the revolution in libya

  On 4/15/2011 at 3:26 PM, delet... said:

I wouldn't agree that less people are dying now that we are actively involved in bombing gadaffi forces.

I mean a future possibility. You could argue that by leaving Gaddafi be, not imposing the no-fly-zone etc, he would go on to massacre the rebels and more, but by supporting the rebels less lives will be lost, no massacre. That is, as soon as Gadaffi's forces are disabled, the rebels will go about rebuilding their country Egyptian style.

As soon as I write that, I see this

Oh well. IN THE LONG RUN THINGS WILL BE BETTER WITHOUT GADAFFI RIGHT, RIGHT??

  On 4/15/2011 at 8:01 PM, inteeliguntdesign said:

  On 4/15/2011 at 3:26 PM, delet... said:

I wouldn't agree that less people are dying now that we are actively involved in bombing gadaffi forces.

 

I mean a future possibility. You could argue that by leaving Gaddafi be, not imposing the no-fly-zone etc, he would go on to massacre the rebels and more, but by supporting the rebels less lives will be lost, no massacre. That is, as soon as Gadaffi's forces are disabled, the rebels will go about rebuilding their country Egyptian style.

The problem with that argument, is that the gadaffi regime has become a lot more moderate in recent years. The fact that the US was able to get a rebellion off the ground at all is testament to this. So in the long game libya would have been more like a russia or china. Not 100% human rights, but as close as you can get, without having to kill 1000's of people (like we are currently doing).

Also looking to the future, there's a real possibility of continuing unrest in libya, as those not tied to our new puppet regime simmer with anger and resentment, over their loss of money and power (and probably over the many travesties of justice they will have to endure, under the new government)

  On 4/15/2011 at 8:04 PM, inteeliguntdesign said:

As soon as I write that, I see this

 

 

Oh well. IN THE LONG RUN THINGS WILL BE BETTER WITHOUT GADAFFI RIGHT, RIGHT??

Yeah well, they did say weeks ago that the rebel alliance was filled with jihadists. lol

Why do you think the US has effectively orchestrated this rebellion?

well for one it has extremely rich oil deposits

  Quote

The discovery of significant oil reserves in 1959 and the subsequent income from petroleum sales enabled what had been one of the world's poorest countries to become extremely wealthy, as measured by per capita GDP. Although oil drastically improved Libya's finances, popular resentment grew as wealth was increasingly concentrated in the hands of the elite.

  Quote

Libya has the largest proven oil reserves in Africa with 42 billion barrels of oil and over 1.3 trillion cubic metres of gas. With only 25% of Libya’s surface territory explored to date there is every chance that actual reserves could see this figure dwarfed in coming years.

 

As Europe’s single largest oil supplier, the second largest oil producer in Africa and the continent’s fourth largest gas supplier, Libya dominates the petroleum sector in the Southern Mediterranean area and has ambitious plans for the future.

 

More than 50 international oil companies are present in the market and together with subsidiaries of the Libyan National Oil Corporation (NOC) are contributing to the country’s current production capacity of 2m b/d. NOC plans oilfield investment of some $10bn over the coming three years to increase potential production.

i don't know either way if the US orchestrated it or not, but i do know for certainty that the humanitarian angle is being emphasized for purely PR reasons. We've been wanting to go in there and take out Gaddafi to get access to this oil since the late 70s. I'm just surprised the US, UK or even France has any credibility left when saying that they need to send bombers jets into a country to help their civilian population especially when they've been openly running land grab/resource grab game theory invasions on Libya for 30+ years

  On 4/16/2011 at 12:36 AM, delet... said:

  On 4/15/2011 at 8:04 PM, inteeliguntdesign said:

As soon as I write that, I see this

 

 

Oh well. IN THE LONG RUN THINGS WILL BE BETTER WITHOUT GADAFFI RIGHT, RIGHT??

 

Yeah well, they did say weeks ago that the rebel alliance was filled with jihadists. lol

  Quote

FYI: The majority of the chanting/yelling in this video are against what the guy is doing, "la haraaam" "No don't do that" "khalllassss!" "enough!" "La! La!" "NO!,No!" and towards the end of the video people started to chant: "enough, enough with this disgrace!"

noone stops them and they keep taking pictures, though

yeah I just felt the need to correct that since a dormmate (he´s from yemen) raged about the coverage of the western media on the revolutions

I don't doubt it's the oil deposits that make Libya feature heavily on the West's radar, but Gaddafi had started playing nicely with the West. See this: http://www.reuters.com/article/2007/05/29/britain-africa-idUSL2965086120070529 US firms got some good pickings too.

From the West's perspective, I would have thought leaving Gaddafi in control, happily flowing the oil Westwards in return for $$$ would be in their interests? Unless they're going for total oil control, which seemed less likely when Obama said no ground troops and backed away leading NATO, I don't see what they're gaining from the rebellion.

Didn't france and the UK step into action after ghaddafi said he would punish them for supporting the rebels, by selling the oil instead to anywhere but europe.

Sigh, it's so hard to push through the propaganda. And just when you think you've finished being frustrated with a pointless hypocritical military action, by your leaders. They fucking start another one.

It's really quite emotionally draining.

  On 4/17/2011 at 12:31 AM, inteeliguntdesign said:

I don't doubt it's the oil deposits that make Libya feature heavily on the West's radar, but Gaddafi had started playing nicely with the West. See this: http://www.reuters.com/article/2007/05/29/britain-africa-idUSL2965086120070529 US firms got some good pickings too.

 

From the West's perspective, I would have thought leaving Gaddafi in control, happily flowing the oil Westwards in return for $$$ would be in their interests? Unless they're going for total oil control, which seemed less likely when Obama said no ground troops and backed away leading NATO, I don't see what they're gaining from the rebellion.

in my mind i don't imagine it plays out like you describe that the West (us, uk, france) merely want some kind of easy access to the oil in the short term. Did invading Iraq benefit the west in any way speaking in terms of more plentiful supplies or cheaper oil? no

rather the Machiavellian strategies in place with the way the US has operated since the cold war, having the tip of africa and being able to control a puppet who is on such an important strategic land mass is the only goal they probably care about. Gaddafi is unpredictable, even if they pay him large sums of money they can't be sure he would play ball (like this rebellion). I think people who run these game theories and who make this foreign policy look at the globe like a giant chess board. Taking out Libya just gets the western empire one step closer to check mate, gaining again more strategic dominance. Even if it's just to build say an oil pipline, with a US puppet in charge it's going to be a much more secure investment

It is pretty easy to forget that war is going on when the coverage is shitty. The last couple of days:

26 April - Conducted 123 sorties on April 26th, including 52 strike sorties. In vicinity of Misurata: 6 military vehicles, 7 technical vehicles and 1 surface-to-air missile launcher. In the vicinity of Al-Khums: 4 Tanks; 2 Heavy Equipment Transporter trucks. In the vicinity of Brega: 1 rocket launchers; 3 military vehicles. In the vicinity of Mizdah: 8 ammunition bunkers.[239]

27 April - Rebel forces claimed a NATO airstrike killed around 12 rebels in Misrata in a friendly fire incident.[240][241]

28 April -conducted 142 sorties on the 28th of April, 67 of which were strike sorties. Targets included 1 command and control building, 1 helicopter maintenance area, 7 ammunition storage bunkers and 5 infantry fighting vehicles in the vicinity of Tripoli. 1 ammunition storage facility in the vicinity of Zintan and 1 command and control building in the vicinity of Brega.[242]

30 April - The Libyan government claimed a NATO airstrike killed Saif al-Arab al-Gaddafi and three of Muammar al-Gaddafi's grandchildren in an apparent assassination attempt on the leader. They took journalists to tour what appeared to be a residential house in a wealthy section of Tripoli that had been hit by at least three missiles, but did not show them the bodies of the purported dead.[243]

  On 4/17/2011 at 11:00 AM, Awepittance said:

  On 4/17/2011 at 12:31 AM, inteeliguntdesign said:

I don't doubt it's the oil deposits that make Libya feature heavily on the West's radar, but Gaddafi had started playing nicely with the West. See this: http://www.reuters.com/article/2007/05/29/britain-africa-idUSL2965086120070529 US firms got some good pickings too.

 

From the West's perspective, I would have thought leaving Gaddafi in control, happily flowing the oil Westwards in return for $$$ would be in their interests? Unless they're going for total oil control, which seemed less likely when Obama said no ground troops and backed away leading NATO, I don't see what they're gaining from the rebellion.

 

in my mind i don't imagine it plays out like you describe that the West (us, uk, france) merely want some kind of easy access to the oil in the short term. Did invading Iraq benefit the west in any way speaking in terms of more plentiful supplies or cheaper oil? no

rather the Machiavellian strategies in place with the way the US has operated since the cold war, having the tip of africa and being able to control a puppet who is on such an important strategic land mass is the only goal they probably care about. Gaddafi is unpredictable, even if they pay him large sums of money they can't be sure he would play ball (like this rebellion). I think people who run these game theories and who make this foreign policy look at the globe like a giant chess board. Taking out Libya just gets the western empire one step closer to check mate, gaining again more strategic dominance. Even if it's just to build say an oil pipline, with a US puppet in charge it's going to be a much more secure investment

While Libya certainly is important in the oil market, I'd wager the US desire to have a suzerain state in Africa is with regards to rare minerals, which will become more important in future tech.

The dead kennedys song "i kill children" is going through my head in relation to obama's bombing of a ghadaffi clan suburban family home.

gleh.

so now that this has gone on for so long and it has now changed from 'protecting the protesters' to full on 'lets kill qadafi and replace him' so essentially regime change like Iraq, and troops have now been spotted on the ground, are people still into Obama's own war?

seems like no one gives a shit, it's just totally fine that we've launched a 3rd unprovoked war of aggression that has absolutely nothing to do with our own national security

Here are some good articles by my buddy Glenn where he makes a very convincing case on why the war in Libya is complete horseshit http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/

"In a pure coincidence, Qaddafi impeded U.S. oil interests before the war" this headline makes me lol every-time because it was beyond predictable

Is it true that a war is only justified if it is in relation to national security?

americans do good with single objective wars.

afganistan - OMGBINLADEN

iraq - OMGSADDAM

libya - OMGGAYDAHFEE

isn't it funny how we go into these things with a clear objective and then we just end up fucking shit up?

it's so easy to sell it now. "hey, you never noticed the other wars going on, so here's another!"

it's just sad the amount of kids on both sides that are fighting each other and dying brutally on the whim of a bunch of rich people.

  On 6/23/2011 at 8:41 PM, essines said:

Is it true that a war is only justified if it is in relation to national security?

trying to justify a war is a slippery slope

  On 6/23/2011 at 8:52 PM, theSun said:

 

 

trying to justify a war is a slippery slope

or anything ever.

great point.

but wars have much greater consequences than most things ever

  On 6/23/2011 at 8:41 PM, essines said:

Is it true that a war is only justified if it is in relation to national security?

the traditional definition of a 'just' war is one in which it is a war out of necessity only for defense. What American propaganda is masterful at as somehow portraying every single war we've fought in the 20th and 21st century as a war of defense, even though arguably almost all of them were nothing of the sort.

  Quote

But the bottom line is, whose side are you on? Are you on Qadhafi’s side or are you on the side of the aspirations of the Libyan people and the international coalition that has been created to support them? For the Obama Administration, the answer to that question is very easy.

Hillary Clinton yesterday

funny how much that sounds like 'do you support saddam or his people'

the democrats in charge of the whitehouse seem to almost be bending over backwards to emulate Bush speak, no worries though they will get voted back in.

spot on awep

ya spot on. makes me conufzzld about my place on this earth

everything is black and white don't you understand

all you have to understand is that when America mass murders women and children it's only for the following reasons

1) the evil terrorists hide cowardly under women and children and use them as shields

2) the evil terrorists don't have an army and are too cowardly to wear battle clothing that makes them identifiable, so essentially anyone could be a terrorist even a seemingly innocent women or child

3) we must murder people in foreign countries that have absolutely no means or capability of attacking us in the united states for our own security .

America is proud to be the #1 mass murderer of foreigners and #1 incarcerator of their own population as well as holding an infant morality rate higher than several 3rd world countries. When you can somehow spin actually torturing people as being accomplished for the protection of the populace you know you are in one of the most awesome places on earth! fucking proud to be waving the red white and blue! america...fuck yeah!