1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. We've had very few donations over the year. I'm going to be short soon as some personal things are keeping me from putting up the money. If you have something small to contribute it's greatly appreciated. Please put your screen name as well so that I can give you credit. Click here: Donations
    Dismiss Notice

Was Obama right on Libya?

Discussion in 'General Discussions' started by Rekna, Aug 22, 2011.

  1. Rekna New Member

    On the old forum there was a large discussion on Libya and many criticized Obama for being slow to get involved and then when he did get involved he was criticized for getting involved. While it is clear that there are those that will criticize Obama no matter what he does, it seems that this time he was spot on with how much force to use. It is quite impressive how little the US has had to spend in both blood and money in order to depose Gaddaffi. What are your thoughts?
     
  2. fresnelly

    fresnelly Getting Tilted

    Location:
    Toronto
    It's a bit early to say. Regime change isn't something you can just tie a bow on. If there's blowback down the road is that his fault?

    What if the UN is drawn into an occupation like Iraq?
     
  3. Charlatan

    Charlatan sous les pavés, la plage

    Location:
    Temasek
    I think the America-centric view that this was Obama's war is a strange one.

    This is a UN effort which has the support, not only of the UN and NATO but also of the Arab League. In the end, the better question is, Was the UN correct to take action in Libya?

    At this stage, I am not sure. While I am certainly happy to see Qaddafi gone, I am also very worried about the forces waiting in the wings. And while part of the worry is aimed at Fundamentalists I am more worried about global corporations waiting to get their fingers on the closed Libyan economy. It is just this sort of unstable political situation that is ripe for the worst forms of disaster capitalism.
     
  4. roachboy

    roachboy Very Tilted

    at the time, i supported the un action but with significant reservations. i was under no illusions about why the international community got involved in libya (oil) while they've said and done nothing for years about, say, the ongoing massacres in eastern congo or never managed to quite get their shit together to do more than say tsk tsk and do nothing while massacres were happening around darfur. i think the geopolitical considerations are pretty clear, then---but the humanitarian arguments seemed legitimate as well. now we'll see what the deal really was about, assuming that events continue to unfold in a more-or-less straight line. there''s every reason to be concerned about this turning into yet another example of how neo-liberalism has rolled as the justification for corporate colonization around the southern hemisphere. but the political situation in libya is in such flux that it's hard to see too far into the future. as for whether obama was right---the action was really pushed by france and the uk. it was authorized by the united nations. the us has played an important role but not the central one. the arguments on humanitarian grounds seemed legitimate to me at the time. it was certainly nothing at all like the bush administrations iraq debacle. but i'm still uneasy about it. beyond that, i agree with charlatan that the american-o-centric viewpoint is pretty blinkered. here and everywhere else, really.
     
  5. EventHorizon

    EventHorizon assuredly the cause of the angry Economy..

    Location:
    FREEDOM!
    @roach, once again i disagree.
    Libya involvement was like getting past level 1 in tetris in terms of ease due to the population fertile for "revolution." as for the whole oil thing, i sincerely doubt it, we virtually own Iraq right now and that'll keep us in hydrocarbons for awhile. so what could we possibly stand to gain by involving ourselves in Libya instead of some other country/region with massacres? well Libya is a developed country with laws and plenty o' infrastructure whereas subsaharan africa... well.. who would we even begin to fight? at least this way, the United States is getting credit as a benefactor in the Middle East by planting multiple "virus" ridden democracy zombies all over the place in that big petroleum pool. so spreading democracy, getting people to like us, maybe getting a good deal on the oil there for multiple countries besides ourselves. i fail to see the downside
    /opinion from a guy whose brain shuts down mid sentence sometim- *drool*
     
  6. They have oil. Simples. I cant help but think to myself, as we are all broke, as old peoples homes are being closed, and people needing care are put back into the community,as we mothball new aircraft carriers before they have been finished, as we lay off troops to save money, as we can not afford to educate our young - why the feck are we throwing money away we do not have. Yes Iraq is virtualy owned by american oil companys now as event says, but as its not all the oil then best keep on collecting. Yes there are worse attrocities being carried out in other parts of the world, but there is no financial advantage to be had helping them.
     
  7. roachboy

    roachboy Very Tilted

    this is an interesting piece from the atlantic outlining a series of arguments about why this involvement in libya was, from a legal viewpoint, a bad idea:

    http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/08/why-libya-isnt-a-quiet-win-for-america/243990/

    what this leaves out is that the central arguments for intervening were humanitarian at the time, and that this was not at all a unilateral american operation in the bush mode. these seem to me important to take into account. but all the same, it remains an ambiguous situation, and this for the reasons outlined in the article.
     
  8. Strange Famous

    Strange Famous it depends on who is looking...

    Location:
    Ipswich, UK
    Its just about backing the winning side and getting the oil, isnt it?

    Is it right in America's narrow economic interests? Maybe

    Is it right morally, ethically, on a human level? I cant see any way I can judge it as so.

    Gaddhafi might be a crook and a swindler, but I dont think the rebels will be any better.

    Did America or the UK feel the need to help the people of Chile rebel against the murderous regime of Pinnochet? (just as an off hand example?)

    Did anyone do anything to help the people of Zimbabwe when Mugabe's nutso agricultural policies and electioneering with the help of armed thugs and rapists were starving and killing innocent people?
     
  9. EventHorizon

    EventHorizon assuredly the cause of the angry Economy..

    Location:
    FREEDOM!
    if we (all countries involved) help people overthrow a ruler that was using air strikes against them in the capitol, and then toss us a bone after it's all said and done, its fine by me.

    as for other atrocities going on around the world, we're not helping them because, IMHO, they aren't ready to help themselves yet. give me a "stable" country whose formerly tolerable leader is now a fucking lunatic and whose population is actively engaging in organized anti-government activities, and i'll give you a salvageable country. it has nothing to do with money. even if it did, who's going to build up the infrastructure of a 3rd world country (the one's that we aren't helping that i'm assuming you're talking about) to the point where it can significantly aid a large economic powerhouse?

    taking out the garbage is just one chore when it comes to benefitting from a clean home
     
  10. KirStang

    KirStang Something Patriotic.

    3 Words: Cost Benefit Analysis.
     
  11. EventHorizon

    EventHorizon assuredly the cause of the angry Economy..

    Location:
    FREEDOM!
    could be, but it seems uncanny how many countries are militarily aided and have semi-sophisticated cities whereas helping individual tribes in subsaharan africa stop killing each other is like trying to get a daycare full of kids to stop blasting the shit out of each other with plastic toys
     
  12. roachboy

    roachboy Very Tilted

    well, again, it's possible to have a complex and uneasy position on this action. like i said above, i thought the humanitarian arguments compelling at the outset and was personally ok with the idea of it because it operated under the aegis of the un with the support of the arab league. but the united states has been playing a predictably cynical game with the revolts that are grouped under the meme of the arab spring, particularly with egypt (don't get me started), so it was kinda hard to be all yay! about it despite the validity--to my mind---of the humanitarian claims. remember what the initial phase of this operation were like. there was a **very** real danger of the kind of massacre in benghazi that you read about in mideval texts, except with modern weaponry. so there's that. and this was one of a considerable range of factors that made it appear at least to be quite other than the usual figleaf of ethics held up in front of imperialist business as usual.

    second, there's little doubt that the "arab spring" played a determinate role in all of this, in triggering the revolt in the east of libya and in shaping the response. it only grew odd later to see what was acted upon and what wasnt...for example why not yemen?....for example, where is the united states pressure on the egyptian "transitional council" to actually transition out of power (answer---there isn't any) or to stop using military tribunals in an attempt to jail as much of the revolution as can be managed (12,000 people so far, reports say---as for the answer, see above)...where's the pressure on bahrain? on morocco? where's the material support for tunisia? where's the political support for the egyptian revolution itself? on and on. syria is obviously working its way into the crosshairs, and the reasons for this aren't mysterious either, any more than are those for the way in which the united states played its hand in egypt (israel).

    third, i don't see this action as being about oil per se on the part of the united states simply because the united states is not a major player insofar as libyan oil is concerned. this is the basis for the claim in the atlantic article above that there were no national security interests of the united states involved here---whence follows the questions posed about the rationale for going as far as the obama administration did down the route of the imperial presidency set up by the bush people. the oil interests are much more at play for france, italy and the uk---and 1 & 3 were right up front in pushing for action. at the same time, they had a pretty workable relation with gaddafi in place, so it's not so simple as it seems. but it may well be that the Problem insofar as some pinhead neo-liberal viewpoint is concerned is that the libyan oil industry was nationalized and not controlled by those privatized institutions so central to contemporary forms of imperialism. what exactly the deal is insofar as oil is concerned will only become clear once the political situation does. right now, there's a vast cloud of bullshit flying about that it's hard not to see as a co-ordinated effort to generate consent for what could be a very bloody urban battle. and it's not over yet. take for example the curious story of saif gaddafi--rumors are that he was released in exchange for intel and because he agreed to act as an intermediary with his father---but the appearances are certainly otherwise and it's really not possible to know. a cloud of bullshit, then.

    four, insofar as the selective morality employed not just by the united states but by all the northern/imperialist powers, particularly when it comes to sub-saharan africa is concerned--obviously. i've been amazed at its cynicism. massacres of epic proportions happen in rwanda--nothing. in eastern congo as a direct consequence of rwanda--nothing. these are real problems. (aside: the agricultural situation in zimbabwe was minor in comparison--the dispossession of rhodesian (white) farmers in the interest of land reform---not the same. and i have friends whose families were directly impacted by it.) darfur---nothing to speak of. and this from ALL the major powers.
     
  13. if we (all countries involved) help people overthrow a ruler that was using air strikes against them in the capitol, and then toss us a bone after it's all said and done, its fine by me.'

    We sent our sons to the Gulf, to loot oil. The division of that oil had already been decided well before action was decided. The only bone tossing of relevence to me would be the amount of bones laid to rest after travelling through Wooton Bassett, put into a plot their family has had to pay for.
    Meanwhile, Tony war criminal Blair gets security and high paid gigs - didnt his mate george fix him up with a teaching job only for the students to find he is not awfully bright. How many days security guard costs would it take to pay for the funerals of all those children of Britain he sent to their deaths, ill equipped to say the least.
    Hang the pair of them.
     
  14. EventHorizon

    EventHorizon assuredly the cause of the angry Economy..

    Location:
    FREEDOM!
    i didn't think Tony Blair had any involvement in Libya. can someone correct me please?
     
  15. He is our roving middle east envoy type of job holder isnt he - whilst awaiting the call from EU that he can come take his place as Emporer. He gives advice on how to deal with middle eastern countries
    me | World | Don't Worry Middle East Peace Envoy Tony Blair On Way to Libya

    Don't Worry Middle East Peace Envoy Tony Blair On Way to Libya

    By Jean Claude Aristide 23/02/2011 09:55:00
    Font size: [​IMG] [​IMG]

    [​IMG] "I'll do anything for money."
    TRIPOLI - Libya - Don't worry people. Please stop panicking. Everything is going to be all right because Tony Blair is now on the way to sort out the unholy Libyan turmoil he created in the first place.
    It certainly wasn't those dodgy Libyan arms deals he made behind the British people's backs, or what about Lord Mandy and the buffoon Gordon Brown who completed the shameful Megrahi oil deal much to the chagrin of the Lockerbie relatives?
    Well have no fear. Tony Blair has just departed from luxuriating on one of the multi-million pound yachts owned by one of his special friends, to clean up the awful mess exasperated by those secret Faustian British arms for oil deals he personally officiated a few years ago.
    "I am not only responsible for the death of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, but under my watch I sold most of these Libyans arms so that they could kill more of each other. As Peace Envoy to the Middle East, I can't think of anything more peaceful. Firstly, because they kill themselves. Muslims killing other Muslims is a big bonus for us. The more that happens, the more peaceful it gets and we don't have to do all the killing ourselves from 35,000 or so feet. Secondly, I got paid huge sums of money for what I did, so that is justification in itself. In fact, that point should be number one. I should get a frickin' medal for all the crimes I committed in the name of the Britain. So all those moaners and do-gooders can shut the hell up," Mr Blair said puffing on a huge cigar whilst reclining in the private jet plane headed towards Paris' Charles De Gaulle airport, where he will spirited off to an all-expenses-paid five star hotel to conduct further Middle East Peace negotiations.
     
  16. EventHorizon

    EventHorizon assuredly the cause of the angry Economy..

    Location:
    FREEDOM!
    all of this sounds great right up until the last sentence. US forces were deployed to prevent a massacre. maybe i'm missing something, but this seems very benevolent rather than imperialist.

    political support was hard to give either way with Egypt. on one hand, there was Democracy to be upheld when the people wanted their leader out, quickly, but on the other hand Egypt and the US have been on good terms for such a long time that it would be next to backstabbing a friend if we sent forces to aid the peaceful coup. also i think the lack of a US response in Egypt was because violence was never needed. sure there was a show of force by putting tanks in the streets, but there were no battles and no combat related deaths.

    i cant see how this is a bad thing though. the whole "let sleeping dogs lie" is precisely what the United States is famous for trying to do.
    once again i just dont see the proof for this either.
    so... the UN and NATO thought it was a good idea to go in under the pretense of stopping violence when what they wanted the whole time is violence? wouldn't it make more sense to just let the place implode?
    im all ears
    ...
    not knowing whats going on doesn't automatically mean that there are lies and coverups it means that people aren't sure yet.

    granted, nobody's doing anything about sub-saharan africa but this goes back to my point earlier. polarized tribes have been spilling blood for as long as it's been fun to have sex. some random country showing up with guns, tanks, airplanes, night vision, and sphincter-binding MREs isn't going to stop anything. when the two tribes' only goal is to kill each other, how could we possibly force them into negotiation?
    --- merged: Aug 24, 2011 7:00 AM ---
    haha this article seems a little more slanted than normal. where did it come from?
     
  17. You might like this one too



    "Peace Envoy" / Former War Criminal Tony Blair : Glossing Over Remembrance Day


    by Felicity Arbuthnot

    [​IMG]





    "You fasten all the triggers for the others to fire,
    Then you sit back and watch when the death count gets higher,
    You hide in your mansion's as young people's blood flows,
    Out of their bodies and in to the mud."
    Bob Dylan.​
    Today, is Remembrance Day, on both sides of the Atlantic. At the eleventh minute, of the eleventh hour on the eleventh day of the eleventh month, the guns of the First World War fell silent, leaving the estimated nine million who had died in battle, to the graves' muteness across continents, and to France's poppy fields. It remains the day when the deaths of subsequent tragedies and imperial follies are remembered. A day when even the cynical pause to read heartfelt notes on poppy wreaths, laid at the base of memorials, flowers refreshed on graves, stories of the lost, passed down and revisited, as more recent shared laughter, now also silenced.
    Given the still mounting death toll of the people of Iraq and Afghanistan and America, British and "coalition" youth, lives condemned by former President Bush and former Prime Minister Blair, on spurious claims at best and outright untruths at worst, it might be expected they would be spending some time on their knees in a place of sanctity and offering condolences to the bereaved.
    Mr Bush's plans are unknown, but Mr Blair's are tastelessly bizarre. The man with streets and children named after him in Kosova, recipient of the Congressional Medal, Liberty Medal and other glittering honors, is to address a conference of manufacturers of toilets, toilet paper and cleaners, tampons, and vacuums, at the International Sanitary Suppliers Association (ISSA) in Orlando, Florida. He will rake in an estimated £50,000 for a forty five minute address.
    Blair, of course, famously, reportedly, cleaned out No 10 Downing Street, when he left, of the gifts given him as Prime Minister. Anything over £140, is supposed to be property of the nation, but seemingly fine carpets, jewellery and all manner of collectables, moved with the Blairs.
    The speaker has been flown in, courtesy Diversey Inc.who, in 2010 began: " .. a new chapter in a long legacy of environmental sustainability ... committed to a cleaner, healthier future... for everyone." Perhaps their guest's involvement in reducing a number of countries to largely futureless rubble, peopled with the sick, limbless and with rising cancers and deformities, in an environment poisoned by western weaponry, so far from these admirable aims, had inexplicably escaped them. Ironically, the organizers credit him with his tenure resulting in: “More people receiving faster access to health care, with improved survival rates for cancer and coronary heart disease." Tell that to the people of the Balkans, Afghanistan and Iraq.
    Being a bit of a busted flush, so to speak, in the U.K., few media outlets seem to have noticed this latest engagement. One India News referred to his: "Toilet Roll Talk", in their heading on a piece displaying advertisements including one for "Feminine Hygiene Disposal Sanitary Bins", and another for their rental. Exhibition News revealed: "Blair takes Soapbox at U.S., Cleaning Show."
    The Daily Mail, never reticent in giving Blair a kicking, referred to his: " ... career plumbing new depths (in addressing) a conference of toilet roll and disinfectant manufacturers." The ISSA: "... website's glowing profile ... has cleaned up his record as thoroughly as any of the stain removers on show", chortles the paper, pointing out that: "Nowhere is there a mention of the non-existent weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, the dirty tricks (the) sleaze ..", or the strange death of: "Ministry of Defence weapons expert, Dr David Kelly", a death of which, it has been ordered, all documentation relating to, will remain sealed for seventy years.
    Mail readers have also been less than kind. An apt venue: "... for a man who took his country to the cleaners in more ways than one can imagine", wrote one; another ventured pettily that his speeches were worth less than toilet paper, anyway; another that: "Mud sticks, what better place for him to clean himself up."
    He could also: "Take the opportunity to win one of five Flex hand driers", to be given away during the gathering.
    Later in the day, he could join the Show Floor Happy Hour and: "... star in a band during Karaoke Live. Step into the spotlight - center stage" (no better man) "to jam with a live band complete with backup singers who make even a novice look like a rock star." Should be in his element, it has been a good while since he fronted a group called "Ugly Rumours", inspite of having created a good few in recent years.
    If he is at a loose end waiting for his freebie flight out, he could pop over to Orlando's Disneyland and take in the "Small World", originally designed by a Mary Blair, where an animation of children of the world, frolick: "In a spirit of international unity, in a theme of global peace."
    He could then take in:"Great Moments with Mr Lincoln", a celebration of the great man's sayings which includes:

    "Let reverence for the [law] be breathed by every ... mother to the lisping babe that prattles on her lap; let it be taught in schools, in seminaries, and in colleges; let it be written in primers, [in] spelling-books, and almanacs; let it be preached from the pulpit, proclaimed in legislative halls, and enforced in courts of justice. And, in short, let it become the political religion of the nation; and let the old and the young, the rich and the poor, the grave and the gay of all sexes and tongues and colors and conditions, sacrifice unceasingly [at] its altars."​
    On his way out, he could suggest a new Magic Mystery Tour: "The quest for Weapons of Mass Destruction."
    Then back on the plane, with his ISSA goodie bag. With seven mansions to keep up, those cleaning products should come in useful.
    And did he, the "Peace Envoy", and new broom Catholic, at the eleventh minute, of the eleventh hour, take just those sixty seconds, in a quiet place, and reflect?
     
  18. EventHorizon

    EventHorizon assuredly the cause of the angry Economy..

    Location:
    FREEDOM!
    where is all this news coming from?
     
  19. Baraka_Guru

    Baraka_Guru Möderätor Staff Member

    Location:
    Toronto
    This needs to be said overtly: The UN has figured that over 2,000 people have been killed (and over 12,000 arrested) in the Syria protests.

    To compare, the death toll is ten times higher (on both sides) in outright civil war in Libya.

    Where is the international community on this? (That is, beyond "condemning the violence.")
     
  20. roachboy

    roachboy Very Tilted