Why are we even involved in Libia?

[werepossum]

I dont believe the official line for why we are in Libya, supposedly we are there to stop Gaddafi from slaughtering innocent people. Yet if you read between the lines on the biased news articles that the Mass media spews out, its clear that the battles are between Armed Rebels and the Libyan Army. Most casualties seem to be Rebel and Libyan Army to, with a small ammount of "real" civilian deaths. In other words we are being lied to day in and day out about Libya. There is no intentional killing of civilians, the only deliberate "civilian" deaths are those civilians who chose to pick up AK47s and attack the Army.

SNIP FOR LENGTH

So what are we after in Libya...Is it so that France and the UK can lock down their Oil supply ? Europe gets most of their Oil from Libya, maybe that is why the US is not as eager as they are to attack Libya. France especially is gung-ho to jump into Libya.

Clearly we are not there to protect civilians, although by stopping Qadhafi (I SO love spelling his name differently every time I use it!) we are in fact saving a lot of civilian lives. The UN doesn't want to blatantly take sides in a civil war, so this excuse is used. It also allows member nations to make peace with the clown if the rebels fail to topple him.

i thought we were setting up a no fly zone, not doing bombing runs on tanks and land based military installations? guess this is a full on war now, we're just beating around the bush at calling it one.

We're setting up a very low no-fly zone, with a ceiling of about one meter. (Which may have to be adjusted if government forces begin attacking on skateboards.)

To call that a highly questionable statement is an eggregious example of understatement.

Fern

LOL Indeed, although Jonks makes a good point below you. That's one problem I have with the war powers act; surely the US' citizens are as important to protect as its possessions? (Then again, after Kelo v. New London I suppose we qualify as US possessions.)

 

[werepossum]

the hell--why as the thread title not been corrected?

I keep reading it as: "Why are we involved in Labia?"

LOL Me too.

Q: What's the difference between Libya and Labia?

A: Nothing. Ocassionally they both deserve a good lickin'.

:hmm:

LOL!

 

[Fern]

Gaddafi killed more US citizens than Saddam.

If you're referring to Pan Am flight #103, that was over 20 yrs ago.

Don't liberals/Dems/Progressives always say those terrorist event should be handled by the courts not the military? So why use something over 20 yrs ago to justify bombing the crap out of a country now?

Wasn't there already a trial for the Pan Am bombing?

Hasn't Qaddafy renounced terrorism since about early 2000?

Pan Am flight #103 is a horrible excuse to bomb another country not bothering us.

Fern

 

[peonyu]

Clearly we are not there to protect civilians, although by stopping Qadhafi (I SO love spelling his name differently every time I use it!) we are in fact saving a lot of civilian lives. The UN doesn't want to blatantly take sides in a civil war, so this excuse is used. It also allows member nations to make peace with the clown if the rebels fail to topple him.


We're setting up a very low no-fly zone, with a ceiling of about one meter. (Which may have to be adjusted if government forces begin attacking on skateboards.)

Most people, including myself would have been ok with UN intervention a few weeks ago, but this is really late. And to be honest far more lives are [most likely] going to be lost now since we intervened. We are are dragging this conflict out to be longer than it would have been otherwise. Gaddafi was about to take the last Rebel city when the UN intervened - the war would have been over by now without intervention.

Those bombs we are dropping on Libya, im sure there are deaths from that. The Rebels are regrouping and fighting the Army...There are going to be more deaths from that to.

 

[werepossum]

Most people, including myself would have been ok with UN intervention a few weeks ago, but this is really late. And to be honest far more lives are [most likely] going to be lost now since we intervened. We are are dragging this conflict out to be longer than it would have been otherwise. Gaddafi was about to take the last Rebel city when the UN intervened - the war would have been over by now without intervention.

Those bombs we are dropping on Libya, im sure there are deaths from that. The Rebels are regrouping and fighting the Army...There are going to be more deaths from that to.

Certainly more lives, and more civilian lives, will be lost by the UN intervention. War is a terrible thing. But war is not the most terrible thing. If Khadaffi can be overthrown and a democratic representative government established - even granted that democratic representative government will likely not be all that pro-West - it will be a very good thing. Democracy is on the march in the Arab Middle East, and if nothing else, at least the next time American bombs fall on their heads it'll be because of their own actions rather than because of something for which they have no control.

 

[bfdd]

peonyu, we're only in Libya because we talked shit on Ghaddaffi. We thought the rebels would win, so we smeared the leader of Libya in the media and in public. He pulled through and now we either bite our tongues or blow him the fuck up. We opt'ed for blowing him the fuck up.

 

[pcgeek11]

peonyu, we're only in Libya because we talked shit on Ghaddaffi. We thought the rebels would win, so we smeared the leader of Libya in the media and in public. He pulled through and now we either bite our tongues or blow him the fuck up. We opt'ed for blowing him the fuck up.

Oh yes. He had nothing to do with it like butchering his own people, terrorism and smearing his own self.

Please.

 

[Zorkorist]

It's all related to 911 of course. Bush wanted to establish position and thus he took Iraq. That hasn't worked out too great, but it's not hideous.

With other recent events in the Middle East, Obama is making a position move into Libya.

Works OK for me.

-John

 

[bfdd]

Oh yes. He had nothing to do with it like butchering his own people, terrorism and smearing his own self.

Please.

And? There are TONS of idiot dictators who have done that shit, what's your fucking point? He has something the West, more specifically Europe, wants and we trashed him in the media. Why? Because we thought the rebels would win. They aren't innocent in this shit either you know. I hope Ghaddafi is over thrown, and he will be, but it shouldn't have needed to be us.

 

[Zorkorist]

The people did stand up, bfdd. Maybe they have stood up before, and we have ignored them (er, likely they have stood up before and we have ignored them), but this time, we are not ignoring them.

-John

 

[Zorkorist]

I heard something on NPR on my drive home last night. It was some guy called "Moe" broadcasting from Libya on a pirate internet channel (for lack of a better word.) He had been broadcasting for a month (since the revolution started) and was gunned down the other day.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way...nabbous-the-face-of-libyan-citizen-journalism

-John

 

[irwincur]

"Hasn't Qaddafy renounced terrorism since about early 2000?"

I have a sneaking suspicion that that deal is coming to an abrupt end.

 

[Pray To Jesus]

Most likely have something to do with oil.

 

[OutHouse]

Is it too difficult for the pudding-headed righties to understand that this is a UN-backed action--this is not "Obama's invasion." In fact, France and UK are more involved than we are--or so it seems.

The rebels in Libya, and the Arab league requested support.

trying to connect this to Iraq is absolutely stupid.

so what you are saying is the UN tells our president when to engage our military and on whom? is that what you are saying? truly?

well golly gee!! so long sovereignty, good bye red white and blue, hell lets have a constitution burning party!! you can bring the matches and ill bring the blue helmets! its going to be one hell of a hoe-down!

the news reported tonight the US is flying 90% of the CAP and bombing runs. also there is a lot of confusion on whos mission this really is, is it UN or NATO? nobody seems to know who the fuck is in charge or who will be once they figure that out. this madness needs to fucking stop.

the USS Bataan battle group has been dispatched to Libya to relieve the USS Kearsarge battle group. US combat ops are not winding down.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/uss-b...-mediterranean/2011/03/23/ABRRPoGB_story.html

 

[bfdd]

The people did stand up, bfdd. Maybe they have stood up before, and we have ignored them (er, likely they have stood up before and we have ignored them), but this time, we are not ignoring them.

-John

K? It isn't our governments obligation, especially with how fucked up our nation is, to go pick sides in a civil war. I'm not arguing for Ghaddafi's sake, I'm arguing that our intervention is on bogus ground. We're there because France still wants access to the oil. France burned their bridge with Ghaddafi by coming out harshly against him, saying he needed to be overthrown etc etc. We're there because the West has talked mad shit and now has to go back it up.

I remember a man named Teddy once shared with the rest of us an old African proverb. Something about speaking softly and carrying a big stick. We must have forgotten the speak softly part.

 

[peonyu]

Interesting interview with Obama’s national security adviser, he admits that a armed Rebel is a Civilian and that the US must protect Civilians. When pressed to answer the question he says that Armed "Civilians" [Rebels] are forced to defend themselves from Gaddafi...So um, yea. A Rebel wielding a Ak47 is a Civilian, straight from the horse's mouth. I guess we should stop fighting Rebels in Afghanistan while we are at it, they are Civilians afterall.


http://www.thenation.com/blog/159377/us-libya-protecting-civilians-rebel-army-what


"On Sunday evening, Tom Donilon, Obama’s national security adviser, had a long back and forth with reporters on whether rebels and armed civilians are civilians or not. Here’s the exchange:

Q: Is there a difference?

MR. DONILON: Is there a difference between a rebel and a—no, a civilian is a civilian.

Q: But if a rebel is standing in front of Libyan forces, is he to be protected by——

MR. DONILON: Well, the point, though—I mean, the point is pretty clear, though, is that you have a civilian population under attack by regime forces. And I’ve tried to be very clear about what the instructions are. The coalition partners and others under United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973 are empowered to use all necessary measures to protect civilians from military attack.

Q: So if a civilian with an AK-47 is facing off against Qaddafi forces, is he protected under 1973 and coalition forces?

MR. DONILON: Well, but that's—the focus, the activity of the coalition forces is against the military forces who are attacking civilians. That's the activity. So that's the best I can do.

Q: So the answer is no, civilians who take up arms against Qaddafi’s forces are not protected under 1973?

MR. DONILON: Not protected? No, I don't—well, the civilians who are protecting themselves from the Qaddafi regime, is that the——

Q: They’re fighting the Qaddafi forces, aren't they? Are they——

MR. DONILON: Is that the question?

Q: —protected by coalition forces in 1973?

Q: Doesn’t that mean you’re taking sides on behalf of a military force fighting the Qaddafi regime?

MR. DONILON: We’re taking—this is not unclear either in the resolution, which I’ll reach for here, or in terms of the activities of the coalition forces. The Qaddafi regime was threatening attack and attacking civilians and civilian-populated areas. Those are the two terms in the Security Council resolution. They were under threat of attack, and the goal is to take action to protect civilians and civilian-populated areas from attack by the Qaddafi regime. That's the——

Q: I didn't understand—civilians—do you recognize the rebels as civilians?

MR. DONILON: They are citizens of Libya, and they are civilians.

Q: They are? They are? They are civilians?

MR. DONILON: They're not military forces under the direction and control of Qaddafi.

Q: But they’re military forces——

MR. DONILON: Yes, yes."

 

[Zorkorist]

K? It isn't our governments obligation, especially with how fucked up our nation is, to go pick sides in a civil war. I'm not arguing for Ghaddafi's sake, I'm arguing that our intervention is on bogus ground. We're there because France still wants access to the oil. France burned their bridge with Ghaddafi by coming out harshly against him, saying he needed to be overthrown etc etc. We're there because the West has talked mad shit and now has to go back it up.

I remember a man named Teddy once shared with the rest of us an old African proverb. Something about speaking softly and carrying a big stick. We must have forgotten the speak softly part.

The time for speaking softly is gone. It left on 9/11/2001.

We are at war with Muslim's, and after Iraq, Libya looks juicy for the taking.

-John

 

[Munky]

It's only about oil? Really? Then what explains our interventions in Korea, Vietnam, Lebanon, Grenada, Panama, and Yugoslavia/Kosovo?

Apparently "facts" are only those facts you want to see.

You mean the Vietnam which started over a false flag attack and resulted in tens of thousands casualties for american soldiers and vietnamese civilians? How does that fact fit into your idiotic world peace theory?

 

[EagleKeeper]

Link

It was the Arab league that was pushing for intervention in Libya. "Setup a no fly zone".

As America's NATO allies shoulder a greater share of the mission in Libya, the Arab countries that urged the U.N. Security Council to impose a no-fly zone are missing from the action.

Now that it has happened, they are having second thoughts.
And only one of 23 countries that make up the League is actually doing anything.

This way, the UN/NATO collects all the blame when things go wrong and people are killed.

 

[Nebor]

Link

It was the Arab league that was pushing for intervention in Libya. "Setup a no fly zone".


Now that it has happened, they are having second thoughts.
And only one of 23 countries that make up the League is actually doing anything.

This way, the UN/NATO collects all the blame when things go wrong and people are killed.

I'd say it's more likely that the members of the Arab League aren't in a hurry to display the ineptitude of their militaries on the world stage. To each other, to their citizens and to the roaming eyes of aggressive super powers. Seriously, every country in the ME except Israel has a military that's so poorly disciplined and trained that they're almost entirely for show. Especially the Saudis. They buy all our nice equipment, but their soldiers\officers are absolutely worthless.

 

[EagleKeeper]

I'd say it's more likely that the members of the Arab League aren't in a hurry to display the ineptitude of their militaries on the world stage. To each other, to their citizens and to the roaming eyes of aggressive super powers. Seriously, every country in the ME except Israel has a military that's so poorly disciplined and trained that they're almost entirely for show. Especially the Saudis. They buy all our nice equipment, but their soldiers\officers are absolutely worthless.

After 40 years, you think they would have learned enough to be able to at least play in the sandbox.

All the equipment that they have bought is apparently just for show and to intimidate their people.

 

[werepossum]

so what you are saying is the UN tells our president when to engage our military and on whom? is that what you are saying? truly?

well golly gee!! so long sovereignty, good bye red white and blue, hell lets have a constitution burning party!! you can bring the matches and ill bring the blue helmets! its going to be one hell of a hoe-down!

the news reported tonight the US is flying 90% of the CAP and bombing runs. also there is a lot of confusion on whos mission this really is, is it UN or NATO? nobody seems to know who the fuck is in charge or who will be once they figure that out. this madness needs to fucking stop.

the USS Bataan battle group has been dispatched to Libya to relieve the USS Kearsarge battle group. US combat ops are not winding down.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/uss-b...-mediterranean/2011/03/23/ABRRPoGB_story.html

This is my main fear about this whole mess - that the US will end up pulling the load rather than helping out. The UK is great and we owe them big time, but I suspect they are even more over-stretched than are we. However it really looks like the French and other Europeans are not pulling their weight; there is NO reason for US planes to be pulling standard CAP and ground attack missions in Libya. Only for things they cannot do - deep penetration missions, C3, maybe some pilot rescue - should the US be pulling missions here.

I really do not want this to become another Vietnam, where the French say we really don't want to fight there anymore, so we need you to go in and protect our interests.

 

[yllus]

It looks like the side we're assisting isn't as high-minded as we'd hoped they'd be. It doesn't necessarily mean intervening was wrong, but it does mean we should be realistic about what the aftermath is likely to be.

LA Times - Libyan rebels appear to take leaf from Kadafi's playbook

Reporting from Benghazi, Libya— The rebels of eastern Libya have found much to condemn about the police state tactics of Libyan leader Moammar Kadafi: deep paranoia, mass detentions, secret prisons and tightly scripted media tours.

But some of those same tactics appear to be creeping into the efforts of the opposition here as it seeks to stamp out lingering loyalty to Kadafi. Rebel forces are detaining anyone suspected of serving or assisting the Kadafi regime, locking them up in the same prisons once used to detain and torture Kadafi's opponents.

For a month, gangs of young gunmen have roamed the city, rousting Libyan blacks and immigrants from sub-Saharan Africa from their homes and holding them for interrogation as suspected mercenaries or government spies.

Over the last several days, the opposition has begun rounding up men accused of fighting as mercenaries for Kadafi's militias as government forces pushed toward Benghazi. It has launched nightly manhunts for about 8,000 people named as government operatives in secret police files seized after internal security operatives fled in the face of the rebellion that ended Kadafi's control of eastern Libya last month.

"We know who they are," said Abdelhafed Ghoga, the chief opposition spokesman. He called them "people with bloodstained hands" and "enemies of the revolution."

Any suspected Kadafi loyalist or spy who does not surrender, Ghoga warned, will face revolutionary "justice."

...

On Wednesday, 55 terrified detainees were paraded in front of a busload of international journalists.

...

Peter Bouckaert, emergencies director for the rights group in Libya, said he had been promised access to the detainees and prisoners put on display Wednesday.

Another 30 men who were paraded about were described as Libyan soldiers captured in the last week or so. Some were said to have served in the armored column that was demolished by allied airstrikes on the outskirts of Benghazi over the weekend.

"These are the people who came to kill us," said Col. Ahmed Omar Bani, a military spokesman for the council, gazing on the detainees with contempt.

Asked whether some of the accused might indeed be foreign construction workers, Bani replied: "We are not in paradise here. Do you think they're going to admit they are mercenaries? We know they are, of course."

Bani said nightly raids to detain men named in the internal security files had intensified in recent days and would continue "until we get them all."

One of the accused shown to journalists was Alfusainey Kambi, 53, a disheveled Gambian wearing a bloodstained sport shirt and military fatigue trousers. He said he had been dragged from his home and beaten by three armed men who he said also raped his wife. A dirty bandage covered a wound on his forehead.

Khaled Ben Ali, a volunteer with the opposition council, berated Kambi and accused him of lying. Ali said Kambi hit his head on a wall while trying to escape.

He commanded the prisoner to comment on his treatment in the detention center.

Kambi paused and considered his answer. Finally, he glanced warily up at Ali and spoke.

"Nobody beat me here," he said in a faint, weary tone. "I have no problems here."

 

[bradley]

If you're referring to Pan Am flight #103, that was over 20 yrs ago.

Don't liberals/Dems/Progressives always say those terrorist event should be handled by the courts not the military? So why use something over 20 yrs ago to justify bombing the crap out of a country now?

Wasn't there already a trial for the Pan Am bombing?

Hasn't Qaddafy renounced terrorism since about early 2000?

Pan Am flight #103 is a horrible excuse to bomb another country not bothering us.

Fern

Perhaps not, once we understand the complete story.


Qaddafi built fortune, regime on shady dealings
'Deal with the Devil': American and international firms paid millions in 'signing bonuses', made partnerships with ruling family
By ERIC LICHTBLAU, DAVID ROHDE and JAMES RISEN
The New York Times
Published: March 24, 2011

WASHINGTON— In 2009, top aides to Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi called together 15 executives from global energy companies operating in Libya’s oil fields and issued an extraordinary demand: Shell out the money for his country’s $1.5 billion bill for its role in the downing of Pan Am Flight 103 and other terrorist attacks.

If the companies did not comply, the Libyan officials warned, there would be “serious consequences” for their oil leases, according to a State Department summary of the meeting.

Many of those businesses balked, saying that covering Libya’s legal settlement with victims’ families for acts of terrorism was unthinkable. But some companies, including several based in the United States, appeared willing to give in to Libya’s coercion and make what amounted to payoffs to keep doing business, according to industry executives, American officials and State Department documents.

The episode and others like it, the officials said, reflect a Libyan culture rife with corruption, kickbacks, strong-arm tactics and political patronage since the United States reopened trade with Colonel Qaddafi’s government in 2004. As American and international oil companies, telecommunications firms and contractors moved into the Libyan market, they discovered that Colonel Qaddafi or his loyalists often sought to extract millions of dollars in “signing bonuses” and “consultancy contracts” — or insisted that the strongman’s sons get a piece of the action through shotgun partnerships.

“Libya is a kleptocracy in which the regime — either the al-Qadhafi family itself or its close political allies — has a direct stake in anything worth buying, selling or owning,” a classified State Department cable said in 2009, using the department’s spelling of Qaddafi.

The wealth that Colonel Qaddafi’s family and his government accumulated with the help of international corporations in the years since the lifting of economic sanctions by the West helped fortify his hold on his country. While the outcome of the military intervention under way by the United States and allied countries is uncertain, Colonel Qaddafi’s resources — including a stash of tens of billions of dollars in cash that American officials believe he is using to pay soldiers, mercenaries and supporters — may help him avert, or at least delay, his removal from power.

The government not only exploited corporations eager to do business, but willing governments as well. Libya’s banks apparently collected lucrative fees by helping Iran launder huge sums of money in recent years in violation of international sanctions on Tehran, according to another cable from Tripoli included in a batch of classified documents obtained by WikiLeaks. In 2009, the cable said, American diplomats warned Libyan officials that its dealings with Iran were jeopardizing Libya’s enhanced world standing for the sake of “potential short-term business gains.”

In the first few years after trade restrictions were lifted — Colonel Qaddafi had given up his country’s nuclear capabilities and pledged to renounce terrorism — many American companies were hesitant to do business with Libya’s government, officials said. But with an agreement on a settlement over Libya’s role in the Pan Am bombing over Lockerbie, Scotland, finally reached in 2008, officials at the United States Commerce Department began to serve as self-described matchmakers for American businesses.

Read the rest of the story here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/24/world/africa/24qaddafi.html

 

[werepossum]

Just heard on the radio that a French jet flying CAP downed a Libyan plane, which makes me worry a bit less that the US will be carrying all (or nearly all) of the load.