galling.

And we're only "the world's policemen" when it suits the business interests of our Ruling Class, who are already rich and really don't need our help.

And who's paying for this anyway? Teachers? Unions? It ain't Exxon.

Oh and then there's the "Obama has no authority to declare war" but everybody trots that out each and every time one of our presidents does exactly that.

[justdrew]

Well, justdrew, this seems like a repeat of the Afganistan dealio, where we were just supporting the rebels against those evil well-armed bad guys, The Taliban.

We got out of there in a hurry, didn't we?

I don't really think this looks like Afghanistan. This situation is different in many ways.

And where's Palestine's no-fly zone? Why aren't we bombing Uzbekistan for boiling its people alive (oh right, because we paid them to do that)? Why aren't we acting all noble about how Saudi Arabia treats its people and why aren't we making a big deal out of them moving into Bahrain

yeah, it's not exactly fair, no surprise there. but that's just not a reason to not help those who it's politically feasible to help.

I mean c'mon, this is how the quagmire in Afghanistan started, and you know it's all about money.

It's the hypocrisy that's the most galling.

some people say the world runs on oil, but I suspect it's actually run on hypocrisy. again, no surprise, lamentable, but inevitable.

And we're only "the world's policemen" when it suits the business interests of our Ruling Class, who are already rich and really don't need our help.

And who's paying for this anyway? Teachers? Unions? It ain't Exxon.

Oh and then there's the "Obama has no authority to declare war" but everybody trots that out each and every time one of our presidents does exactly that.

yeah, but sometimes the ends justify the means, the alternative of doing nothing was far worse.

don't get me wrong, keep an eye on this, it could go very bad, but so far it's a measured, controlled application of force for purposes of defense of human life; and where did he get all these weapons from in the first place? but things have changed - if the PTB had it's way, nothing would be happening at all except status quo.

[StarmanSkye]

<roll eyes>

Oh Man, justdrew, c-MoN already.
"...but sometimes the end justifies the means, the alternative of doing nothing was far worse."

I heard THE EXACT SAME 'rationale' trotted out in the run-up to the Iraq war.

I DESPISE that false reasoning because it serves as such a convenient end-run around the more thorny questions of WHO was arming the rebels in the first place and WHY, encouraging them and inciting them with promises of post-revolutionary aid & assistance. It is an incredibly cynical scapegoat defense against knowing or caring about the long, dishonorable history of western change-agents on behalf of State Dept and CIA/NSA careerists, the military-corporate syndicate esp. banking & oil company interests.

Your premise also almost completely discounts the fact that US and France and Canada taking the lead in supporting armed rebels have collaborated in the outright murder of many, many tens of MILLIONS while Gaddafi's troops are acting much as ANY state would toward armed insurrectionists and outright criminals beseigning several towns.

For instance, Mexico has massacred hundreds or thousands of Indigenous rights and rural social democrat activists & Commander Zapata followers (many of which just happened to be bystanders or interested onlookers). Its terribly dishonest & misleading to rely on mass-media distortions to thereby conclude Col Gaddafi is an evil despot who deserves to be killed. Many of Gaddafi's worse behaviors were as the result of accomodating concessions to the duplicity of US State Dept. -- so its the height of arrogant conceit to then suppose the US is capable of justice by removing him.

The US could do infinitely more 'good' if it were to restore the international system of rule-of-law, restore legitimacy of the Criminal Court by aggressively prosecuting the US & UK warcriminals among former political & Pentagon officials, and restore a semblance of even-handed fairness & dignity to the deeply-degraded United Nations.

Of course that's not gonna happen as it would take some earnest soul-searching & confessing that US foreign policy has been barbaric, ruthless & criminal -- instead, the US will continue exploiting war, violence, injustice, inequality & suffering.

Finally, 'sometimes end justifies the means' thinking was also trotted-out to rationalize NATO's bombing of Serbia & Kosova -- not only was the pretext of Serbian 'genocide' later found to be totally contrived, but it actually encouraged Kosovar & Albanian massacres of their citizens disguised to blame Serbian troops under Milosevic in order to engender greater 'world community' support for their seperatist movements AND led to far greater casualties than any committed by Yugoslavian troops.

As well as establishing a semi-autonomous Kosova that has since become the most corrupt unofficial capital and major fundy Muslim center of operations for organized crime and corruption in Europe that NATO STILL ineffectively occupies, leading to the ACTUAL persecution of, crimes and murders and reprisals against Serbians. IOW, results that are totally at-odds with initial justifications and that weren't anticipated beforehand.

Tho the US's airbase at Bondsteel which is Europe's largest was probably NOT unforeseen but rather a primary goal of US-led intervention.

I'm just surprised to see you regurgitating the same retreaded faux-liberal do-gooder psyops bait.

[justdrew]

<roll eyes>

Oh Man, justdrew, c-MoN already.
"...but sometimes the end justifies the means, the alternative of doing nothing was far worse."

I heard THE EXACT SAME 'rationale' trotted out in the run-up to the Iraq war.

I DESPISE that false reasoning because it serves as such a convenient end-run around the more thorny questions of WHO was arming the rebels in the first place and WHY, encouraging them and inciting them with promises of post-revolutionary aid & assistance. It is an incredibly cynical scapegoat defense against knowing or caring about the long, dishonorable history of western change-agents on behalf of State Dept and CIA/NSA careerists, the military-corporate syndicate esp. banking & oil company interests.

Your premise also almost completely discounts the fact that US and France and Canada taking the lead in supporting armed rebels have collaborated in the outright murder of many, many tens of MILLIONS while Gaddafi's troops are acting much as ANY state would toward armed insurrectionists and outright criminals beseigning several towns.

For instance, Mexico has massacred hundreds or thousands of Indigenous rights and rural social democrat activists & Commander Zapata followers (many of which just happened to be bystanders or interested onlookers). Its terribly dishonest & misleading to rely on mass-media distortions to thereby conclude Col Gaddafi is an evil despot who deserves to be killed. Many of Gaddafi's worse behaviors were as the result of accomodating concessions to the duplicity of US State Dept. -- so its the height of arrogant conceit to then suppose the US is capable of justice by removing him.

The US could do infinitely more 'good' if it were to restore the international system of rule-of-law, restore legitimacy of the Criminal Court by aggressively prosecuting the US & UK warcriminals among former political & Pentagon officials, and restore a semblance of even-handed fairness & dignity to the deeply-degraded United Nations.

Of course that's not gonna happen as it would take some earnest soul-searching & confessing that US foreign policy has been barbaric, ruthless & criminal -- instead, the US will continue exploiting war, violence, injustice, inequality & suffering.

Finally, 'sometimes end justifies the means' thinking was also trotted-out to rationalize NATO's bombing of Serbia & Kosova -- not only was the pretext of Serbian 'genocide' later found to be totally contrived, but it actually encouraged Kosovar & Albanian massacres of their citizens disguised to blame Serbian troops under Milosevic in order to engender greater 'world community' support for their seperatist movements AND led to far greater casualties than any committed by Yugoslavian troops.

As well as establishing a semi-autonomous Kosova that has since become the most corrupt unofficial capital and major fundy Muslim center of operations for organized crime and corruption in Europe that NATO STILL ineffectively occupies, leading to the ACTUAL persecution of, crimes and murders and reprisals against Serbians. IOW, results that are totally at-odds with initial justifications and that weren't anticipated beforehand.

Tho the US's airbase at Bondsteel which is Europe's largest was probably NOT unforeseen but rather a primary goal of US-led intervention.

I'm just surprised to see you regurgitating the same retreaded faux-liberal do-gooder psyops bait.

yeah, it's usually a lie but sometimes it's the truth. This case? who can be 100% sure. Maybe it was all a setup, probably even. but I don't see any reason why his regime shouldn't end, 40 year dictatorships is no way to fight colonialism, and so many protesters had already been killed, remember just two weeks ago how disgusted you were. Those people fighting now, some of them are just like you and me, and they put their ass on the line to fight back. Should they just have stood by and "peacefully protested" while the imported mercenaries and loyalists slaughtered their way through their families and friends? Where did they get the guns? they took them when they defected, they raided armories, and apparently Egypt was quietly helping in recent week or two. I don't think there was any great need to topple Gaddafi among any set of PTB, this started in response to the other protest movements in the region.

---

what ever became of that "captured" SAS team?

Captured SAS team leaves Libya on Cumbria's warship HMS Cumberland

Last updated at 14:33, Monday, 07 March 2011

An SAS team captured by Libyan rebels left the country on board Cumbria’s adopted ship last night.

HMS Cumberland took the eight-strong team – thought to have included an MI6 officer – after a diplomat’s plea for their release was broadcast on state television.

The team is believed to have been sent to the country in a bid to foster links with opponents of Colonel Muammar Gaddafi.

But the plans appear to have gone awry early on when their helicopter sparked an alert by landing near Benghazi without informing rebel commanders.

The group was reportedly detained after a search of their bags revealed ammunition, explosives, maps and fake passports.

A telephone call from the UK ambassador to Libya, Richard Northern, to a rebel leader trying to clear up the “misunderstanding” was then intercepted and broadcast.

The team was finally freed and left Libya last night on board HMS Cumberland. The Type 22 frigate has been at the forefront of British efforts to rescue citizens who have been unable to flee by plane.

Meanwhile, Abdel-Hafidh Ghoga, spokesman for the rebels’ provisional transitional national council, said: “The reason they were arrested is because they came into the country unofficially without previous arrangement with Libyan officials. Libya is an independent nation, and we have our borders that we expect to be respected.”

In a statement, Foreign Secretary William Hague said: “I can confirm that a small British diplomatic team has been in Benghazi.

“The team went to Libya to initiate contacts with the opposition. They experienced difficulties, which have now been satisfactorily resolved. They have now left Libya.

“We intend, in consultation with the opposition, to send a further team to strengthen our dialogue in due course.”

The news came as the battle for control of Libya raged, with both sides entrenched in key locations and a drawn-out civil war looking increasingly likely.

First published at 11:45, Monday, 07 March 2011

[smiths]

all the other invasions were for power and profit, but this ones for the people?

c'mon dude, zoom forward by 50 years and the period from 1990 through to now will be seen as a continuum, a long war where the dominant US and its vassal states used an international military force to obtain the resources they thought they needed or should control

all political theatre in all countries is irrelevant compared to the primary objective

it really is that simple

[Nordic]

It's just another oil war. We knew they were coming. There will probably be many more.

The biggest bully is gonna get the most oil.