Libya: Curiouser & Curiouser

[oddlots]

Re: Libya: Curiouser & Curiouser

Sorry for the delay in reply. Your condescension dripped off the screen and shorted out my keyboard but I'm back up and running now you'll be glad to know.

Last points first:

But simply throwing out one nut bag doesn't guarantee not getting another one - or worse, whereas the timing on this specific 'freedom and democracy' play is particularly suspect.

Could you please explain to me where I have been guilty of this ridiculous binary logic?

While I am always hesitant to paraphrase Starving Steve - nonetheless he is correct in that the standards of living in Libya are far better than anywhere else in North Africa [snip] Of course these are Libyan dollars, which prior to the 'revolution' were around 1.22 to the USD, but nonetheless hardly the characteristic of a starving, economically oppressed people.

Once again, where have I ever claimed that this was primarily a question of economic oppression. (In fact I have in this or the other thread noted that dissidents have suggested that achievements were made early in Gadaffi's regime.)

The American Revolution succeeded only because Great Britain was preoccupied with France - in fact the French directly intervened in the final battles.

The French Revolution succeeded significantly due to foreign support - which was then surprised by the resurgence under Napoleon.

The Russian Revolution - the Germans sent Lenin back the Russia and also provided arms and money.

This mystifies me clue. First, how does my hand-wringing support for foreign military action to back up the insurgency / revolt / revolution whatever suggest in any way that I need this history lesson? Somehow my support of foreign intervention evidences an ignorance of the need for foreign intervention to carry out a revolution? Logically one would think the opposite. Apart from showboating, what is your point here?

The 'quick campaign' has been going on for 1 no 2 (!!!) month(s) so far - with no signs of implosion.

If Qaddafi doesn't go down in 6 months or less, the political price for the US, France, and the UN will be catastrophic.

Equally so if US/UN/French/whatever armed forces are needed to do the job - as was done in the Ivory Coast.

But by all means continue your wishful thinking - that the 'free and democratic' rebels will overcome the Goliath.

Well I think you're a little premature with that devastating jab of a "quick campaign" now dragging into it's SECOND month (oh the hilarity.) And I thought I was a hand-wringer. You seem seem to be unable to stomach any uncertainties and anyone who is - including, presumably, the participating governments and military in both North America, 5 Nato members, and the (reluctant) Arab League are somehow deluded? Does that seem rational to you?

As for the scary quotes around "free and democratic," I don't know where the apparent "scare" arises in this context. Can you please demonstrate why you think the Benghazi government is going to renege on its commitment to hold elections when it has staked it's legitimacy on this? (And further, how this "freedom and democracy issue" is somehow cover for a regional tribal issue unique to Libya despite the same outcome being arrived at after uprisings in both Tunisia and Egypt in the last, let's say, few (?) months.)

Re. the idea that I believe "people in the higher levels of government act more from altruistic motives than venal"... well this is kind of the straw man that breaks the camels back.

My point in the full quote that you judiciously elised were:

- there are better places to look for moral courage than any diplomatic corps, but particularly the Libyan one presumably
- but given the facts that a) they have left in droves and b) they are likely particularly vulnerable to reprisal suggests that c) there is a meaningful impetus to the revolt (i.e., not just power politics among tribes that we can reasonably ignore as unitelligible, meaningless noise, presumably.)

That this got reduced to the ridiculous strawman above in your response is totally intellectually dishonest.

Finally, in regard to the laundry list of insurrections that starts your post: if you think that in this discussion by "viable opposition" I meant any attempted coup or revolt in the last 20 years I think you are being obtuse. Are you really suggesting that any of these presented the same opportunity for useful and effective deployment of military power as the current circumstances?

The country is split in two. The opposition controls one half, is trying to support two MONTH LONG! revolts in several areas in the west of the country, is on record as committed to democratic regime change, has the support of seemingly anyone who is out from under direct retaliation from Gadaffi's power and many who have risked a lot despite still being under his thumb... and you still can't quite see that this a) is obviously unprecedented and b) can't see an upside, despite recognising that Gadaffi is clearly quite mad?

I really don't understand your argument.

[Shakespear]

Re: Libya: Curiouser & Curiouser

Now this makes more sense to me than most of the previously raised "analysis". The big "Hurra " from Germany may be related to it, being so exposed to the loans to Greece. Now that's what I call a nice "slush fund".

http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=24479

U.S. and European ruling circles focused on these funds, so that before carrying out a military attack on Libya to get their hands on its energy wealth, they took over the Libyan sovereign wealth funds. Facilitating this operation is the representative of the Libyan Investment Authority, Mohamed Layas himself: as revealed in a cable published by WikiLeaks. On January 20 Layas informed the U.S. ambassador in Tripoli that LIA had deposited $32 billion in U.S. banks. Five weeks later, on February 28, the U.S. Treasury “froze” these accounts. According to official statements, this is "the largest sum ever blocked in the United States," which Washington held "in trust for the future of Libya." It will in fact serve as an injection of capital into the U.S. economy, which is more and more in debt. A few days later, the EU "froze" around 45 billion Euros of Libyan funds.

a6.gif

[c1ue]

Re: Libya: Curiouser & Curiouser

Could you please explain to me where I have been guilty of this ridiculous binary logic?

Every time you say: Qaddafi is a tyrant and his people want freedom and democracy, all you're really saying is "Qaddafi must go" - which is the position of Obama, Sarkozy, and Cameron.

What if the 'free' people of Libya want Osama bin Laden or Islamic Brotherhood equivalent as their new freely and democratically elected leader - as the Palestinians did with Hamas?

As for binary logic - only you can somehow equate my pointing out the removal of one dictator does not preclude getting another one, or worse, as being binary.

In fact, it is the assumption that removal of one dictator results in freedom and democracy which is the binary - and totally wrong - assumption.

Once again, where have I ever claimed that this was primarily a question of economic oppression. (In fact I have in this or the other thread noted that dissidents have suggested that achievements were made early in Gadaffi's regime.)

Once again, in your zeal to remove the tyrant, you again choose to ignore fact. Libya economically is hardly the equivalent of Egypt - the latter indeed has a very large empoverished class as well as underutilization of its young labor force, whereas Libya needs workers to the extent of importing them from sub-Saharan Africa.

The point which you have chosen to ignore is that the 'freedom fighters' weren't suffering economically; they wanted their own central bank and their own oil company. And now they have it.

This mystifies me clue. First, how does my hand-wringing support for foreign military action to back up the insurgency / revolt / revolution whatever suggest in any way that I need this history lesson? Somehow my support of foreign intervention evidences an ignorance of the need for foreign intervention to carry out a revolution? Logically one would think the opposite. Apart from showboating, what is your point here?

What you continue to refuse to understand is that most revolutions succeed due to foreign support. They don't succeed due to brave freedom fighters.

In this case, the foreign support hasn't been enough - and if the foreign nations are so supportive of a 'free' and 'democratic' Libya, they will probably have to put foreign boots on the ground - which these 'freedom loving' nations don't want to do.

Well I think you're a little premature with that devastating jab of a "quick campaign" now dragging into it's SECOND month (oh the hilarity.) And I thought I was a hand-wringer. You seem seem to be unable to stomach any uncertainties and anyone who is - including, presumably, the participating governments and military in both North America, 5 Nato members, and the (reluctant) Arab League are somehow deluded? Does that seem rational to you?

The picture put forth was that Qaddafi was some monster that no one but his immediate family and his mercenaries liked. That the tide of 'freedom fighters' would sweep him from power once his armored corps and aircraft force multipliers were removed.

The reality is clearly far different. As the 3rd month begins, and as the rebels continue to fail in making any progress beyond their starting positions despite ongoing overt NATO support, it is equally clear that Qaddafi has a base of support in his own tribe as well as the fiscal means to continue paying his mercenaries.

If you choose to continue in believing the fiction of Qaddafi = black and rebels = white, more power to you. No doubt you also still believe that Iraq "needed liberating" and al Qaeda in Afghanistan was responsible for 9/11.

[c1ue]

Re: Libya: Curiouser & Curiouser

Oh, and since you don't seem to understand the subtext, I'll spell it out for you:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...-50-years.html

October 25, 2010

Nicolas Sarkozy most unpopular French president in more than 50 years

Nicolas Sarkozy has become the most unpopular French president in more than 50 years, according to a new poll.

As his country teetered on the brink of economic chaos because of strikes, blockades and riots, new polls put his approval rating at less than 30 per cent.

The figures made Mr Sarkozy even less popular than President Charles de Gaulle was in 1968 - the year millions took to the streets to demand a complete overhaul of French society.

The then ageing wartime leader fled France and prepared to call in the army to deal with rioters.

http://www.the-vibe.co.uk/2011/03/25...-save-the-day/

March 25, 2011

Le Pen storms to poll win over unpopular Sarkozy

Recently-elected leader of France’s Front National party, Marine Le Pen has enjoyed much poll success due to Sarkozy’s unpopularity, but her far-right policies and France’s leadership in Libya might reverse this.

Marine Le Pen, the leader of French far-right party Front National (FN), stormed to defeat both the incumbent President Nicolas Sarkozy and Socialist member Martine Aubry in a party leaders poll ahead of a general election to take place in 2012.

Unsurprisingly, her two percentage point lead shocked most of France, and her poll of 23% would easily put her into the second run-off of Presidential voting, were this the real election.

[cbr]

Re: Libya: Curiouser & Curiouser

This is an interesting article... I certainly have no reasonable explanation for the US' handling of current middle east politics whatsoever. The US does not appear to have any understanding of its own interests, or any goals for meeting any interest, or any policy aligned with a set of goals. It does not seem to be implementing any coherent set of actions for any purpose.

I can't see any reason for interfering in Libya at all, for completely ignoring the development of Iraq as a viable balance against Iran, or for a moronic attempt at nation building in Afghanistan. That's right up there in proven brilliance with ground invasions of China or Russia in the fall.

Or for neglecting to develop relations with India, or letting our Pakistan relations circle the drain, or completely fail to reassure anyone in the mideast of anything. Letting the Saudi's stew in their own fear, completely ignoring the most critical revolution over their (Egypt), as well as other key sites (Bahrain) and even calling for allied leaders to step down!?

Surely there is some reason behind all of this... but I can't detect it.

[oddlots]

Re: Libya: Curiouser & Curiouser

If you choose to continue in believing the fiction of Qaddafi = black and rebels = white, more power to you. No doubt you also still believe that Iraq "needed liberating" and al Qaeda in Afghanistan was responsible for 9/11.

Clue I'm not sure that reducing your interlocutors to a crude and dishonest caricature and then stomping on the caricature's face is much of a victory but, you know what, if you want it, it's yours.

[D-Mack]

Re: Libya: Curiouser & Curiouser

Libya: Liam Fox under pressure over deploying troops to Libya


Britain “may have to look at” deploying ground troops in the Libya campaign in order to establish safe havens for civilians, Liam Fox has said.


George Osborne, the Chancellor, last month told MPs that the Libyan operation would cost “tens of millions of pounds” although some analysts put the figure at Ł1 billion over the next six months.
The Libyan operation is being funded from the Treasury reserve, not the defence budget, and Dr Fox insisted that costs would not limit the length of the UK operation.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...-to-Libya.html

I still doubt the boots on the ground meme

[c1ue]

Re: Libya: Curiouser & Curiouser

Apparently there are 61 tribes in Libya, and even the French supporter notes that not all are pushing to get Qaddafi out.

Oh, and the US Treasury gets into the act...

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/af...929477818.html

Libyan rebels have fought to take over control of Misurata's airport, after pushing back Muammar Gaddafi's forces from the embattled city's sea port as the oil-rich country's tribes urged the longtime leader to relinquish power.

Rebels in Libya's third-largest city said they were confident victory was "very close" for them in the strategic port city as a UN panel arrived in Libya to investigate violence and human rights abuses.

"Our freedom fighters have managed to defeat the soldiers of Gaddafi" by forcing them out of Misurata, Khalid Azwawi, head of the local transition committee, said late on Wednesday.

"They managed to force them to leave, but not very far. That's why Gaddafi is trying to bomb the port," he said.

There are also reports of heavy clashes between Gaddafi forces and rebels in the desert town of Kufra in Libya's remote southeast, Al Jazeera has learned.

Evacuation of refugees

While heavy shelling prevented ships from docking in Misurata to deliver humanitarian supplies and evacuate the wounded, the International Organisation for Migration said it managed to evacuate 935 refugees to the eastern rebel stronghold of Benghazi, Libya's second largest city, on Thursday.

The vessel, Red Star, had been held off the Libyan coast as forces loyal to Gaddafi shelled the besieged city's port, a lifeline for those seeking to escape to the rebel stronghold.

Al Jazeera's Andrew Simmons, reporting from onboard the vessel before it docked on Thursday, said 25 people were seriously injured, of whom three are in critical condition.

"As long as pro-Gaddafi forces retain their longterm artillery capability, then any calm that might return to Misurata's port would be misguided. It has been clear all along that Gaddafi will go at any length in this battle just as it's blatantly evident that he wants to cut off this lifeline," he said.

Rebel fighters backed by NATO air strikes said on Wednesday they drove Gaddafi's troops out of missile range of the port of Misurata, an aid conduit for the city of half a million people under siege for more than seven weeks.

"The people of Libya are brave and defiant but we need access to oil revenues so that we can feed, protect and defend our families" Rebels' Transitional National Council

"Significant Gaddafi forces" were concentrated around the airport a few kilometres west of the besieged city, Ibrahim Bet-Almal, a rebel military chief, said, noting "co-operation between [his] forces and NATO".

"We're trying to clear this area" on the city's outskirts which was rocked by continuous explosions on Wednesday night as missiles and rockets fell randomly, he said.

Rebels defending Zintan, in the mountains southwest of Tripoli, also pushed back Gaddafi forces who bombarded the town with at least 20 Grad rockets, wounding three people and damaging a hospital, before retreating.

An AFP team in the town late on Wednesday witnessed rebels firing off celebratory salvos into the night as a NATO warplane flew overhead.

Financial lifeline

The United States opened another lifeline by authorising Americans to buy oil, gas and petroleum products from the rebels' Transitional National Council.

"The people of Libya are brave and defiant but we need access to oil revenues so that we can feed, protect and defend our families," the council said in welcoming the move by the US treasury department.

Chiefs or representatives of 61 tribes from across the North African country called for an end to Gaddafi's four-decade rule, in a joint statement released on Wednesday by French writer Bernard-Henri Levy.

"The Libya of tomorrow, once the dictator has gone, will be a united Libya, with Tripoli as its capital and where we will at last be free to build a civil society according to our own wishes," it said.

Levy has become an unofficial spokesman in Paris for the revolt and is credited with pressing Nicolas Sarkozy, French president, to mobilise international political and military support for it.

"Each of the tribes in Libya is represented by at least a representative. In this list of 61 signatures, some tribes are represented 100 per cent, others are still divided," he said.

[don]

Re: Libya: Curiouser & Curiouser

Barbarism Update:

Attack Said to Kill Son but Spare Qaddafi


Libyan Leader Is Unharmed; Rebels Cheer NATO Strike

By KAREEM FAHIM and C. J. CHIVERS 2 minutes ago

BENGHAZI, Libya — Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi survived a NATO airstrike in Tripoli late Saturday night that killed his youngest son and three of the colonel’s grandchildren, a government spokesman announced early Sunday.


Imperialist grab, plain and simple . . . .

[Shakespear]

Re: Libya: Curiouser & Curiouser

I have to admit that it too me many years to "learn" how to read the New York Times, but now it is dead easy.

Libyan rebels and citizens celebrated Saturday in Misurata after hearing reports that Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi's youngest son was killed in Tripoli.

No photos and comment on what the Rebels reaction was when NATO bombed them 5 ft. under the ground.

[c1ue]

Re: Libya: Curiouser & Curiouser

What is equally amusing is the MSM spinning the reaction to this attack.

A word of caution: Qaddafi is a wily one - he apparently pretended to lose an adopted child after the Reagan era missile assassination attempt, though the truth is impossible to tell. Qaddafi also equally wouldn't hesitate to put some part of his family at risk in order to garner international sympathy.

Nonetheless the West has clearly said that he is a target. Apparently British and Italian embassies - representatives of nations who are bombing Qaddafi and his troops - must be protected but Qaddafi doesn't get the same treatment...

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...i130316D75.DTL

Vandals attacked the Italian and British embassies in the Libyan capital Sunday, hours after officials said Moammar Gadhafi escaped a NATO missile strike that killed one of his sons and three young grandchildren. The unrest prompted the United Nations to pull its international staff out of Tripoli.
Britain responded to the attack on its embassy complex, which left the buildings badly burned, by announcing that it was expelling the Libyan ambassador to London.

'Vandals' - I like that. I can just see now the huge crowds of vandals waiting around to sneak in and loot the various 'diplomatic posts'.

Equally amusing:

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...,4826785.story

Enraged crowds attacked the embassies of Britain and Italy in the Libyan capital of Tripoli on Sunday after an international airstrike that Libyan officials say killed the youngest son of Col. Moammar Kadafi and three of the longtime dictator's grandchildren.

The United Nations compound was reportedly looted and the agency was said to be planning to move out its remaining personnel.

The intensified bombing campaign by North Atlantic Treaty Organization warplanes appears to have accelerated the pace of developments on the ground in Libya, where rebels backed by NATO air power are fighting to oust Kadafi after 40 years as the nation's absolute ruler.

NATO has defended Saturday's bloody strike amid criticism from Russia and Venezuela, among other quarters, that the alliance was overstepping its mandate to protect Libyan civilians and may be targeting the Libyan leader.

On Sunday, NATO officials emphasized that their attacks targeted "a known command and control building" and were not designed to assassinate the Libyan leader. Targeted assassination would violate both international and U.S. law.

However, a NATO official noted that "command and control centers don't operate themselves," suggesting some ambiguity in the defining of targets.

Washington and several European allies have said that Kadafi must step down, but have insisted that the bombing strikes are strictly meant to protect civilians, not to target him.

In the last two days, Kadafi has reportedly twice been close to locations where NATO missiles struck.

Britain's Foreign Office on Sunday announced the expulsion of Libya's ambassador as "persona non grata" after news that Libyans had attacked the British Embassy in Tripoli. Foreign Minister William Hague said Ambassador Omar Jelban "had 24 hours to leave the country," saying the Libyan regime "had failed to protect diplomatic missions in Tripoli."

In his statement Hague said, "I condemn the attacks on the British Embassy premises in Tripoli as well as the diplomatic missions of other countries." He said the Vienna Conventions required Kadafi's regime "to protect diplomatic missions in Tripoli. By failing to do so that regime has once again breached its international responsibilities and obligations."

"The attacks against diplomatic missions will not weaken our resolve to protect the civilian population in Libya."

Meanwhile, two leading U.S. senators, both Republicans, said on Sunday talk shows that they had no problem with targeting Kadafi as an integral part of Libya's command and control structure.

A Libyan government spokesman, called the strike "a direct operation to assassinate the leader of this country."

The statements follow the dramatic NATO strike that Libyan authorities said hit a house where Kadafi, his wife and other family and friends were enjoying a social evening. Kadafi and his wife survived, but the bombing killed Kadafi's son, Seif Arab Kadafi, 29, and three of the leader's grandchildren, according to the Libyan government.

On Sunday, Libyan state television showed a body said to be that of Seif Arab Kadafi lying in state in Tripoli, as various dignitaries paid their respects. It was covered in a green Libyan flag — the flag designed by the Kadafi regime—and no face was visible.

Here in the rebel stronghold of Benghazi, the report of the deaths of Kadafi's family members was denounced as a likely hoax meant to garner international sympathy for Kadafi and undermine the NATO bombing campaign.

In Washington, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz) and Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) both said they supported airstrikes targeting Kadafi.

"In my view, wherever Kadafi goes, he is the legitimate military target. He's the command and control source," Graham, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said on "Fox News Sunday." "I'd like to have a pour-it-on approach to get this over with."

Asked if such strikes would be a violation of the U.S. ban on assassinating foreign leaders, Graham said Kadafi was "acting as a murderer," making him a legitimate target.

"He is not the legitimate leader of Libya," Graham said. "He should be brought to justice or he should be killed."

McCain (R-Ariz), a fervent supporter of ramping up aid to the rebel leaders, told a television interviewer that killing Kadafi could be legitimate "if you view Kadafi himself as part of the command and control."

But McCain cautioned on CBS' "Face the Nation" that it was difficult to kill foreign leaders, citing the attempts to target Saddam Hussein during the early part of the Iraq war and the ongoing efforts to hunt down Al Qaeda leader Osama Bin Laden.

"It's not as easy as you think, so we should be taking out [Kadafi's] command and control, and if he's injured because of that, that's fine," said McCain, the top Republican on the Armed Services Committee.

McCain said he was unhappy with the secondary role the U.S. has played in Libya and urged the use of U.S. air forces. But Graham said that he was happy NATO was expanding its operations in Libya.

Here at least there isn't a very weak attempt at labeling the action as being by vandals. And there is a very amusing series of comments by McCain and Graham justifying the action - after all, if Qaddafi isn't a legitimate leader, then no violation of US law is occurring.

And the law doesn't apply to anyone not legitimate...

[D-Mack]

Re: Libya: Curiouser & Curiouser

The UN moves to Tunisia
http://af.reuters.com/article/libyaN...18046720110501

And schools out for Down syndrome..

http://af.reuters.com/article/topNew...74001R20110501

[don]

Re: Libya: Curiouser & Curiouser

" (a) terrible consequence of wars of invasion, which in the beginning legitimize all means of defense, and later justify all means of attack."

from Philippe-Paul De Segur's diary on Napoleon's Russian Campaign and the inevitable descent into barbarism.

[don]

Re: Libya: Curiouser & Curiouser

any merit?

[D-Mack]

Re: Libya: Curiouser & Curiouser

Peter Dale Scott wrote a bit on it, also highlights why France may have been so keen on bombing Libya

The consequences of the $30-billion freeze for Africa, as well as for Libya, have been spelled out by an African observer:

The US$30 billion frozen by Mr Obama belong to the Libyan Central Bank and had been earmarked as the Libyan contribution to three key projects which would add the finishing touches to the African federation – the African Investment Bank in Syrte, Libya, the establishment in 2011 of the African Monetary Fund to be based in Yaounde with a US$42 billion capital fund and the Abuja-based African Central Bank in Nigeria which when it starts printing African money will ring the death knell for the CFA franc through which Paris has been able to maintain its hold on some African countries for the last fifty years. It is easy to understand the French wrath against Gaddafi.<sup>25


http://japanfocus.org/-Peter_Dale-Scott/3522</sup>