Whither Libya?

[hippiewannabe]

When push came to shove, the American-trained Egyptian military decided their loyalty was to the people and the nation, not the ruler. Not so with the mercenaries and personal armies of Qaddafi; they have no problem slaughtering unarmed protesters. It's pretty much a civil war.

A battalion of Marines could defeat Qaddafi, and probably save thousands of lives. But then what? Another intervention and rule established by foreigners. It's a tough call, but I say stay out. The Arabs have tasted freedom, and it is within their grasp. The price of freedom is high, and it is paid in blood. Let them earn it on their own, and they will cherish and protect it.

[Amskeptic]

When push came to shove, the American-trained Egyptian military decided their loyalty was to the people and the nation, not the ruler. Not so with the mercenaries and personal armies of Qaddafi; they have no problem slaughtering unarmed protesters. It's pretty much a civil war.

A battalion of Marines could defeat Qaddafi, and probably save thousands of lives. But then what? Another intervention and rule established by foreigners. It's a tough call, but I say stay out. The Arabs have tasted freedom, and it is within their grasp. The price of freedom is high, and it is paid in blood. Let them earn it on their own, and they will cherish and protect it.

Battalion of Marines, no, but a carefully laid out serious international assistance contingent upon their actions, yes. This is not about their "earning freedom with their blood" old Republican Saw. The young in the Middle East are waking up to the greater world via social media, education! assistance with setting up a civil society must be offered not forced like Bush, and then followed through with, unlike our shameful shameful treatment of Haiti. Egyptian protesters themselves were asking where is the American support?? early on. We have a place in the world that has been violated by our own imperial corporate ambitions too many times. John F. Kennedy in Berlin in '61 and Barack Obama in Cairo in 2008, seized the imaginations of the people free of the vile ignorant shoutdowns that plagued them stateside.
We can be a beacon. But God is it looking dimmer these daze.
Colin

[hippiewannabe]

When push came to shove, the American-trained Egyptian military decided their loyalty was to the people and the nation, not the ruler. Not so with the mercenaries and personal armies of Qaddafi; they have no problem slaughtering unarmed protesters. It's pretty much a civil war.

A battalion of Marines could defeat Qaddafi, and probably save thousands of lives. But then what? Another intervention and rule established by foreigners. It's a tough call, but I say stay out. The Arabs have tasted freedom, and it is within their grasp. The price of freedom is high, and it is paid in blood. Let them earn it on their own, and they will cherish and protect it.

Battalion of Marines, no, but a carefully laid out serious international assistance contingent upon their actions, yes. This is not about their "earning freedom with their blood" old Republican Saw. The young in the Middle East are waking up to the greater world via social media, education! assistance with setting up a civil society must be offered not forced like Bush, and then followed through with, unlike our shameful shameful treatment of Haiti. Egyptian protesters themselves were asking where is the American support?? early on. We have a place in the world that has been violated by our own imperial corporate ambitions too many times. John F. Kennedy in Berlin in '61 and Barack Obama in Cairo in 2008, seized the imaginations of the people free of the vile ignorant shoutdowns that plagued them stateside.
We can be a beacon. But God is it looking dimmer these daze.
Colin

OK, one more vote for standing on the sidelines muttering platitudes while innocents are slaughtered.

I'm coming around to agreement on one point, that even after they had been murdered in their tens of thousands by Saddam, the Iraqis weren't ready for freedom, and didn't deserve the sacrifice of our wonderful men and women in uniform. On the other hand, 900,000 Rwandans could have been saved from genocide with just the smallest of interventions. Hindsight is 20-20.

Perhaps the bloodletting in Libya will be cathartic, and the Arabs can move forward, instead of being obsessed with destroying the one prosperous, vibrant democracy in their midst.

[ruckman101]

I think it depends on whether the natural resources are already being sucked away by our corporations whether we "bring freedom" to a nation. The dictators are disposable, we have no allegiance to them when the wind changes direction, we just make sure the next propped up leader is on our playbook.

Of course Iraq wasn't ready for our flavor of freedom, bombs and bullets raining down on them, it was deadlier than Saddam when he was our boy, that wasn't the point, it was the oil.


neal

[hippiewannabe]

I think it depends on whether the natural resources are already being sucked away by our corporations whether we "bring freedom" to a nation. The dictators are disposable, we have no allegiance to them when the wind changes direction, we just make sure the next propped up leader is on our playbook.

Of course Iraq wasn't ready for our flavor of freedom, bombs and bullets raining down on them, it was deadlier than Saddam when he was our boy, that wasn't the point, it was the oil.

So you vote no, I guess.

If Iraq was really about oil, it would have been much simpler to just keep Kuwait after we liberated it from Saddam, don't you think? Or even just back off on the sanctions and let him pump all he wanted, oil is fungible.

And really, you need to refresh your trite lefty boilerplate. It's been many years since an American oil company was even in the top five; the big players are all national oil companies, the investment of the independents having been expropriated in the name of the "people".

[ruckman101]

Our imperialistic policies haven't enamored us with the rest of the world.


neal

[dingo]

Our imperialistic policies haven't enamored us with the rest of the world.

unless they need military or monetary support, in which case they are quick to cosy up and ask !!

[glasseye]

This guy: MichaelScheuer, a long-time CIA guy had some good things to say.

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=ntt_at_ep_s ... evancerank

He was on Colbert last night. Pretty much debunked the "They hate our freedom" line.

IMHO, it's because of this legacy that the Libyans are wanting to try to solve this themselves if they can.

[ruckman101]

Ya got me hippiewannabe, no. I don't think we should go to war in Libya. One, we can't afford it, and two, it perpetuates our imperialistic policies the rest of the world recognizes. Let's not give Chavez fodder to further his agenda. Zero sum gain. There are other options. Too bad none of them were explored when it came to Iraq.


neal

[vdubyah73]

let the EU sort it out. Libya's oil goes to the EU, it's a former colony of Italy, and it's their backyard.

[ruckman101]

Our imperialistic policies haven't enamored us with the rest of the world.

unless they need military or monetary support, in which case they are quick to cosy up and ask !!

Hella military budget. Our tax dollars at work lucratively profiting merchants of death.

But hey, Gaddafi has embraced Chávez's offer of mediation. That should be a hoot. Maybe we're the ones on hallucinogens, chem trails and all, .... nah.

How many countries now? How many we haven't heard about? Unrest over universal injustices like a boot on your throat.

Yet in every other country, as far as we know, the violence involved in the transitions pales to the response by Gaddafi. Intensely psychotically desperate playing every last card held, begging to be a martyr. Speaking of hallucinogens. Good luck Chávez.


neal

[Amskeptic]

OK, one more vote for standing on the sidelines muttering platitudes while innocents are slaughtered.

Thou Shalt Not MisInterpret My Reply.

If you seek clarification, you ask me for clarification. I voted "yes intervention" in the poll.

I write in the same language as you. I wrote, not Marines, but yes international force under a contingency contract. What the fuck? Muttering platitudes? What the fuck? While innocents are slaughtered?

So what do you suggest? That we generate still more slaughter like the Bush Dynasty's wars? Where we killed tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis to avenge the deaths of 3,000 by Saudi terrorists at the WTC?

Meanwhile, we lose the same number of people as the WTC attacks every 8 days to gun violence in this country. I personally hate all of this killing all over the damn planet. I would rather that we engage with the Libyan people to help them overthrow their despotic ruler so they can own their own liberation. With social media, it can be done morally and carefully and even legally, without Marine bloodbaths, Cowboy.

[hippiewannabe]

OK, one more vote for standing on the sidelines muttering platitudes while innocents are slaughtered.

Thou Shalt Not MisInterpret My Reply.

If you seek clarification, you ask me for clarification. I voted "yes intervention" in the poll.

I write in the same language as you. I wrote, not Marines, but yes international force under a contingency contract. What the fuck? Muttering platitudes? What the fuck? While innocents are slaughtered?

So what do you suggest? That we generate still more slaughter like the Bush Dynasty's wars? Where we killed tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis to avenge the deaths of 3,000 by Saudi terrorists at the WTC?

Meanwhile, we lose the same number of people as the WTC attacks every 8 days to gun violence in this country. I personally hate all of this killing all over the damn planet. I would rather that we engage with the Libyan people to help them overthrow their despotic ruler so they can own their own liberation. With social media, it can be done morally and carefully and even legally, without Marine bloodbaths, Cowboy.

OK, my mistake. You said:

Battalion of Marines, no, but a carefully laid out serious international assistance contingent upon their actions, yes.

Not:

international force

It sounded to me like you meant no military intervention, and instead wanted typical UN-style jawboning.

I see now you did mean actual intervention, but your words are still a little too parsed and coded. What we are talking about is engaging in warfare, killing people and destroying things, invading a sovereign country to take sides in a civil war.

Even if we can build a coalition of the willing, US forces will have to do the the heavy lifting. "Battalion of Marines" is not to be taken literally, but the truth is only the US has the capabilities in the region to take effective action. And make no mistake, it will be a bloodbath, even if it is a smaller bloodbath than what would otherwise occur. US soldiers will be killing Muslims, civilians will be killed in the crossfire, all of it.

Social media? Seriously? Facebook is not going to stop the helicopter gunships that are mowing down the rebels. Moral and legal, maybe, but the first step is not posting on Twitter, it is imposing a no-fly zone, which starts with massive air strikes to take out Qaddafi's anti-aircraft defenses.

So I say we should not intervene. Yes, innocents are being slaughtered as we speak. 900,000 innocents were slaughtered in Rwanda, and we did nothing. Kurds and Shiites were slaughtered by Saddam for years and we did nothing. Innocents are being slaughtered right now in Sudan, Ivory Coast, Congo, etc., and we do nothing. We can't save them all. In the long run, fewer will die, and liberty will have a better chance of taking root, if the Libyans do this on their own.

[Amskeptic]

Innocents are being slaughtered right now in Sudan, Ivory Coast, Congo, etc., and we do nothing. We can't save them all. In the long run, fewer will die, and liberty will have a better chance of taking root, if the Libyans do this on their own.

Oil is the difference.
Dick Cheney

I have no trouble at all with the thought that the international community can pull together to launch a multi-pronged response to Quaddafi, freezing assets, hard parts trade, targeted military disablement, come on, we are not stupid, we can and must help people trying to get free of assholes!

[turk]

I doubt anything other than complete regime change, and long U.S. involvement will be any good there. It's unfortunate but true. It will be like Iraq, ya' know, "Mission Accomplished" and we are still there for years. That's how it goes in these places. It's globalism. It's geo-politics. The West has to stay involved. Otherwise, the places fall apart. The downside is we are the Great Satan to these people. That's the way it goes. We give them money for their oil, and their tribes and Sultans and Ayatollahs are all in chaos and war, and most of their people poor. Right, it's our fault. Okaaaaay. Dubai.