So, NATO is about to send troops to Misrata to help with the "relief" effort.

[EFerrari]

Libya conflict: EU awaits UN approval for deployment of ground troops

European member states poised to send 1,000 soldiers to besieged rebel city of Misrata to assist relief effort

The EU has drawn up a "concept of operations" for the deployment of military forces in Libya, but needs UN approval for what would be the riskiest and most controversial mission undertaken by Brussels.

The armed forces, numbering no more than 1,000, would be deployed to secure the delivery of aid supplies, would not be engaged in a combat role but would be authorised to fight if they or their humanitarian wards were threatened. "It would be to secure sea and land corridors inside the country," said an EU official.

The decision to prepare the mission, dubbed Eufor Libya, was taken by the 27 governments at the beginning of April. In recent days, diplomats from the member states have signed a 61-page document on the concept of operations, which rehearses various scenarios for the mission in and around Libya, such as securing port areas, aid delivery corridors, loading and unloading ships, providing naval escorts, and discussing the military assets that would be required.

The planning has taken place inside the office of Catherine Ashton, the EU's foreign and security policy chief. Officials are working on an "A-plan", the operational instructions that would specify the size of the force, its equipment and makeup, and the rules of engagement.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/apr/18/libya-conflict-eu-deployment-ground-troops

[tabatha]

1. So Gaddafi's forces are hiding

in mosques and hospitals out of uniform to kill unarmed civilians.

[EFerrari]

5. Yes, communism, incubators and WMD, I know. n/t

[Kurska]

11. Have nothing to do with Misrata

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/apr/18/misrata-refugees-libya-benghazi-assault

But hey, obviously it is all in our imagination.

[EFerrari]

12. Hey, obviously NATO military intervention has solved the problem.

That's why no one died today, right?

Works every time.

[sudopod]

15. We'll see how we treat their brothers in Syria, Yemen, and Bahrain.

That will bloody well illuminate whether or not NATO is serving justice or money.

This goes especially for Syria, since they have a history of massacres.

[joshcryer]

20. If Syria keeps going downhill as it is, I will be very very angry if the international community...

...turns a blind eye. Assad is already pulling the "they're radical islamists" bullshit that Gaddafi pulled.

[sudopod]

24. I hear ya.

two peas in a pod.

[Hannah Bell]

117. fuck that "the international community" doublespeak.

[Kurska]

21. So you're advocating UN/NATO intervention in Syria, Yemen and Bahrain?

I'd love for it not to be needed, but if it was the only way to prevent a massacre of hundreds of thousands (As was in Libya), I would support it.

[sudopod]

27. Nope.

I'd rather we not be involved to be honest. However, whether or not we intervene in Syria will show whether or not the OMG OIL people are right. I tend to think we're playing good ol' fashioned cynical realpolitik myself. It looks to me that we are acting in Libya because getting rid of Gaddafi gives us better leverage over the whole African continent...but in taking sides for our own purposes we are accidentally doing good, which is serendipitous for the Libyan arm of the Arab Spring.

We've been pretty open in declaring that we're doing what we do because it serves US interests. But I'm a cynic these days. ;)

[joshcryer]

31. Don't be silly, if Syria needs international intervention, and we act it will still be "about oil."

Syria produces a quarter what Libya produced at its peak, but it does produce oil, and I assure you the "OMG OIL" people will still make waves (particularly because Syria is in the Libya/Venezuela fan club and nothing their tyrants do is ever wrong, etc).

[sudopod]

33. Well of course loonies will never be convinced

But we on the fence will have something to chew on.

[joshcryer]

35. I think that intervention in Libya makes such intervention less likely though.

Because Assad is thinking long and hard as his people continue to have popular protests (not necessarily against him, there are pro-Assad protests, which he makes sure to televise, while the anti-Assad protesters are ardent fundamentalist Muslims who want to be tyrannical). So he looks over at Libya, and realizes that if he doesn't figure out a real solution, he's done for.

[sudopod]

37. Think he's as much of a murdering bastard as his dad?

i hope not. :( nt

[joshcryer]

39. I think he's shown remarkable restraint, but the world stage is watching closely.

We know that Assad has made more concessions in the past month than he ... ever made. So he's certainly "listening" to the protesters. What's going to be interesting is if he does order the people to be silenced, if the military listens.

[sudopod]

40. he seems to like to pretend to be the "well-polished statesman"

I've seen some official Syrian gov't propaganda that gives him the Fairey Obama Poster treament, lol.

It would be hard to keep that facade up if he pulled a Hama.

[joshcryer]

41. He's handling it wisely, let the people get it out of their system, give up concessions...

...and pow, the popular sentiment just dwindles away. It's all a waiting game. He's going to lift the Emergency Law in two weeks, apparently, which will be the last big concession that should shut people up.

You should be paying closer attention to Yemen, imo. It's a much much more volatile situation in the near term. The militaries have split and the UN just put Yemen on their upcoming security council panel (no one here will bemoan this act, though they derided Libya when the UN put Libya on their SC agenda).

[sudopod]

Yeah, I'm sure Saleh was shocked at how fast he went

from being "our bastard <3" to "that bastard" lol.

[joshcryer]

43. Oh, stupid Yemen has oil, too.

So that won't be your indicator either... :(

[sudopod]

44. It's hard to imagine us landing guys back in the Arabian Peninsula in any case, isn't it? nt

[joshcryer]

45. Yeah, credit for Obama, he's staying the fuck out of it.

People will complain about NATOs involvement in Libya but the US has taken a backseat role (much to the complaining of the EU; ha-ha, the war mongering state of the world decided to let you guys deal with it!). And I really don't see Obama saying "Oh, hi guys, let's invade Syria and Yemen."

But the UN might. If the UN does I will be consistent and defend the protesters. I don't know about other people here.

BTW, appears Yemen has more oil than Syria but they both have reserves that will only last until the end of this decade at most. So even if the "they're doing it for oil" people start reveling, I must admit that it'd be a super hollow complaint. So you'd be right that it'd be a good test either way.

But I hope to fucking hell it doesn't come to that. I hope Assad deals with it peacefully (hell, he might actually get elected if he just keeps shit calm!) and I hope Saleh just steps down.

[sudopod]

42. derp de dupe. nt

[PurityOfEssence]

67. So Qaddafi's a monster, but Assad's not so bad?

Have you seen the footage?

[joshcryer]

83. Absolutely, but unlike you I don't write off civilians under the guise of "they're armed."

Assad is in fact saying that the "protesters are armed" and he's following the same tack as Gaddafi. This is unsettling, but so far he has not escalated the violence to the point Gaddafi has.

[bluestate10]

91. I Qaddafi is crushed the way that he should have been crushed a

month ago, tyrants far and wide will take note and modify their bullshit, least they be next. NATO should send in 30,000 troops and slaughter Qaddafi fighters until they drop their weapons and unconditionally surrender. Only then will the situation in Libya be even.

[EFerrari]

63. The government of Yemen has been using training and weapons

we gave them for the War on Terra for counter-insurgency. And there are already Saudi troops in Bahrain to prop up that government, iirc.

[Kurska]

17. So is your complaint NATO isn't doing enough or doing too much?

Or is your position just going to be to slam your fist on the table and shout "NATO BAD" at anything Nato does?

[sudopod]

28. There are such things as shades of grey. nt

[Kurska]

32. So NATO should intervene, but don't intervene if you know it isn't going to instantly work?

And don't intervene more if that is what is needed? I'm just wondering what the exact recommendations for NATO in this thread are.

[sudopod]

34. What do you want from me, exactly?

A full throated endorsement of what NATO is doing now? Do doubts make me a bad person? Can a man not analyze a situation, fail to come to a decision, and say "the jury is still out, IMHO"? There is a lot of history happening. The US and NATO both have a long history of doing things where the public and real reasons for actions diverge from one another. Libya also is complicated, being yet another random mishmash state whose borders were drawn by a Western power, where the east is culturally different from the west, but not nearly as vastly as, say, northern and southern Iraq or Northern and southern Sudan.

Add in the fact that most of what we hear comes to us after being mangled in the churn of media incompetence about history and Arab culture and normal internet noise and it isn't unreasonable to have some skepticism that we are getting the full story.

The history of the world is full of scenarios where Bad guys fight Much Worse Guys as well as more comforting scenarios of good vs evil. The human desire to have a clear narrative structure for history serves us poorly in many cases, unfortunately.

I want us to be doing the right thing for the right reasons, and very badly, but how often has that been true in the last century?

Our actions in Syria will speak volumes about our true aims.

[Kurska]

36. That is a good enough answer for me.

Of course it pays to be skeptical, but I do feel as though if you intend to do something, you ought to either do it or don't. In that regards a half assed NATO intervention is almost as bad as doing nothing in the first place. What was the point of saving Benghazi if Misrata is going to be left to starve?

[PurityOfEssence]

68. Personally, I find your lack of cocksure certainty rather refreshing

Sadly, we're dealing with many--on both sides--who will not relinqush their adamant beliefs regardless of any evidence. What's most galling to me is that so many treat the "tens of thousands" of potential victims as REAL dead bodies worthy of reprisal, when any sensible look at the situation shows no real potential for there having been civillian killings like these. Qaddafi didn't even threaten such acts, even though the lie continues that he did. Hell he even offered amnesty for rebels who put down their arms. We've been played, deeply, cynically played in a way that's disgraceful beyond excuses, and those who will bend gravity itself to laud ANY action of our President are howling in selfish ego-fury.

This is truly the nadir of the hero worship, and it's sickening.

[joshcryer]

84. If solid evidence was provided that wasn't filled with innuendos, I'm fully open to it.

I don't grasp at every single little insignificant report as if it is an indicator of a much larger conflict. The moment people started calling the rebels Al Queada was the moment I knew who was rational and who was not.

[PurityOfEssence]

66. Rebels don't want to evacuate their human shields

They want armed foreign troops to help prop up their "popular" uprising.

[joshcryer]

2. "NATO is about to" vs "EU is awaiting UN approval."

Intellectual dishonesty at its finest. :rofl:

I don't think they'll get UN approval myself, Russia would look really silly allowing this given their "protests" for action to begin with. I'd be shocked actually.

[leftstreet]

3. Why is it taking so long for these people to give us our candy & flowers?

K&R

[Distant Observer]

74. Oh the SWEET SMELL OF COUNTER-REVOLUTION

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x652411

[stevedeshazer]

4. Sending in troops to support 'relief efforts'. What could possibly go wrong?

Smells like escalation.

[EFerrari]

6. Yesterday was the 50th anniversary of the Bay of Pigs.

Sometimes it seems like the last 50 years have been a complete waste of time.

[joshcryer]

7. Did you agree or disagree with the UN's forces in the Ivory Coast?

This appears to be a very similar mission. (Oh, oops, but this one is over oil and not cocoa.)

[stevedeshazer]

8. And that's the first time I remember being scared.

Yeah. Fear. Fifty years of fear.

I remember every damned one.

[Hardrada]

9. And a long downhill slide into the abyss.

[WatsonT]

58. They'll get pinned down perhaps and require evacuation

or some will be captured and need to be rescued.

We'll have to expand our presence to protect this city and the surrounding areas.

Then we can start patrols in force to prevent anyone penetrating in to our declared territory.

[Kurska]

10. Good, NATO ought to have been doing a hell of a lot more a hell of a lot quicker.

But this is a good first step.

[bluestate10]

92. I agree. NATO should have pounder Qaddafi into submission, found and

imprisoned the man, his family and advisers and then got the hell out. No more nation building, let Libyans do that.

[EFerrari]

106. The people that are doing this don't give a damn about Libyans.

They care about oil and about controling the Middle East.

[sabrina 1]

118. You mean like the 'allied forces' did in Iraq??

Do you seriously think NATO cares one bit about the Libyan people?

Have you not been following what NATO is doing in Afghanistan and Pakistan?

The Libyan rebels have, and because of that from the beginning the Libyan rebels stated over and over again that they did NOT want 'foreign troops on Libyan soil'. They did not 'want Libya to become another Iraq'.

Now, what happened to those original rebels?? Someone else is speaking for them now. Ex pats, like te Iraqi ex pats who spoke for the Iraqi people nearly nine miserable and tragic years ago.

I can't believe people on the left are supporting this. It's like we have learned nothing.

[Cerridwen]

13. So, E, what do you think should happen? Should have happened?

What role, if any, should NATO, the US, the EU, or any group of nations take?

I've met you in Chavez threads and commiserated and provided examples of US imperialism and skull-duggery right along with you. Do you consider Libya the same thing? Do you consider gaddafi another misunderstood leader along the lines of Chavez? I have no great trust of the US gov't or western powers intentions any more than you do. What should have happened, in your opinion? I've not yet seen you state that.

My apologies if you've posted it and I just missed it because I'm not here much.

[joshcryer]

14. It has very little to do with what's "right."

Say we turned a blind eye, the entire international community. Misrata would be in bad shape, much worse than it is now (no humanitarian missions would've gone there), but it'd still be under siege. Benghazi and Tobruk would be where Misrata is now or was a few weeks ago. There'd be hundreds of thousands of Libyans trying to get in to Egypt (UNHCR was already compiling data about that eventuality).

What would be the rallying call?

The US didn't act! The US is in bed with Gaddafi! They normalized relations! Look, Hillary hanging out with Saif! Obama greeting Gaddafi! It's all about the oil! The US isn't doing anything because of the oil!

Why do I say that? Because if people actually cared about what was right they'd be supporting the opposition against the tyrant.

[Kurska]

16. Excellent post, thats really the truth ain't it?

USA and NATO aren't perfect, but that also means they aren't perfectly flawed. Sometimes they will do the right thing, as crazy as that might sound.

[Cerridwen]

18. josh, look at the name of the poster to whom you're replying.

Now, go look at some replies in your previous Libyan revolution day XX threads. :)

I've been gone a while. Apparently you've forgotten me. :(

This whole thing was a no-win situation for the US. Call it the bush legacy. Because of what sr. did in the first gulf war combined with what jr. did in Iraq and Afghanistan, there was no answer that would be right in Libya.

Many US citizens and residents suddenly became aware of US imperialistic tendencies and freaked right the fuck out after having been "Rah! Rah!" for one or all of the previously mentioned invasions/wars. I was never one of them. I hate war and violence. I also live in the real world in which mega-corps run gov'ts and get the gov'ts to do their bidding on behalf of the God known as profit.

I also don't have the tendency to think of the Libyan people as a bunch of tribalistic, naive, camel-riders who don't know what will happen to them should the western powers intervene.

I'm on my fifth or sixth tin-foil hat with regard to US machinations. I still think intervening on behalf of Misrata and the Libyan people, versus gaddifi's thugs, was the right thing to do. I just want to hear some stated reasons of those who don't agree.

Now, go comb through those old threads or do a search. :)

Take care and thank you, again, for keeping up the Libyan Revolution threads!

:hi:

[joshcryer]

19. Oh I recognized your nickname!

I just wanted to give you an idea of the kind of response you could expect, if you got one at all.

[Cerridwen]

22. Thank you!

Right after I clicked 'post' it dawned on me you were using my post as a platform from which to launch; so to speak. I do the same frequently.

Sorry, about that. It appears my knee has a bit of a jerk behind it tonight. LOL

[EFerrari]

46. I don't think NATO is in Libya because of the way Gaddafi treats his people.

Maybe that's the best way to put it.

And using military force to address Libya, regardless of how this situation started, seems to me a solution that most of us should already know will not work. Not for Libyans, not for us.

[joshcryer]

49. How about for the people of the Ivory Coast?

The French tanks that finally ended the bloodshed for months? Oh, that's right, you weren't there for the Ivory Coast.

[Kurska]

54. And your alternative solution is...? n/t

[bluestate10]

93. I hear one of my most hated songs welling up in throats. Will Qaddafi hear? nt

[Cerridwen]

55. I don't think so either.

I'm very concerned about NATO's role there as are many of the Libyan people I'm reading these days.

The situation started with peaceful protesters being fired upon with live ammo including anti-aircraft guns; no teargas, no warning, no offer of stand down or else; gaddafi's people (if such they are) went straight for the kill. How does a civilized society respond to that? I know we've a long way to go until we're civilized, but seriously, what is an appropriate response to gunning down ones own citizens?

Western corporations made damned sure there's no room for diplomacy in Libya.

[EFerrari]

59. Protestors have been fired on in every single country

in the ME that has had or is having unrest.

CIA was on the ground. And unlike Egypt, a governing "interim council" packed with expats living in the US sprang up fully formed from someone's head.

As far as how a civilized society respond to government violence, I would suggest that it isn't to capitalize on the misery of the Libyan people while lying to its own. Despite the propaganda campaign being waged on us, we already know that Gaddafi does respond to diplomacy because of his track record and because he just made a deal with the UN to allow UN officials in to assess the humanitarian situation.

[Cerridwen]

64. Yeah, I didn't think we'd find common ground or agreement here.

I just had to try.

[EFerrari]

65. It's all right.

:)

Amy did two interviews on Libya today. One with a Libyan diplomat who resigned and is now working as a leader in the opposition and one with Phyllis Bennis. Both worth watching.

[joshcryer]

90. "Gaddafi does respond to diplomacy"

Wow.

[Kurska]

114. dupe n/t

[Kurska]

115. " Gaddafi does respond to diplomacy because of his track record " which track record?

The one with the blowing up of civilian airliners, or the one where he disappeared thousands of his own citizens over his years of brutal dictatorship? How about the repeated claims of a ceasefire followed by massive offensives against rebels?

[EFerrari]

133. There is no moral high ground America can take on raining death on civilians from the sky.

You know, I've been hearing some version of this cr@P story every since I was 15. I distinctly remember the conversation in my high school Spanish 5 class where the whole class was making your argument to defend staying in Viet Nam. My teacher was right, it's cr@P. The rationale was wrong then and it's still wrong today.

Maybe you have to witness this cycle five or ten times before you realize, it's cr@P.

NATO doesn't give a damn about Libyans just as Bush didn't give a shit about Iraqis and like Reagan didn't give a damn about the people of Nicaragua, like Nixon and Johnson didn't give a shit about the Vietnamese. They care about geopolitical control which translates into profit for their cronies. That's all this is about.

But every time, they have to feed atrocity stories to the American public as if they care what any leader anywhere does to his people and they don't mind embroidering and the propaganda is relentless. Every single time. Just once before I croak it would be a relief for a president to say, "I want that piece of real estate and I'm going to do my best to get it no matter what because I can. My friends are going to get rich and my job will be done. "

[inna]

23. wake up and smell... imperialism. sigh. kr

[Kurska]

25. Ah but Gadaffi will counter such imperialist swine with his cluster bombs of freedom!

http://www.democracynow.org/2011/4/18/headlines/gaddafi_forces_accused_of_firing_cluster_bombs

:sarcasm:

[inna]

26. fucking pathetic.

try harder next time, will ya.

:thumbsdown:

[Kurska]

30. Don't worry snipers of freedom will fire their bullets of liberation into the people of Misrata

So they can't be enslaved by NATO's imperialist bandages, food and fresh water!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/in-besieged-libyan-city-nowhere-to-run/2011/04/18/AF6pjp1D_story.html

[EFerrari]

50. It's a little inconsistent to support a military solution and then complain

about the war.

[joshcryer]

51. That presumes the snipers are a result of the solution as opposed to a reason...

...for the solution to be created in the first place.

And it's just more intellectual dishonesty.

[PurityOfEssence]

69. Boy, you certainly do like to call people "intellectually dishonest", don't you?

It must offend your personal habits of unintellectual dishonesty and emotional vilification. You've been shown to be incorrect and deliberately misleading many times and by many people, but I've yet to see any admission or contrition. That's just the way with people who have declared themselves morally "correct": they are henceforth absolved of any rules of communal comportment.

Have a happy bloodbath from now on, because these deaths are truly the fault of the interventionists.

[joshcryer]

85. You think it's intellectually honest to say snipers are the result of intervention?

I'm not incorrect in this instance, and I believe I've been remarkably on the mark with this conflict, I predicted the types of anti-Libyan slanders long before the UN even got involved. I knew that the very people who were supporting them would change their tune, no matter what. They all pretend to be "enlightened" but the fact is they're simply anti-west and anything that falls in line with being anti-west is justifiable.

But Gaddafi is fighting an armed insurrection!

Better hope the other places in the middle east don't fall to fighting because the truth of your stance will be tested, hard, and I expect silence, as usual.

[bluestate10]

98. How can any person that has been awake for the last month claim that snipers

are positioned in response to NATO intervention. Snipers were position during the first two weeks, purely for the purpose of inflicting terror on any civilian that dared stick their head out of a door. What the fuck is going on in some people's heads?

[PurityOfEssence]

124. And who on earth are YOU talking about?

If you're just dittoing that poster, you'd do better to either check the source material or find someone to "hear hear!" who's able to read simple prose and has the decency to accurately depict what others say.

Why, when it's a war zone, have the rebels not been constantly requesting to allow safe passage to ALL REAL civilians? They like the cover, that's why.

[EFerrari]

134. As they were in Egypt, Yemen, Syria and Bahrian.

Have you been asleep for the last four months?

[PurityOfEssence]

123. Where on earth do you get that? Do you just randomly slam words together to insult people?

Has someone else said that snipers are the result of intervention? I certainly haven't.

It sounds like you're saying that I've said that, and that's not anywhere near any version of reality. I've hardly broached the subject. My complaint in this thread is that someone was modifying the sad, but not pinpoint deliberate killing of people in a breadline into specific, deliberate targeting of them by snipers, which is a VASTLY different thing.

As for being met by silence in the face of your righteous proclamations, that's hogwash plain and simple. You're the one who repeatedly refuses to answer direct questions when caught making wildly incorrect statements, then continues posting on the same thread.

Are you just writing poorly, or are you saying that I've said that snipers are a new addition to the mix and something caused by the intervention? If so, you're dead wrong, and I clearly request you to back this up with something from one of my posts. If not, then please clarify just what the hell you ARE saying so I don't have to waste more time with philippics deciphering.

If, as I suspect, you're simply putting words in my mouth, this is flimsier than a strawman; it's a chaffman.

[Kurska]

52. Yup, it is impossible to conduct a war without putting snipers on roof tops to shoot people trying

to que up for bread.

If Gadaffi was conducting a restrained military campaign against the opposition, the justification for intervention would be much weaker.

[EFerrari]

60. There were snipers in Egypt. There are snipers in Syria, Yemen

and Bahrain.

[Kurska]

77. Have I expressed ANY support for the regimes of Syria, Yemen or Bahrain?

Have I not states that I would support intervention in those countries if it looked like a entire city was about to be wiped off the map as was the case in libya? What exactly is your point besides being intentionally childish?

[EFerrari]

80. My point is that there is nothing extrordinary about Libya

except oil and the US et al trying to hang onto their control now that their dictators are being ousted.

There was no city about to be wiped off the map. That's simply bs.

[joshcryer]

86. Yeah, because border clashes are the same as violent suppression of a population.

Ivory Coast is a far closer example, which almost everyone ignored except for those of us who divided their time as best they could to cover it.

[bluestate10]

100. Are you fucking kidding? Not even Saleh has lobbed cluster bombs into

populated areas. BTW, cluster bombs have one purpose, to freaking kill and maim as many people as possible.

[EFerrari]

105. Urban warfare is not pretty. And I assume you favor

intervening in Thailand for their use of cluster bombs in February, right?

No, I'm not fucking kidding, are you?

[joshcryer]

107. That's asinine, Thailand and Cambodia were having a border dispute.

Their use of cluster munitions is deplorable, but it's not the same situation.

Would you be against helping Cambodia if Thailand invaded them?

Probably.

[Kurska]

111. Let me put this simply

"Urban warfare isn't pretty"

"Whitewash: deceptive or specious words or actions intended to conceal defects, gloss over failings, etc."

"Urban warfare isn't pretty"



Oh and I'll be sure to save your quote for the next time you get righteously indignant over civilian causalities.

[EFerrari]

119. To repreat: It's hypocritical to back a military solution

and then complain about the war.

[Kurska]

112. Yes there was, Benghazi. France saved thousands if not tens of thousand of lives

with their intervention.

[EFerrari]

122. Maybe hundreds of thousands? It's like counting teabaggers, isn't it?

Sorry, but that's the official story that NATO needed to go in. There is no evidence they're anything more than that.

[PurityOfEssence]

70. Don't conflate stories: the bread line was indirect fire

Snipers, by definition, are specifically aiming at something. Artillery is "indirect fire", and although the target is generally not just random, it is hardly as precise as rifle fire. Saying people are using snipers against people in a breadline is to show them specifically targeting hungry and presumably unarmed civilians, which in any version of the bread line story was not the case.

Then again, anything is fair when you're on the good side of those intervening in a civil war.

How about the rebels not making all efforts to make sure all civilians are evacuated from a contested area? That's pretty callous, isn't it?

[EFerrari]

71. You really need to sit back and enjoy the atrocity porn.

Close your eyes and think of America.

[Kurska]

76. Because what really goes well with whitewashing war crimes is jokes about rape.

:sarcasm:

[EFerrari]

79. Be careful. I haven't whitewashed anything.

But you bet I reserve the right to ridicule obvious propaganda. :)

[joshcryer]

87. You haven't whitewashed (ie, glossed over) the crimes by Gaddafi?

Why, by golly, every time a crime is mentioned you go and mention someone elses crime, which has no bearing on Gaddafi's crime except a veiled attempt to insult people for "not caring in those instances." Better, pick a conflict that was barely covered by anyone, better chance someone will screw up and make sure that they don't know.

The reality is that most of us who are defending the rebels are doing so because they are being attacked here.

A better analogy would be, did you denounce Thailand for the cluster bombs? Doubt it. It's only being invoked here in order to gloss over Gaddafi's use of them.

[Kurska]

110. On second thought just refer to the post above me n/t

[EFerrari]

47. Where were you when the cluster bombs were falling in Lebanon

and Cambodia.

[joshcryer]

48. That's a rather weak denouncement of cluster bombs.

[Kurska]

53. Sophomore year of highschool in 2006, I wasn't even born when the USA dropped cluster bombs on

cambodia.

What is your point? Do you want me to say cluster bombs are bad and they shouldn't be used in civilian areas? Because I think that was very strongly implied in my post.

[EFerrari]

61. Cambodia was in February.

http://asiancorrespondent.com/51950/thailand-admits-using-cluster-bombs-against-cambodia/

[Kurska]

78. Maybe you should have been clearer?

Given we dropped more cluster bombs on Vietnam/Cambodia than any other nation on earth I think you can understand my confusion.

But no, I don't support the use of cluster bombs against civilians, again what is your point?

[EFerrari]

81. Why should I have been clearer? Surely you attended to the bombing of Cambodia

by our ally Thailand as assiduously as you have to the alleged use of cluster bombs by Gaddafi.

[Kurska]

113. Cluster bombs were used against military rocket launchers.

And while I don't think cluster bombs should be used under ANY circumstances, at least not while their rate of failure is so high (basically creating instant mine fields) that is hardly the same as firing into a densely populated civilian area with thousands of tiny dumb bombs.

Nor were their used part of a larger conflict where thousands had died and all indication had been made thousand more will die.

[EFerrari]

121. Those Libyan rebels sure do have a way of morphing into civilians

whenever it's convenient for the West to justify their new war.

[bluestate10]

97. Touche! Damned good. nt

[EFerrari]

102. Because only Gaddafi's munitions kill people, right?

[joshcryer]

104. Let's see. Unarmed rebels that share guns, vs west-armed military with heavy munitions.

Who are the bigger threat to non-combatants?

[joshcryer]

29. Gaddafi was not an anti-imperialist.

http://www.workersliberty.org/story/2011/03/02/don’t-give-qaddafi-“anti-imperialist”-cover">Don’t give Qaddafi “anti-imperialist” cover
Socialist Appeal, while unequivocally endorsing the revolt against Qaddafi, attributes it to the loss of “progressive features the regime might have had in the past”, which, were, apparently, its opposition to the USA and other big powers.

Libya today shows the hollowness and falsity of the world-view which measures the “progressiveness” of a regime, or movement, by its hostility, demagogic or real, to the USA and other big powers. Decades of Stalinism had shown that already: the leftists who accredited Stalin, or Kim Il Sung, or Pol Pot, as “progressive” because they were in opposition to the USA had lost their bearings. But the lesson still needs to be re-learned.

It is not that Qaddafi was once a “progressive”, when he nationalised oil interests in Libya, or preached war against Israel, or financed groups like the WRP; ceased to be “progressive” in recent years when he did deals with the USA and Britain; and presumably can be made “progressive” again by the USA or the UN taking measures against him.

He was always a reactionary. His supposedly “progressive” measures were all about promoting the wealth and standing of his clique on the backs of Libya’s people and its many migrant workers. They were all tied together with fierce repression of all freedoms in Libya.

[Distant Observer]

72. The depth of ignorance is just amazing. How many years did the writer live in the region

This kind of stupid propaganda can only work because of the shallowness of the western audience
at which it is targeted.

[joshcryer]

82. That writer is a socialist.

But if you actually clicked the link you'd know that.

[bluestate10]

96. Stopping a slaughter of clearly out gunned human beings. May want to have

your nose checked.

[EFerrari]

108. You don't stop slaughter with more slaughter.

Despite all rumors to the contrary, war is still not peace.

You might want to check back later in case that changes.

[joshcryer]

109. No, you don't, you do it with force. Please see the Ivory Coast.

The UN shot up Gdabgo's fucking munitions camp and it ended two weeks later as the French drove tanks to Gdabgo's bunker.

[indimuse]

38. WikiLeaks: US Funding Syrian Opposition -

WikiLeaks: US Funding Syrian Opposition - FoxNews

Apr 19, 2011
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6FEzt67gB4U&feature=feed...




WikiLeaks reports secret U.S. funding for Syrian opposition

The website provides documents to the Washington Post showing State Department financing of an anti-government satellite TV channel.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fgw-us...

From the Associated Press
WASHINGTON— The State Department has been secretly financing opponents of Syrian President Bashar Assad, the Washington Post reported, citing previously undisclosed diplomatic documents provided to the newspaper by the WikiLeaks website.

One of the outfits funded by the U.S. is Barada TV, a London-based satellite channel that broadcasts anti-government news into Syria, the Post reported Sunday. Barada's chief editor, Malik al-Abdeh, is a cofounder of the Syrian exile group Movement for Justice and Development.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

56. But, of course, NATO isn't taking sides in the civil war.

Just like they didn't pick a side during the Suez Crisis.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suez_Crisis

The Suez Crisis, also referred to as the Tripartite Aggression,<7><8> (Arabic: أزمة السويس - العدوان الثلاثي‎ ʾAzmat al-Sūwais/Al-ʿIdwān al-Thalāthī; French: Crise du canal de Suez; Hebrew: מבצע קדש‎ Mivtza' Kadesh "Operation Kadesh," or מלחמת סיני Milxemet Sinai, "Sinai War") was an offensive war fought by France, Britain, and Israel against Egypt beginning on 29 October 1956.<9><10> Less than a day after Israel invaded Egypt, Britain and France issued a joint ultimatum to both Egypt and Israel, and then began to bomb Cairo. In a short time, and despite Israeli and British denials, considerable evidence showed that the two attacks were planned in collusion, with France as the instigator, Britain as a belated partner, and Israel as the willing trigger.<11> Anglo-French forces withdrew before the end of the year, but Israeli forces remained until March 1957, prolonging the crisis. In April, the canal was fully reopened to shipping, but other repersussions continued.

The attack followed the President of Egypt Gamel Abdel Nasser's decision of 26 July 1956 to nationalize the Suez Canal, after the withdrawal of an offer by Britain and the United States to fund the building of the Aswan Dam, which was partly in response to Egypt recognizing the People's Republic of China during the height of tensions between China and Taiwan.<12> The aims of the attack were primarily to regain Western control of the canal and precipitate the fall of Nasser from power, whose policies were viewed as potentially threatening the strategic interests of the three nations.

The three allies, especially Israel, were mainly successful in attaining their immediate military objectives, but pressure from the United States and the USSR at the United Nations and elsewhere forced them to withdraw. As a result of the outside pressure Britain and France failed in their political and strategic aims of controlling the canal and removing Nasser from power. Israel fulfilled some of its objectives, such as attaining freedom of navigation through the Straits of Tiran. As a result of the conflict, the UNEF would police the Egyptian-Israeli border to prevent both sides from recommencing hostilities.

[WatsonT]

57. This was immediately predictable

many of us said eventually there would be boots on the ground.

Of course we won't start with an all out D-Day style invasion. We'll ease in to the role, like in Vietnam.

Let's get some advisers there ASAP!

[EFerrari]

62. CIA "advisers" have been there since the third week of the conflict

or so we are told.

[joshcryer]

88. Reports are that that was leaked in order to scare Gaddafi into leaving.

They'll never confirm or deny that though.

[UnseenUndergrad]

129. At this point...

I'd sooner expect Gadaffi to order kamikaze attacks on Sigonella Air base then voluntarily leave.

But hey, it could happen.

[Distant Observer]

73. All part of the Deal with the GCC -- You take care of our enemy Gaddafi and we will manage Bahrain

and other threat to the flow of Oil and $Trillions under Western funds management.

The Gulf Cooperation Council (Saudi, Qatar, Abu Dhabi, Dubai, Bahrain, Kuwait) must be protected.
Gaddafi and Libyans are expendable and a useful distraction.

[EFerrari]

75. Something is happening.

This is not the white hats charging in to take care of the black hats.

That never happens.

[joshcryer]

89. Nope, the Whites are just used to demonize the freedom fighters.

(Note: If you do not know Russian Revolution history this joke will go over your head.)

[malaise]

94. Here we go again

Steal the oil by any means necessary

[EFerrari]

99. And beyond that, maintain regional control.

:(

[sabrina 1]

95. Just what the REAL rebels did not want, but exactly

what many people predicted. Libya is about to become another Iraq. And if anyone thinks the U.S. is not involved, they must also believe in Santa Claus.

This is exactly what the PNAC crowd were pushing for, and it looks now like the whole 'rebellion' was being plannned from last Fall.

Qaddafi has huge support in that country. Are those supporting yet another Colonial intervention ready for the huge death toll, as in Iraq, of Libyan civilians?

Ever since the REAL rebels were taken over by the ex-pats who were working for years in this country, suddenly the demands of NO FOREIGN TROOPS on our soil', have changed.


Babies in ovens, next? WMDs and Mushroom clouds? No, we used them up, I guess it will be something similar though.

Btw, does anyone know what happened to the Somali women who were kidnapped and raped? Does anyone care?

All I can say is, 'we told you so'! Another War for Oil with all the same ingredients. And people are falling for it all over again.

[EFerrari]

101. It's Disaster Capitalism Groundhog Day.

[joshcryer]

103. Will you admit you were wrong when all of your baseless insinuations don't happen?

Doubtful.

[sabrina 1]

116. The U.S. is considering putting 'troops on the ground' according

to a U.S. General. NATO ie, France who has the most interest in Libya at the moment and who were apparently working with the expats since at least last Fall, are now close to putting foreign troops on the ground. Airc, when some of us predicted this weeks ago, you assured everyone it was not going to happen because the 'the rebels would not allow it'. I think it's time for you to admit that it was YOU who has been wrong.

Sorry, I will not support another Iraq in Libya. In fact those were the words of the orginal rebels ~ 'we do not want foreign troops on Libyan soil, we do not want another Iraq, to have our country abused, destroyed like Iraq'.

What do you think is going to happen when foreign troops arrive in Libya?

[Hannah Bell]

120. how come if everyone hates khaddafi so much they haven't joined "the rebels"?

how come "the rebels" are losing, even with foreign air support?

what happened to all those troops that supposedly defected & went over to "the rebels"?

[joshcryer]

126. 3 million Egyptians protested Mubarak. Out of nearly 90 million people.

That's 3% of the population.

3% of Libya's population is just under 200k Libyans. Or 5 times less than the population of Benghazi.

The Libyan uprising has more popular support than Egypt. And that's not including Misrata or Zinten or Zawaiya.

[Hannah Bell]

131. just because you say so doesn't make it true.

[joshcryer]

132. Sorry.

I http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/15/education/15math.html">forgot.

[PurityOfEssence]

125. Will you?

You've been shown to be wrong about numerous things, and not only do you not respond to direct requests to comment, you throw up more flak and continue posting on the same threads.

When we passed off the baton to NATO, (hahahaha)you were quite vocal about that being proof we had really turned the tide. The whole addle-headed non-war on-the-cheap-resources-grab is a month old now. How's it lookin'?

What do you think of the racist rape, harassment and killing of sub-saharan african migrant workers by the rebels that was reported by PRI? Is that a qualified source? Is that not indicative of something a bit different than just the huddled masses yearning to breathe free?

http://www.theworld.org/2011/03/migrant-workers-from-libya-trapped-at-egypt-border/

The very idea of YOU insulting someone for not admitting being incorrect is beyond mere chutzpah.

[joshcryer]

128. It goes without saying.

Yes I will admit to being wrong if Libya "turns into another Iraq." Yes I will admit to being wrong if there is an occupying force in Libya (because I don't think the Libyan people would allow it).

I have said quite a few times before that the black African's in Libya have been mistreated, and I've made it clear that the context for that mistreatment is partially in the hands of Gaddafi, fomenting racism for decades and still using it to this day.

Your whole post about me is just not true, though. I said it could be six months, not that it was over. I may have to revise that. I'm still thinking around that same time frame because that's how long it took for the Ivory Coast to be liberated.

[Union Scribe]

130. The Shock Doctrine looks great in a Che shirt, though.

[Baclava]

127. Just like I fucking predicted...

"Humanitarian convoys protected by NATO ground troops - I can see that happening. More mission creep"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4817468

[EFerrari]

135. France and Italy to send Libya advisers

Sarkozy promises to ramp up air attacks after meeting rebel leader as nations join UK decision to send military team.
Last Modified: 20 Apr 2011 14:35


France and Italy are joining Britain in sending military officers to Libya to help advise rebels on technical, logistical and organisational issues.

Nicolas Sarkozy, the French president, offered assistance to Abdel Jalil, the leader of the Libyan Transitional National Council, when they met in Paris on Wednesday.

"We are going to help you," Sarkozy told him.
Keep up with all the latest developments here

Jalil said he invited Sarkozy to visit Benghazi, the rebel stronghold in Libya's east.

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/europe/2011/04/2011420133013544281.html

[Baclava]

136. "It's just a little 'no-fly' zone - - we'll be done in a jiffy!"

suckers