Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

eridani

(51,907 posts)
Fri Jan 9, 2015, 07:04 AM Jan 2015

For all the cheerleaders who thought overthrowing Qaddafi was such a great idea

Just like in Iraq, the recipe seems to be overthrow a nasty dictator--reap chaos and total social breakdown.

http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21638122-another-font-global-mayhem-emergingnot-helped-regional-meddling-and-western?fsrc=nlw|hig|9-01-2015|NA

Nowadays Libya is barely a country at all (see article). The factions that came together to fell Muammar Qaddafi have given up trying to settle their differences by negotiation. The east is under the control of a more or less secular alliance, based in Tobruk; in the west, a hotch-potch of groups in Tripoli and Misrata, once the symbol of heroic resistance to Qaddafi, hold sway, backed by hardline Islamist militias. Libya has two rival governments, two parliaments, two sets of competing claims to run the central bank and the national oil company, no functioning national police or army, and an array of militias that terrorise the country’s 6m citizens, plunder what remains of the country’s wealth, ruin what little is left of its infrastructure, and torture and kill wherever they are in the ascendancy.

The West has tried to keep out of Libya. America, France and Britain reluctantly intervened to oust Qaddafi in order to prevent him massacring his fellow Libyans, but in the wake of Western failures in Iraq and Afghanistan, the trio was determined not to get sucked into overseeing Libya’s hoped-for transition to democracy, let alone put boots on the ground. Instead, it was left to the UN—and to the Libyans themselves, who insisted that they could mend the place on their own.

158 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
For all the cheerleaders who thought overthrowing Qaddafi was such a great idea (Original Post) eridani Jan 2015 OP
Utter chaos and dissolution of any national identity was always a part of the plan for Iraq, Libya, kelliekat44 Jan 2015 #1
The moron who thought this up was promoted to UN Ambassador AngryAmish Jan 2015 #2
The moron who thought this up may be promoted to President leveymg Jan 2015 #62
It was Neocon mission accomplished...nt Jesus Malverde Jan 2015 #78
The point is permanent intra-Islamic warfare. The result is blowback leveymg Jan 2015 #87
Qaddafi was in the midst of massacring his own people from the air. True Blue Door Jan 2015 #3
FFS malaise Jan 2015 #5
Yes, actually we are. Because we stopped this one. True Blue Door Jan 2015 #6
Yep like the million Iraqis malaise Jan 2015 #9
Post removed Post removed Jan 2015 #10
ROFL malaise Jan 2015 #15
..... Lochloosa Jan 2015 #17
He says while he cuts and pastes anti-American bullshit from years ago. True Blue Door Jan 2015 #69
Par for the course Desert805 Jan 2015 #141
Malaise, a Republican? If so, he or she has fooled me for years! karynnj Jan 2015 #66
She...and don't forget malaise Jan 2015 #71
You aren't a troll but your attempt to drag Iraq into the argument is a FAIL. KittyWampus Jan 2015 #79
Iraq was in the OP, & its certainly relevant to the general argument. NewDeal_Dem Jan 2015 #99
She -- and I will remember karynnj Jan 2015 #90
The Republicans were playing their part in the game, that's all. Most of them sabrina 1 Jan 2015 #110
^^^ This ^^^ tblue Jan 2015 #124
You know what's really sad malaise Jan 2015 #129
+1.000.000 NewDeal_Dem Jan 2015 #131
who is in a position to discuss human rights ? JI7 Jan 2015 #58
Us. I'd like to get started on that. True Blue Door Jan 2015 #70
There was no 'air massacre of his own people' by khaddafi. that's the right wing NewDeal_Dem Jan 2015 #97
He said that he would do that -- should we have waited until it actually happened? karynnj Jan 2015 #126
From the same site linked in the op. NCTraveler Jan 2015 #56
Link please? MattSh Jan 2015 #12
What claim are you asking be cited? True Blue Door Jan 2015 #14
Actually, the FIRST call to action was Just to prevent the massacre karynnj Jan 2015 #65
Except we didn't cause the regime change. jeff47 Jan 2015 #74
I would love to believe you, but I read the accounts of what we were doing while they happened karynnj Jan 2015 #86
How, exactly, did we "take an offensive position against Gaddafi"? jeff47 Jan 2015 #98
I am not defending Qaddafi - he should have ended up at the Hague karynnj Jan 2015 #105
My point is we had that thumb on the scale from the beginning jeff47 Jan 2015 #116
I see your points karynnj Jan 2015 #123
The supposed 'massacre' was a response to interference by foreign powers and rebels. NewDeal_Dem Jan 2015 #102
Qaddafi threatened to kill everyone in the city "like rats" before ANY foreign power intervened karynnj Jan 2015 #122
US generals planned to kill citizens in the streets as an anti-ussr measure. They can do NewDeal_Dem Jan 2015 #133
Non answer. Desert805 Jan 2015 #142
got a little list, have you? i noted a few things about you too, but i can't say them. NewDeal_Dem Jan 2015 #143
you have the gall to talk about bullshit? NewDeal_Dem Jan 2015 #95
I blocked your mail. If you have a question, feel free to ask it publicly. NewDeal_Dem Jan 2015 #101
That's what we were told. A whole lot of people, around the world, knew better. sabrina 1 Jan 2015 #103
The Global Disaster Capitalists "piggy-backed" on the legitimate.... bvar22 Jan 2015 #138
+1000 Blue_Tires Jan 2015 #135
Leave the dictators alone! oberliner Jan 2015 #4
or maybe not fuck around in parts of the world where we are ignorant AngryAmish Jan 2015 #7
So when people living under an oppressive dictatorship cry out for help.... oberliner Jan 2015 #11
Who died and left the USA the boss of the world? MattSh Jan 2015 #13
Shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh malaise Jan 2015 #16
That is a different question oberliner Jan 2015 #19
Not at the point of a gun zipplewrath Jan 2015 #125
No one. When people need help we all have a decision to make. pampango Jan 2015 #28
Very intelligent post. What is it doing in this thread? HERVEPA Jan 2015 #57
Thanks. n/t pampango Jan 2015 #80
Wait, are you saying we must not see the world in black and white? LordGlenconner Jan 2015 #88
"we all" don't make any decisions. NewDeal_Dem Jan 2015 #104
Not for a national government but many want our government to act as a liberal individual might act pampango Jan 2015 #121
what we might want is irrelevant. our government doesn't do what we want for the NewDeal_Dem Jan 2015 #148
"Morality doesn't have a goddamn thing to do with any of it ..." It should. That's my point. pampango Jan 2015 #153
Saudi Arabia, under "S", on a long list reddread Jan 2015 #18
Agreed oberliner Jan 2015 #20
easier caused than prevented reddread Jan 2015 #22
Potentially admirable is not a core foreign policy driver I have the slightest interest in. TheKentuckian Jan 2015 #38
Rwanda is often used as the counter example of where "we" could have intervened karynnj Jan 2015 #82
Clinton says it was his biggest regret as POTUS oberliner Jan 2015 #89
I have read that karynnj Jan 2015 #93
that's the official storyline, yes. NewDeal_Dem Jan 2015 #106
Yes. AngryAmish Jan 2015 #32
Our usual response is to install our own puppet dictator. Fuddnik Jan 2015 #40
You have to discriminate. bemildred Jan 2015 #68
Humanitarian aid doesn't always get to the people who need it oberliner Jan 2015 #91
Yeah, and it will be appropriated and misused, but you do what you can. bemildred Jan 2015 #100
Because if we don't no one else will? It's about time others stepped up to the plate... L0oniX Jan 2015 #96
+1. How many times has the US been criticized for supporting a dictator? treestar Jan 2015 #45
Sure like the Saudis, the Bahrainis the UAE, Jordan, morocco. Jesus Malverde Jan 2015 #84
Exactly oberliner Jan 2015 #94
+100. we have always loved dictatorial governments. NewDeal_Dem Jan 2015 #107
Some countries sadly need a dictator Reter Jan 2015 #118
A lot of Libyans thought it was a good idea. pampango Jan 2015 #8
But not enough without massive NATO firepower. CJCRANE Jan 2015 #21
Yeah, it'd look like Syria right now. joshcryer Jan 2015 #24
Syria has had massive foreign intervention too. CJCRANE Jan 2015 #25
Not to any remotely similar extent. joshcryer Jan 2015 #29
My point stands that is not a "popular uprising" if they need outside support CJCRANE Jan 2015 #36
That's rather arbitrary. joshcryer Jan 2015 #39
It depends on your point of view. How do you know what is a popular uprising CJCRANE Jan 2015 #44
Only 2% are necessary to overthrow a government. joshcryer Jan 2015 #55
Not necessarily. Would you support a Tea Party uprising? CJCRANE Jan 2015 #72
So if 2% want overthrow and 98% don't or are apathetic, that's a popular uprising? NewDeal_Dem Jan 2015 #109
didn't the United StaTes get some outside help in getting JI7 Jan 2015 #42
Libya was already independent. When it comes to insurrection it depends on your point of view CJCRANE Jan 2015 #46
yeah. from my point of view I wouldn't call Libyan under gaddafi JI7 Jan 2015 #49
It was an independent country, IIRC the richest in Africa. CJCRANE Jan 2015 #53
That is why they changed the name from Freedom Fries JEB Jan 2015 #50
And France had to help us during the American Revolution mythology Jan 2015 #59
+100. NewDeal_Dem Jan 2015 #108
With dictators controlling large, modern armies I am not sure that the definition of "popular" that pampango Jan 2015 #30
If it's popular enough, they will defect. CJCRANE Jan 2015 #37
Liberals should not give dictators a pass as long as his army and security forces remain loyal. pampango Jan 2015 #67
No, they will continue to protect their privileges. jeff47 Jan 2015 #81
The hatred for the Libyan people knows no bounds. joshcryer Jan 2015 #27
How about the genocide of black Libyans at the hands of our allies? Jesus Malverde Jan 2015 #85
Just the saudis, emiratis and kuwaities need distators. convenient that. NewDeal_Dem Jan 2015 #111
Nope. joshcryer Jan 2015 #145
and the west props them all up, and has for a long time. authoritarian governments NewDeal_Dem Jan 2015 #146
That's what is said of Latin America. joshcryer Jan 2015 #154
The US propped up Latin American dictatorships for more than a century. And the NewDeal_Dem Jan 2015 #155
You pick the most pleasant scenario. joshcryer Jan 2015 #156
Pick an unpleasant one. Venezuela is all you got. NewDeal_Dem Jan 2015 #157
1.7 million Libyans jamzrockz Jan 2015 #34
A No Fly Zone would not be warranted against a dictator on the basis of large crowds demonstrating pampango Jan 2015 #77
"These countries were targeted for war" and long ago and we knew it. PNAC, PNAC. NewDeal_Dem Jan 2015 #112
thought this was interesting, the Occidental Petroleum seem to be comfy reddread Jan 2015 #23
Hillary smirked like a chimpanzee nilesobek Jan 2015 #26
Yup jamzrockz Jan 2015 #33
The ANC (African National Congress) nilesobek Jan 2015 #35
Do you have any evidence jamzrockz Jan 2015 #52
I'd have to look it up, I'm working 2 jobs nilesobek Jan 2015 #61
+1,000,000,000 and a lot of old, good information: polly7 Jan 2015 #41
yes, i remember that; it was disgusting. NewDeal_Dem Jan 2015 #113
These argument ignore reality: Schema Thing Jan 2015 #31
Basically. joshcryer Jan 2015 #43
Why do scoff at the possibility of worse and on what actual basis? TheKentuckian Jan 2015 #51
Libya is NOT worse off at this point Schema Thing Jan 2015 #64
Rubbish jamzrockz Jan 2015 #76
Yes, Libya would be a fantastic place...as long as you liked the dictator. jeff47 Jan 2015 #92
I actually agree with you on some jamzrockz Jan 2015 #117
The problem is "help" was already given. jeff47 Jan 2015 #137
I would note that "propping up Gaddafi" was not an option then. Schema Thing Jan 2015 #128
in the past? we're propping up dictators right now. NewDeal_Dem Jan 2015 #132
Dude, you are ignoring reality Schema Thing Jan 2015 #127
"I rather be free (in Syria) than comfortable (in Libya)" joshcryer Jan 2015 #144
+100 NewDeal_Dem Jan 2015 #115
I recall another DU faction treestar Jan 2015 #47
Cameron and Hollande led on pushing for the intervention. CJCRANE Jan 2015 #48
We support some dictators, attack others. JEB Jan 2015 #54
Must watch for anyone who wants to understand jamzrockz Jan 2015 #60
By the same logic, those opposed to intervention in other countries mythology Jan 2015 #63
You cannot be blamed for anything jamzrockz Jan 2015 #73
unless the person intervening paid the guy who's doing the beating NewDeal_Dem Jan 2015 #119
du rec Jesus Malverde Jan 2015 #75
reccing this. KG Jan 2015 #83
Libya is made up of a combination of seperate provinces. Kaleva Jan 2015 #114
Hawaii didn't become a state until the 50s either. Not sure what your point is. NewDeal_Dem Jan 2015 #120
Nothing ever works right unless the people that live in a given area do it The2ndWheel Jan 2015 #130
So do we blame wikileaks and Chelsea Manning for starting the Arab Spring? Calista241 Jan 2015 #134
we loved AQ then, and in Syria (heck, Israel's upping its support for Nusra), but only south of the MisterP Jan 2015 #136
Disastrous, huge mistake but keep angering people..it works out so well our foreign policy. n/t Jefferson23 Jan 2015 #139
A colleague in Niger drmeow Jan 2015 #140
wow. that sounds kind of apocalyptic. NewDeal_Dem Jan 2015 #149
The quote was from the article drmeow Jan 2015 #158
So the country is fracturing; sometimes that happens bhikkhu Jan 2015 #147
setting Syria on fire. much worse decision.... quadrature Jan 2015 #150
Perhaps, but both are instances of fucking around with countries that we don't understand eridani Jan 2015 #151
exactly right. you wrote it better than I could ...nt quadrature Jan 2015 #152
 

kelliekat44

(7,759 posts)
1. Utter chaos and dissolution of any national identity was always a part of the plan for Iraq, Libya,
Fri Jan 9, 2015, 07:09 AM
Jan 2015

and the rest of the countries on the PNAC hit list. But what has actually happened is that our enemies have multiplied by being divided. Nice work!

 

AngryAmish

(25,704 posts)
2. The moron who thought this up was promoted to UN Ambassador
Fri Jan 9, 2015, 07:25 AM
Jan 2015

She is the nitwit whi thought arming ISIS was the ticket.

We are lead by morons.

leveymg

(36,418 posts)
62. The moron who thought this up may be promoted to President
Fri Jan 9, 2015, 10:39 AM
Jan 2015

The Libyan and Syrian debacles were both pushed within the Administration by a cabal led by Madam Secretary and then CIA Director Petraeus.

As warned at the time, the world is beginning to reap the whirlwind.

We all face a difficult set of career choices about her - it is undeniable that Hillary Clinton largely bears responsibility for destabilizing the region and escalating the Sunni-Shi'ia holy wars. No reason to think she's going to take a different path in higher office.

Sometimes, I hate it when proven right.

leveymg

(36,418 posts)
87. The point is permanent intra-Islamic warfare. The result is blowback
Fri Jan 9, 2015, 12:16 PM
Jan 2015

for the principal non-Arab sponsors of regime change. That means us, France and UK, and our continued military engagement in the region. Exactly what PNAC called for.

This will only escalate and spread over time.

True Blue Door

(2,969 posts)
3. Qaddafi was in the midst of massacring his own people from the air.
Fri Jan 9, 2015, 07:39 AM
Jan 2015

There was no choice about removing him, and it wasn't us anyway - all we did was stop him from using the air.

You save people from being massacred, then you worry about what comes next.

Your bullshit is roughly equivalent to "You saved the kid from being strangled by his drunken father, and now look at him turning into a drunken jerk himself - aren't you stupid!" Do you honestly believe what you've written? Any actual thought go into it?

Are you against taking responsibility, or just against anything Americans do? If we had done nothing, would you now be faux-solemnly marking the anniversary of the date we failed to stop Gaddafi's genocide of his own people?

True Blue Door

(2,969 posts)
6. Yes, actually we are. Because we stopped this one.
Fri Jan 9, 2015, 07:52 AM
Jan 2015

Which matters to anyone whose priority is human rights rather than anti-Western ideology.

Your schtick is just right-wing propaganda from another country.

malaise

(267,784 posts)
9. Yep like the million Iraqis
Fri Jan 9, 2015, 08:20 AM
Jan 2015

slaughtered in Bush and Cheney's illegal war.
Whatever! The West is in no position to discuss human rights.

Response to malaise (Reply #9)

karynnj

(59,474 posts)
66. Malaise, a Republican? If so, he or she has fooled me for years!
Fri Jan 9, 2015, 11:10 AM
Jan 2015

As to the Republicans being against intervention in Libya - they were split just as they now are on any action. You can count on McCain, Graham, and Ayote to be for it (almost sight unseen) and Rand Paul to be against it.

The Republican resistance - in part - is whether Syria or elsewhere - they would like a commitment to do more.

malaise

(267,784 posts)
71. She...and don't forget
Fri Jan 9, 2015, 11:20 AM
Jan 2015

so is Colbert (according to most ReTHUGs until that WHCD). I do love their inversion of reality.

sabrina 1

(62,325 posts)
110. The Republicans were playing their part in the game, that's all. Most of them
Fri Jan 9, 2015, 12:51 PM
Jan 2015

would have cheered the destruction of Libya had Bush been the one doing it. Just as Democrats, who opposed Iraq, were either silent on Libya, or openly supported it.

The illusion of a democracy while the War Machine and Wall St benefit and the 'little people' pick up the tab.

malaise

(267,784 posts)
129. You know what's really sad
Fri Jan 9, 2015, 01:57 PM
Jan 2015

It's the same in most places - as long as the capitalists benefit (and they get some crumbs) our so called democratic leaders jump on the bus

 

NewDeal_Dem

(1,049 posts)
97. There was no 'air massacre of his own people' by khaddafi. that's the right wing
Fri Jan 9, 2015, 12:36 PM
Jan 2015

propaganda, used to justify overthrow and murder.

karynnj

(59,474 posts)
126. He said that he would do that -- should we have waited until it actually happened?
Fri Jan 9, 2015, 01:28 PM
Jan 2015

He said he would and had the means to do so.

Would you have objected if the only thing the US coalition had done was a no fly zone?

True Blue Door

(2,969 posts)
14. What claim are you asking be cited?
Fri Jan 9, 2015, 08:36 AM
Jan 2015

I know I'm getting old, but I can't be so old that the events of THAT short ago are controversial.

karynnj

(59,474 posts)
65. Actually, the FIRST call to action was Just to prevent the massacre
Fri Jan 9, 2015, 11:05 AM
Jan 2015

It was possible to stop at that. In retrospect, I think that those of us who did buy the idea that we would stop the massacre that was already imminent and then stop were surprised when it morphed into regime change.

The problem was that the "massacre" was actually a response to threatened revolution -- and having prevented Libyan planes from the Benghazi air space -- we then essentially became involved everywhere in tilting the balance of power for the rebels.

Everyone spoke in terms of preventing the genocide, the question is when did regime change REALLY become the goal. If it was from the beginning, it could be said that we were lied to.

jeff47

(26,549 posts)
74. Except we didn't cause the regime change.
Fri Jan 9, 2015, 11:49 AM
Jan 2015

Gaddafi was able to hold on to power due to his air force and other advanced weaponry. That let him slaughter dissidents and otherwise oppress.

We denied him those tools because of the slaughter. Then the dissidents overthrew him because he could not slaughter.

The chaos in the region is caused by interventions decades ago, where Europeans created utterly artificial countries for their purposes. These countries are only stable through massive oppression because they were drawn to satisfy European politics instead of local identities.

There's no reason Libya needs to remain one nation. If the East and West massively disagree, then they should form two countries. They are currently in the process of doing that.

karynnj

(59,474 posts)
86. I would love to believe you, but I read the accounts of what we were doing while they happened
Fri Jan 9, 2015, 12:12 PM
Jan 2015

Initially, we did what you said - denied him the use of air power against the people in cities like Benghazi. We genuinely DID prevent a massacre that otherwise was going to happen.

We then gradually shifted to taking an offensive position against Gaddafi everywhere -- and there was no effort that I know of to then try to use diplomacy to have a power sharing government - with or without Gaddafi. The actions went way beyond the actions that were spoken about before we got in. This is why the tape of Hillary Clinton about his death was discordant - at least to me.

jeff47

(26,549 posts)
98. How, exactly, did we "take an offensive position against Gaddafi"?
Fri Jan 9, 2015, 12:36 PM
Jan 2015

We kept him from using his advanced weaponry by bombing his advanced weaponry. That's pretty damn offensive. And it's the first thing "we" did.....though it wasn't US planes doing the bombing.

This is why the tape of Hillary Clinton about his death was discordant - at least to me

Gaddafi was a brutal asshole who slaughtered and tortured swaths of his people to hold on to power, and to forcibly keep his artificial country together. We should be pleased at his end, though I would have preferred his end to be a cell in the Hague.

karynnj

(59,474 posts)
105. I am not defending Qaddafi - he should have ended up at the Hague
Fri Jan 9, 2015, 12:48 PM
Jan 2015

However, the tone of that Clinton clip was unseemly to me -- and it would have been had it been a similarly gleeful Obama or Kerry. I would love to know ANY extenuating circumstances - ie maybe she had not heard of the viciousness of the attack.

As to offensive, what I was speaking of was that the US ended up weakening the Qaddafi forces even in areas where they were not threatening the rebels - like the outskirts of Tripoli. As an observer, via DU, the US position morphed from stopping a massacre to a very big thumb on the scale helping the rebels win. All very fast and subtle.

jeff47

(26,549 posts)
116. My point is we had that thumb on the scale from the beginning
Fri Jan 9, 2015, 12:58 PM
Jan 2015

The moment we took away his tanks and aircraft, we put our thumb on the scale. Because slaughter via advanced weaponry was all Gaddafi had.

There really is not difference between bombing the ones that looked like slaughter was imminent and ones that were further from the fighting. Because the ones further from the fighting would shortly have moved to where the fighting was - slaughter was Gaddafi's only available move.

He had done far too much harm over the decades for some sort of "power sharing" to work. And he had the resources to flee long before his capture, but he was apparently not interested in a life in exile.

karynnj

(59,474 posts)
123. I see your points
Fri Jan 9, 2015, 01:23 PM
Jan 2015

Where I was thinking that doing this could lead to BOTH sides taking a step back - neither side had any intention of doing so. Given that, the civil war would continue.

I still see a difference between killing civilians in rebel held cities and attacking Quaddafi forces everywhere. I also think some diplomatic effort would have been a good idea - even if like with Syria - we stated that Quaddafi himself could not retain any power.

 

NewDeal_Dem

(1,049 posts)
102. The supposed 'massacre' was a response to interference by foreign powers and rebels.
Fri Jan 9, 2015, 12:46 PM
Jan 2015

The goal was regime change long before the public heard anything about Libya.

karynnj

(59,474 posts)
122. Qaddafi threatened to kill everyone in the city "like rats" before ANY foreign power intervened
Fri Jan 9, 2015, 01:13 PM
Jan 2015

I agree that it was very much in response to the actions and goals of the rebels.

The question is whether a government can threaten to bomb one of its own cities. This is where the comparisons to Rwanda come in. It is a very tricky area. Had the US coalition just taken away air power from Qaddafi - preventing him from taking that action - and done nothing else, would you have had a problem?

Then (as others mention), there were other heavy weapons - like tanks. What if the US coalition both used its no fly control -- AND demanded there be no tank movements. As they would then be the sole air power, they could make movement of tanks very costly in terms of lives and material by saying that they would bomb any moving tank. Would you then have a problem?

This is what I meant by the slow/subtle shift between preventing a massacre and changing the balance of power. Yet looking at the two questions - where I would have had no problem being for both - it does show the very slippery issues of entering a civil war. ( I strongly suspect that this has influenced Obama's position on Syria - where like Quaddafi, Assad has done awful things.)

 

NewDeal_Dem

(1,049 posts)
133. US generals planned to kill citizens in the streets as an anti-ussr measure. They can do
Fri Jan 9, 2015, 02:20 PM
Jan 2015

anything they can sell, and the US government has killed strikers and other labor activists for much less than was going on in Libya.

sabrina 1

(62,325 posts)
103. That's what we were told. A whole lot of people, around the world, knew better.
Fri Jan 9, 2015, 12:47 PM
Jan 2015

The 'concern' for Libyan civilians, completely disappeared after control of the oil was accomplished. NATO disappeared as the massacres of innocents, especially sub-Saharan Africans, began. Torture, hangings, murders of those we supposedly were there to protect, went un-noticed by those who claimed that was the reason for being there, and they never stopped.

The invasion of Libya had zero to do with humanitarianism.

Calls for help to protect civilians from roving, armed gangs who helped NATO 'on the ground' went unanswered..

Libya is in a state of utter collapse, its government has fled unable to control anything.

And worst of all, the so-called 'rebels' we armed are now part of ISIS.

However we did the same thing in Iraq, which took a little longer to control, causing people to wonder if failure where the unfortunate people of the countries we invade is the goal.

I keep remembering the sociopath, Michael Ledeen's pathological mutterings about how we were going to flatten the entire Middle East and turn it into a glass parking lot' or words to that effect.

What is most remarkable is how the 'left' who so vehemently opposed the predictable humanitarian disaster in Iraq, cheered for what is now possibly a worse disaster (for the people they claimed to care so much about) in Libya.

Journalists, if you can call them that, who did THEIR part for the war machine, Kris Kristoff eg, lauding the 'success' of Libya, have not been heard from since afaik.

Another reason why I will never support Hillary for president. Even Bishop Tutu and Mandella expressed shock and sadness at her remarks after the horrific gang murder of Gadaffi.

bvar22

(39,909 posts)
138. The Global Disaster Capitalists "piggy-backed" on the legitimate....
Fri Jan 9, 2015, 06:53 PM
Jan 2015

...Arab Spring Uprisings to enter an ongoing Civil War in Libya.
The IMF, Global Oil Corps, and World Banks have lusted after the riches of North Africa for decades, but Gaddafi kept them out.

” For all his dictatorial megalomania, Gaddafi is a committed pan-African - a fierce defender of African unity. Libya was not in debt to international bankers. It did not borrow cash from the International Monetary Fund for any "structural adjustment". It used oil money for social services - including the Great Man Made River project, and investment/aid to sub-Saharan countries. Its independent central bank was not manipulated by the Western financial system. All in all a very bad example for the developing world.”

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/MD27Ak01.html

 

AngryAmish

(25,704 posts)
7. or maybe not fuck around in parts of the world where we are ignorant
Fri Jan 9, 2015, 08:03 AM
Jan 2015

Can we all agree that Quafaffy and Assad are bad? Guess what - there are others that are worse. We picked a side because some folks told us what we wanted to hear. Guess what? They lied. There is no interest in that part of the world by and large in Western forms of government. By and large they just want their people in charge. If you got the votes you want democracy. If not they want a dictatorship by some in your tribe.

Western institutions are not universal. Something like a civil service system is alien.

Yet at the highest levels of goverment and academia they believe this fantasy that all peoples think like we do. This willful (and it is ideological and thus an article of faith - they will not change) ignorance has been causing problems for generations.

 

oberliner

(58,724 posts)
11. So when people living under an oppressive dictatorship cry out for help....
Fri Jan 9, 2015, 08:30 AM
Jan 2015

Our response should be - sorry, we don't mess around in that part of the world?

 

oberliner

(58,724 posts)
19. That is a different question
Fri Jan 9, 2015, 08:48 AM
Jan 2015

I'm asking this question: if people living under oppressive regimes ask for help/support from western democracies such as the US, do you think we at least ought to consider providing some or just stay out of it in all circumstances?

zipplewrath

(16,646 posts)
125. Not at the point of a gun
Fri Jan 9, 2015, 01:27 PM
Jan 2015

When people ask for help, you choose what kind of help to give. You don't have to choose to give the kind for which they ask.

We seem to believe that the most effective help we can give comes at the point of a gun. The UN has a whole commission that offers to help people in countries like Libya, but they are universally ignored. There was plenty of help we could, and did, offer Libya but the accepted none of it. And that was predictable up front. They had been under the regime for years. Suddenly we are suppose to use our guns to "free" them. But it was predictable that what we would free them to do was kill each other on their own. All regrettable, but all also predictable and implies that we should choose more carefully before we start shooting.

What do we do for people living under oppressive regimes? I'd suggest we use the State Department, not the Defense Department. And we should start WELL before their people start choosing violent revolution. We have tried for decades to help Haiti, it hasn't gone well. Maybe we should perfect that before we start shooting half way around the world.

pampango

(24,692 posts)
28. No one. When people need help we all have a decision to make.
Fri Jan 9, 2015, 09:22 AM
Jan 2015

If we do not have the power to help, we can express our sympathy and just say there's nothing we can do. When the Soviet tanks rolled into Czechoslovakia and Hungary and put down 'revolutions', there was nothing we could do about it. My elderly neighbor has cancer. I don't have the power to cure it so I bring over meals and talk.

If we have the power and decide not to use it that is a decision, not an absence of decision. Sometimes it will be the right decision and sometimes not. The US had the power to enter the war against Germany prior to Germany's declaration war on us after Pearl Harbor and chose not to do so. The USSR could have declared war on Germany when it invaded Poland and decided not to do so. You can argue that those were wise or unwise decisions, but they were decisions one way or the other.

We had the power to respond to the North Korean invasion of the South. We could have said it was none of our affair. Perhaps all of Korea would be united now under Kim Jong Un for better or worse. We used our power - through the UN since the USSR was boycotting it at the wrong time.

In the modern world, the UN sometimes authorizes international intervention in countries were civilians are at risk and sometimes it does not. This aspect of international law is a modern consideration that does not apply to helping your neighbor or what happened back in the 1930's and 40's.

I don't think liberals can say that the answer is to ALWAYS help people in need or to NEVER help them. There are practical and legal considerations that make each situation different.

 

LordGlenconner

(1,348 posts)
88. Wait, are you saying we must not see the world in black and white?
Fri Jan 9, 2015, 12:16 PM
Jan 2015

That nuance actually exists and we must strive to understand that nuance?

I couldn't agree more. It would be so much easier to see the world in black and white, like the OP and Malaise, but alas, it doesn't exist that way.

pampango

(24,692 posts)
121. Not for a national government but many want our government to act as a liberal individual might act
Fri Jan 9, 2015, 01:08 PM
Jan 2015

which does not mean to ALWAYS do something or to NEVER do something but to consider the suffering and decide if and how any help can be given.

The only decision we make individually when we see suffering if we as individuals want to help ourselves by volunteering or donating. I suppose in the Spanish Civil war in the 1930's some liberals here actually went to fight against Franco but that is a rare exception to what individuals usually are able to do.

 

NewDeal_Dem

(1,049 posts)
148. what we might want is irrelevant. our government doesn't do what we want for the
Sat Jan 10, 2015, 03:00 AM
Jan 2015

reasons 'we' want in situations like this. it does what it and its (wealthy/powerful/connected) constituents want, or for strategic reasons. Morality doesn't have a goddamn thing to do with any of it, it's just the excuse given to the general public so the criminals can get away with their crimes.

pampango

(24,692 posts)
153. "Morality doesn't have a goddamn thing to do with any of it ..." It should. That's my point.
Sat Jan 10, 2015, 08:23 AM
Jan 2015

Liberals should want morality to play a major role in our foreign policy.

It should play a major role in domestic policy too for that matter, e.g. action on income inequality, poverty, discrimination, etc. Past government policy has in too many cases not been 'moral'. That does not mean that liberals should give that up as a goal.

 

reddread

(6,896 posts)
18. Saudi Arabia, under "S", on a long list
Fri Jan 9, 2015, 08:47 AM
Jan 2015

hypocrisy and destabilzed chaos are no substitute for the real compassion
mocked and feigned over bullshit stories about burqas, incubators and WMD.

 

oberliner

(58,724 posts)
20. Agreed
Fri Jan 9, 2015, 08:51 AM
Jan 2015

Our foreign policy is certainly not based on human rights, no doubt about that.

However, if there is a chance for the US to intervene on the side of those living under an oppressive regime - who are specifically asking for our help - is it not a potentially admirable response to do so?

I am thinking, for example, of the Rwandan genocide that some say could have been prevented with earlier Western involvement.

 

reddread

(6,896 posts)
22. easier caused than prevented
Fri Jan 9, 2015, 09:04 AM
Jan 2015

who ever made bank on indigenous mouths without an expanding slave trade?

TheKentuckian

(24,934 posts)
38. Potentially admirable is not a core foreign policy driver I have the slightest interest in.
Fri Jan 9, 2015, 09:55 AM
Jan 2015

You think this increased regional stability, has it made Americans more secure or increased our broad prosperity or or given our people as environment that fosters more self determination, that it was probable that the lives of the population involved has improved in the ways we'd set out for ourselves?

Have our intercessions generally been fruitful or is the trend making bad worse? What is your point of wringing your hands about dictators when we leave even worse conditions dictated by theocratic radicals and/or brutal authoritarians while the existing civilization is destroyed along with infrastructure?

karynnj

(59,474 posts)
82. Rwanda is often used as the counter example of where "we" could have intervened
Fri Jan 9, 2015, 12:01 PM
Jan 2015

To my embarrassment, I realized I had forgotten, if I ever knew, the context that the genocide grew out it. As it is being set out often as a poster child for what happens if we don't act, the question I had is what affect could the world have had here if internationally, we responded quickly.

Though Wikipedia can have its problems, it does have a short history. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rwandan_Genocide (More detail on the long history of the two groups - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rwandan_Genocide#Pre-colonial_kingdoms_and_origins_of_Hutu.2C_Tutsi_and_Twa )

Here, it seems the world did work to end the civil war that had started 1990 though the struggle had flamed up periodically since colonial days- getting a ceasefire in 1993 and setting a goal for power sharing. There were UN peacekeepers there already. Yet, their presence did not deter the genocide.

The second link is fascinating in showing how in the period after the ceasefire, some Hutu extremists became ever more powerful and more extreme - even accusing their President of treason and labeling Hutus who married Tutsis as traitors. It is fascinating to consider that while this shift occurred the UN was there and they were trying to keep the peace.

The genocide was triggered after the President's plane was shot down killing all aboard and evidence later pointed to Hutu extremist, not the rebels -- and lasted 100 days. (Interesting that moderate Hutu leaders (Hutus ran the country) were killed in the very early days as well as the Tutsi.)

The question is when could the UN,US etc have changed the course they were on? When the country - which was supposed to be moving to power sharing - instead became ever more racist, could international diplomatic pressure discouraged that or would it have actually caused some of the moderates to join the extremists if there was pressure from the outside?

Given the swiftness with the actual genocide blew up and the fact that it happened WITH THE UN PEACEKEEPERS there, I wonder how quickly and effectively the world could have reacted - even if this contingency had been foreseen and a strategy worked out in advance. What is the quickest time that the UN and other countries have gone through their processes to respond - including deciding to respond, working out how to respond and then working out the logistics to do so. I suspect many of those 100 days would have passed before a major response could have occurred.

(I have read of Susan Rice speaking of it in terms of American politics - bad optics, but were there concrete proposals to respond (and when were they pushed)? )

 

oberliner

(58,724 posts)
89. Clinton says it was his biggest regret as POTUS
Fri Jan 9, 2015, 12:27 PM
Jan 2015

Presumably, he felt that was something positive that the US could have done to help prevent the genocide.

karynnj

(59,474 posts)
93. I have read that
Fri Jan 9, 2015, 12:32 PM
Jan 2015

However, I wonder if that reflects the American virtue of always believing that we can fix what is wrong - whether foreign policy or in our personal lives.

 

AngryAmish

(25,704 posts)
32. Yes.
Fri Jan 9, 2015, 09:34 AM
Jan 2015

We tried to help in Lybia and Syria and Iraq and Vietnam and Somalia etc.

We did not help. Yet we are incapable of recognizing that. New rule - we don't do civil wars. And if a country is causing trouble, then they will suffer a punitive raid, then we leave.

bemildred

(90,061 posts)
68. You have to discriminate.
Fri Jan 9, 2015, 11:18 AM
Jan 2015

1.) Is it plausible that we can help?
2.) Is it feasible for us to help?
3.) Is it likely that our help will actually help?
4.) Will the consequences of failure not make it worse?

If you can say all of those things are true, then you should consider taking action, prudently. The warnings about Libya were out there, and they were ignored.

And you can always send humanitarian aid.

 

oberliner

(58,724 posts)
91. Humanitarian aid doesn't always get to the people who need it
Fri Jan 9, 2015, 12:28 PM
Jan 2015

It would have been tough, for example, to get aid to those living under Qadafi without him intercepting.

bemildred

(90,061 posts)
100. Yeah, and it will be appropriated and misused, but you do what you can.
Fri Jan 9, 2015, 12:42 PM
Jan 2015

And politically it's very effective when you make sure it gets where it's needed. You win friends, and they will remember. And compared to military operations it is cheap. It was already the case that Qadafi was not in a position to tell us what to do, not in control, so no real need to give it to him by then anyway.

 

L0oniX

(31,493 posts)
96. Because if we don't no one else will? It's about time others stepped up to the plate...
Fri Jan 9, 2015, 12:34 PM
Jan 2015

instead of it always being us. They save their money and resources while we cut help for our own people.

treestar

(82,383 posts)
45. +1. How many times has the US been criticized for supporting a dictator?
Fri Jan 9, 2015, 10:09 AM
Jan 2015

Then when the dictator falls, it the US' fault the dictator's country is disorganized.

Jesus Malverde

(10,274 posts)
84. Sure like the Saudis, the Bahrainis the UAE, Jordan, morocco.
Fri Jan 9, 2015, 12:04 PM
Jan 2015

The nut jobs in Uganda.

It a huge list of whom we give a pass.

We love dictatorial governments that rule by decree as long as they don't promote socialism or support the Palestinians. Then we embrace them.

But you knew that.

Screw the neocons who have hijacked the state department and use our military to do the dirty work for other countries. Their cynical ways always reap dividends for others and a loss of blood and treasure for us.

 

oberliner

(58,724 posts)
94. Exactly
Fri Jan 9, 2015, 12:32 PM
Jan 2015

But are you OK with our supporting those regimes? Would you not be more in favor of supporting those who wish to get out from under the oppression there - especially if they specifically ask for our assistance in doing so?

 

Reter

(2,188 posts)
118. Some countries sadly need a dictator
Fri Jan 9, 2015, 01:00 PM
Jan 2015

They keep the crime down. If a Christian was killed in Iraq 20 years ago, Saddam would not tolerate it.

pampango

(24,692 posts)
8. A lot of Libyans thought it was a good idea.
Fri Jan 9, 2015, 08:04 AM
Jan 2015

It is easy for people in the West to tell Libyans that they have to live under a dictator because :

1) You don't know how to run a democracy;

I know. The French, the Russians and many others did not get democracies after their revolutions.

2) The way the West drew national borders means that groups who don't particularly like each other are in the same country.
Therefore, you need a strong dictator to keep the country together to keep you from fighting with each other;

If the required dictator has to use a little domestic terrorism (midnight arrests, torture and summary execution) to preserve his power, you just have to live with that.

3) Do not for a second think that Americans will accept what we urge you to accept. We try to fight for our rights and a more functional democracy. We urge you not to do the same.

CJCRANE

(18,184 posts)
21. But not enough without massive NATO firepower.
Fri Jan 9, 2015, 09:00 AM
Jan 2015

If a popular uprising needs massive foreign intervention then maybe it isn't that popular.

The same goes for what's happening in Syria.

CJCRANE

(18,184 posts)
25. Syria has had massive foreign intervention too.
Fri Jan 9, 2015, 09:17 AM
Jan 2015

Most of the "Syrian rebels" are foreigners now, thanks to the open door policy and support of neighboring countries and their allies.

joshcryer

(62,265 posts)
29. Not to any remotely similar extent.
Fri Jan 9, 2015, 09:24 AM
Jan 2015

To say that they are comparable is a joke.

Libya would look very much like Syria had Gaddafi done what Assad did in Homs.

The Saudis and UAE and Qatar would still be helping out whatever sides that they support.

CJCRANE

(18,184 posts)
44. It depends on your point of view. How do you know what is a popular uprising
Fri Jan 9, 2015, 10:09 AM
Jan 2015

or what is a regional insurrection or what is a terrorist outbreak?

Without factual measurements, it depends on your point of view. You clearly supported the uprising against Gadaffi. I did at the time of the siege of Benghazi but now I think we were mislead.

I was teaching Libyan students at the time and they said that what we heard in the western media was all propaganda (even the ones who were nominally Anti-Gadaffi).

joshcryer

(62,265 posts)
55. Only 2% are necessary to overthrow a government.
Fri Jan 9, 2015, 10:21 AM
Jan 2015

There are studies about this. Basically you are claiming that only successful uprisings (without any outside intervention) can be popular uprisings. That's arbitrary.

The Libyan people are hard on themselves because of all the undue criticism they receive. It is a similar situation in Urkraine.

Basically because the US potentially supports an uprising, it must invariably be a bad uprising.

CJCRANE

(18,184 posts)
72. Not necessarily. Would you support a Tea Party uprising?
Fri Jan 9, 2015, 11:41 AM
Jan 2015

If it only takes 2% to form an uprising that means that uprisings are often not "popular uprisings".

CJCRANE

(18,184 posts)
46. Libya was already independent. When it comes to insurrection it depends on your point of view
Fri Jan 9, 2015, 10:10 AM
Jan 2015

as I said above.

CJCRANE

(18,184 posts)
53. It was an independent country, IIRC the richest in Africa.
Fri Jan 9, 2015, 10:17 AM
Jan 2015

I've taught Libyan students, AFAIK many of them get a year's education abroad paid for by the state.

 

mythology

(9,527 posts)
59. And France had to help us during the American Revolution
Fri Jan 9, 2015, 10:36 AM
Jan 2015

Which means apparently that wasn't a popular uprising either.

pampango

(24,692 posts)
30. With dictators controlling large, modern armies I am not sure that the definition of "popular" that
Fri Jan 9, 2015, 09:24 AM
Jan 2015

I want to use. Particularly if they are willing to use tanks and planes against civilians.

pampango

(24,692 posts)
67. Liberals should not give dictators a pass as long as his army and security forces remain loyal.
Fri Jan 9, 2015, 11:17 AM
Jan 2015

I doubt you can find a liberal politicians or other leader who professes that 'consent of the governed' can be fulfilled simply by a dictator's military and security forces remain loyal to him.

jeff47

(26,549 posts)
81. No, they will continue to protect their privileges.
Fri Jan 9, 2015, 11:59 AM
Jan 2015

There's a reason dictators provide their militaries with lots of money and other privileges. It makes the military want to keep the status quo.

There's no reason for Libya to be one country if the people have wildly divergent philosophies. They are in the process of splitting. Let them either finish the job, or realize they have more in common.

But it's silly to insist it was better when a brutal dictator held an utterly artificial country together.

joshcryer

(62,265 posts)
27. The hatred for the Libyan people knows no bounds.
Fri Jan 9, 2015, 09:20 AM
Jan 2015

First, it was a popular uprising:



Second, the problems that they are working out now are certainly troublesome, but they are exaggerated by the MSM and by Libyan haters as a whole. When the Latin American dictators were overthrown their countries followed very violent phases.

Third, the idea that Libyan people, Egyptian people, Iraqi people, or any peoples in the Muslim world need dictators to keep them under control is inherently racist and bigoted at its core.

Fourth, Libyan borders may be redrawn, because the British imperial borders were not culturally acceptable. Of course, this would also be seen as meddling, with no regard to the initial colonial borders to begin with.

The fact remains that those bashing Libyans don't want to see them succeed. But time will out and they will succeed. The militias and factions fighting amongst one another are literally in the hundreds, not thousands, hundreds of jerks with guns and cars. Libya is not Somalia nor will it become so.

Despite the eager hopes of those who have nothing to contribute but to bash Libyan people.

Jesus Malverde

(10,274 posts)
85. How about the genocide of black Libyans at the hands of our allies?
Fri Jan 9, 2015, 12:09 PM
Jan 2015

The outrage at human rights violations Is so selective it's a joke.



Just a thread ago you were claiming Libya was doing great. Here were back to the growing pains of democracy meme. You guys play all the angles to suit your objectives.

joshcryer

(62,265 posts)
145. Nope.
Sat Jan 10, 2015, 02:11 AM
Jan 2015

I expect all of those countries will overthrow their kings and warlords in due time.

And it won't be pretty.

And the aftermath won't be sweet.

That's the reality of authoritarian governments. They cannot last.

 

NewDeal_Dem

(1,049 posts)
146. and the west props them all up, and has for a long time. authoritarian governments
Sat Jan 10, 2015, 02:22 AM
Jan 2015

historically last a while.

and historically, even when overthrown, transition to more authoritarianism.

joshcryer

(62,265 posts)
154. That's what is said of Latin America.
Sat Jan 10, 2015, 09:13 AM
Jan 2015

Yet no one is cheering the stability in most Latin American countries. When the US props up dictatorships, it ends badly. When those dictatorships fall, and the US supports it, it will still end badly.

That's the nature of dictatorships falling.

 

NewDeal_Dem

(1,049 posts)
155. The US propped up Latin American dictatorships for more than a century. And the
Sat Jan 10, 2015, 12:45 PM
Jan 2015

present situation didn't come about for the most part via US-opposed revolutions. Rather the opposite.

For example, r-wing dictator Pinochet came to power, with US support, after violently overthrowing and murdering the elected Allende. Pinochet stayed in power from 1974 to 1990, 16 years, until he got old. And was still nominally "Senator for life" until 2002.

Then he "stepped down" via legal and non-violent means, and though he had a little trouble (house arrest and legal troubles), died 16 years later, still in possession of wealth and some power, having never served a day in jail or gone to court.

Your feel-good theory needs work.



joshcryer

(62,265 posts)
156. You pick the most pleasant scenario.
Sat Jan 10, 2015, 12:58 PM
Jan 2015

Picking the most "feel good scenario" of your own choosing. Might I add, it leaves a filthy taste in my mouth to say this, but I know, without a doubt, you chose the least worst Latin American dictator. For a reason, you want to box me in.

I won't fall for it. Latin American dictatorships supported by the United States are reprehensible and undefendable. Most if not all of those dictatorships were followed by very violent aftermaths. In some cases, such as, say, Venezuela, the violence is on-going, to the point of even being more violent, today, than Libya, a country supposedly in turmoil. That's how ridiculous this premise is.

 

NewDeal_Dem

(1,049 posts)
157. Pick an unpleasant one. Venezuela is all you got.
Sat Jan 10, 2015, 01:07 PM
Jan 2015

Pinochet was the "least worst" Latin American dictator? Oh really?

 

jamzrockz

(1,333 posts)
34. 1.7 million Libyans
Fri Jan 9, 2015, 09:44 AM
Jan 2015

came out against this intervention but the people who originally called for a No fly zone knew better than the 1.7 million people and decided to go for a regime change instead.

I am guessing we are still listening to the same sort of people in Syria now. Bullshit, Wesley Clarke said it before any of this started. These countries were targeted for war and the few voices we listened to are the ones that were saying what we wanted to hear so they went to war.

pampango

(24,692 posts)
77. A No Fly Zone would not be warranted against a dictator on the basis of large crowds demonstrating
Fri Jan 9, 2015, 11:55 AM
Jan 2015

in his favor. Things become more problematic when a dictator uses tanks and planes to kill civilians who are protesting against him.

nilesobek

(1,423 posts)
26. Hillary smirked like a chimpanzee
Fri Jan 9, 2015, 09:19 AM
Jan 2015

when Quaddafi took a bayonet up the case. Disgusting the smiles and laughter from her. Quaddafi was building a nice society in Libya and they had found trillions of gallons of freshwater in the desert. Eventually Libya could have fed all Africa. The people themselves lived with many nice subsidies such as free gasoline and real cheap rent.

Well those days are now over, all the people of Libya have to look forward to is IMF loans and more oil companies. So when you vote for Hillary this is what you get.

 

jamzrockz

(1,333 posts)
33. Yup
Fri Jan 9, 2015, 09:38 AM
Jan 2015

And please let nobody forget this come election time. The west hears the outcry of a small minority of hardcore Islamic fundamentalist who cried out that Gaddafi was coming after them for violently opposing the government. And ofc one of their first actions was to attempt genocide of black Libyans, institute sharia law and so on.



Biggest foreign policy failure in my lifetime. Also spare me with the "Bengazhiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii" posts cos it was truly a disaster. People died and people are still dying from that mistake. But Americans don't really care since only 4 white Americans died in the whole affair. So victory for the supporters of the war while millions of libyans are suffering, thousands are dead and black Libyans are running for their lives in their own country.

nilesobek

(1,423 posts)
35. The ANC (African National Congress)
Fri Jan 9, 2015, 09:50 AM
Jan 2015

sent tens of thousands of black soldiers to Libya via Israeli diplomacy to help prop up Quaddafi. Now after the horror show of Quaddafi being murdered on live tv to the overwhelming elation of joy from Hillary, these African men were rounded up and slaughtered because they were black. With Quaddafi gone, the racists took over. God help Libya because I can't.

Thanks for this reminder.

 

jamzrockz

(1,333 posts)
52. Do you have any evidence
Fri Jan 9, 2015, 10:17 AM
Jan 2015

That foreign black troops were sent to Libya to prop up the Libyan people? cos if anything Libya did not need propping up. They had all the fire power they needed. It was the Islamic extremist that needed our airforce and weapons to topple the legitimate govt. Even Amnesty international who at one that believed that story have now backed away from it

nilesobek

(1,423 posts)
61. I'd have to look it up, I'm working 2 jobs
Fri Jan 9, 2015, 10:37 AM
Jan 2015

but I will try and get back to you.

What a lot of people fail to see is that the "civil war," was a dirty mission creep movement from the beginning. We have been "working," with radical Islamists since the 1979 Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. There was an unannounced civil war going on that we were backing. Those clandestine operators were working with radical Islamists.

It was into this environment that the ANC troops were transferred into, basically a holding pattern in a lukewarm civil war, punctuated by the occasional terrorist attack on the Quaddafi government. I think it took Israel by surprise, the NATO bombing because I don't think they would have facilitated the transfer if they knew that was going on.

In no way do I blame Israel for the slaughter of these blacks. They were caught off guard like everyone else. This was the time the USA was working with Quaddafi and praising him for his anti-terrorism stance. Then they use the same jihadists to take down Quaddafi.

Sometimes I wonder if it matters what side we are on. We are damned.

polly7

(20,582 posts)
41. +1,000,000,000 and a lot of old, good information:
Fri Jan 9, 2015, 10:06 AM
Jan 2015

Last edited Fri Jan 9, 2015, 03:00 PM - Edit history (5)

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/polly7/6

The Untold Story in Libya

*****************************************************

No Evidence? No Problem!!

Exposed: The "Humanitarian" War In Libya

Must Watch Video

How the CIA Used "Libyan Expatriates" To Engineer Consent For Regime Change

One of the main sources for the claim that Qaddafi was killing his own people is the Libyan League for Human Rights (LLHR), an organization linked to the International Federation of Human Rights (FIDH). On Feb. 21, 2011, LLHR General Secretary Dr. Sliman Bouchuiguir initiated a petition in collaboration with the organization U.N. Watch and the National Endowment for Democracy. This petition was signed by more than 70 NGOs.

Then a few days later, on Feb. 25, Dr. Bouchuiguir went to the U.N. Human Rights Council in order to expose the allegations concerning the crimes of Qaddafi’s government. In July 2011 we went to Geneva to interview Dr. Sliman Bouchuiguir.

These videos were linked to in mainer's thread and others way back in 2011. Very revealing and showing just how easy it was - "How to circumvent international law and justice 101." - originally published by http://laguerrehumanitaire.fr

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article29428.htm

Would anyone here know how to access this in the archives ..... it was an amazing thread by mainer on Sun Oct-23-11 called "My experience in Libya", followed by hundreds of articles and links showing what a sham/horror this all was. Would be greatly appreciated.

Schema Thing

(10,283 posts)
31. These argument ignore reality:
Fri Jan 9, 2015, 09:28 AM
Jan 2015

the reality is that before the west stepped in to help the rebels, Libya was already in full blown civil war.


So saying "still think overthrowing Qaddafi was such a good idea?" is nonsensical. Syria might (likely would) still be a horrible chaotic place if Assad had been taken out immediately - but worse than it is now? With worse choices going forward than it has now?

Hardly.

joshcryer

(62,265 posts)
43. Basically.
Fri Jan 9, 2015, 10:08 AM
Jan 2015

It was going to turn to shit regardless. The question may hinge around whether or not the current state is the worst condition. Given Syria, that's obviously not the case.

Of course, there are those who do believe that Gaddafi would've rounded up the belligerents Assad-style and things would just blow over.

That is wishful thinking.

TheKentuckian

(24,934 posts)
51. Why do scoff at the possibility of worse and on what actual basis?
Fri Jan 9, 2015, 10:17 AM
Jan 2015

Hardly my ass. Worse with worse choices is well within the realm of possibility, in fact with Libya it is already there. By what standards are we saying conditions for the average citizen has improved or is reasonably expected to improve (since we're are going to flip back and forth)?

Where is the improvement in the lives of the people we are "saving and freeing from oppressive dictators", it looks to me that our "help" makes bad worse and enables regressive, murderous, authoritarian and generally theocratic forces more than anything else.

Interventionist are cruel, regressive, destructive, and delusional wasters of blood and treasure ever trying to justify the indefensible and contemptibly disastrous efforts that destabilize to feed profiteers,expand the power and resources of our own military, justify gutting our own rights usually for some soon to be failed resource grab for multinational corporations.

The world would be a better place if the bullets were used on those cheerleading their use around the globe for their or their favored politicians bullshit games. Doing so would save a lot of lives and net increase prosperity and self determination around the globe.

Schema Thing

(10,283 posts)
64. Libya is NOT worse off at this point
Fri Jan 9, 2015, 10:52 AM
Jan 2015

than Syria. Not by a long shot. And it's possibilities and prospects going forward ARE much better than Syria's at this point.


The fact is the PEOPLE of Libya did rise up against Qaddafi and then the west stepped in and gave them a much needed hand.

If you want to compare, compare it to the American revolution. That is more accurate than comparing it to Iraq.

 

jamzrockz

(1,333 posts)
76. Rubbish
Fri Jan 9, 2015, 11:55 AM
Jan 2015

Syria is in the condition that is is now because they refused to fall in line and because Russia stepped in to prevent yet another country from falling victim to west imperial ambitions. I rather be free and a bit uncomfortable (Syria) than to be held captive a be a bit comfortable (Libya). But at the end of the day, I rather not be a victim of the west's military intervention in my country at all.

Just think how normal Libya would have been now if the west had allowed it (not like they should ask for permission in the first place) to squash the terrorists killing and destroying Libyan society in Benghazi? That should be the alternative not NATO bombing vs continuously supporting Islamic extremists for 3 yrs and hoping that somehow fixes the country.

jeff47

(26,549 posts)
92. Yes, Libya would be a fantastic place...as long as you liked the dictator.
Fri Jan 9, 2015, 12:29 PM
Jan 2015

If you didn't like the dictator, it wasn't so nice. But stability is all that's important, right?

Look, virtually all of the countries in the region are artificial creations made by Europeans decades ago. The borders were drawn to satisfy European politics at the time with zero regard to what the local people felt.

Libya should probably be two countries. But Europeans preferred one. So they made one. But the only way to hold the country together was a brutal dictatorship. Libya is currently in the process of figuring out if it should really be two countries, or if they have enough in common to remain a single country. It's not pretty, but it's the only way you will end up with true stability.

Syria should not exist. But the French wanted a country there, because the British were getting other countries in the region. So Syria exists. Left to their own devices, chunks of Syria, Iraq and Turkey would form Kurdistan. Other chunks of Syria, Iraq, Lebanon and Jordan would form another nation. Chunks of Iraq would be part of Iran. And chunks of Turkey, Syria and Lebanon would form yet another state. But the French and British did not let the locals draw the borders when the Ottoman Empire lost WWI.

The only alternative to the locals drawing the borders is death and brutality. Either through severe oppression, or through civil war. The latter at least has an end to the pain and dying, and produces stable countries with culturally-defined borders. Hopefully through separation of disparate groups, instead of "the ISIS solution" of genocide.

Propping up Gaddafi would just delay the civil war. Like Russia propping up Assad delayed Syria's civil war. But propping up the dictator doesn't work forever. Eventually, that civil war will happen and the borders will be made to culturally fit.

We should use our influence to try and steer these countries towards the least-brutal way of getting those culturally-drawn borders. Which means beating up on groups like ISIS because of their genocidal goals, while letting the Libyans work out where Libya's borders should be.

 

jamzrockz

(1,333 posts)
117. I actually agree with you on some
Fri Jan 9, 2015, 12:59 PM
Jan 2015

things you said. But I am not talking about propping anybody up. Look I am a Nigerian who is deadly afraid of what Boko Haram is doing in that country, but the last thing I would want is to ask for US to "help&quot mostly militarily) in any way shape or form. But I assure you, if they start helping Boko haram as some type of revolutionary force, I wouldn't hesitate if the Nigerian govt ran to Russia for help.

These problems should be solved internally by the people living in the country and not outside forces who have their own plans for the nation. The west have done enough damage to these countries, its high time they left us alone to solve our own problems. No matter how much some people in the country beg, don't dont arm them. I bet you, there are Nigerian today that would love to plunge the country into civil war if they can get some foreign sponsor to back them. These people should not be listened to. Its hard enough lfe in some of these places that destroying he infrastructure and social structure can only make it worse not better.

If it cant be achieved peacefully without sanctions, then forget it.

jeff47

(26,549 posts)
137. The problem is "help" was already given.
Fri Jan 9, 2015, 05:37 PM
Jan 2015

It's not like Gaddafi or Assad built their advanced weaponry.

"Leveling the playing field" so that it can be worked out internally may or may not be a good idea - each country is unique.

Schema Thing

(10,283 posts)
128. I would note that "propping up Gaddafi" was not an option then.
Fri Jan 9, 2015, 01:48 PM
Jan 2015

And it wouldn't have become an option simply by letting time pass while Gaddafi went wilding.

Yeah, that would be great optics in the middle of the Arab Spring. I know we've "propped" up dictators in the past, but as you note it doesn't work - and I don't think we've ever done it once a situation has become what Libya was by the time we got deeply involved (I could be wrong about that, but my point would still remain).

Schema Thing

(10,283 posts)
127. Dude, you are ignoring reality
Fri Jan 9, 2015, 01:44 PM
Jan 2015


They Libyan people had risen up against their horrible dictator.


When people do that, we should give them a hand so long as we can.



Those were not "terrorist" and it's insulting to intelligence and common sense and the Libyan people for you to infer that they were.

Go review the footage. You are willfully forgetting the events that led to Western involvement.

joshcryer

(62,265 posts)
144. "I rather be free (in Syria) than comfortable (in Libya)"
Sat Jan 10, 2015, 02:05 AM
Jan 2015

How "normal" would Libya be? They took over a dozen arm depots. The Libyan rebels had more power than the Syrian rebels ever had. Assad killed tens of thousands in Homs. Had Gaddafi done the same in the west of Libya, do you remotely have any comprehension how it would've turned out?

It would've made Syria look like a picnic. Easily a quarter of the entire population.

This dictator worship needs to end. This "Muslims must be held captive by dictators" paradigm is racist at is core.

CJCRANE

(18,184 posts)
48. Cameron and Hollande led on pushing for the intervention.
Fri Jan 9, 2015, 10:13 AM
Jan 2015

I too was convinced at the time but now I regret it. I think we were mislead into another neocon trap.

 

JEB

(4,748 posts)
54. We support some dictators, attack others.
Fri Jan 9, 2015, 10:20 AM
Jan 2015

What drives our policy is not the interests of the common people, neither ours nor others.

 

jamzrockz

(1,333 posts)
60. Must watch for anyone who wants to understand
Fri Jan 9, 2015, 10:37 AM
Jan 2015

how the war in Libya was sold. No evidence, no facts that Gaddafi committed any crimes on the Libyan people. Just trust us and let us bomb another country full of brown people. These non white countries must be getting very tired of all these so called humanitarian wars. But is anyone listening? certainly not with Syria

 

mythology

(9,527 posts)
63. By the same logic, those opposed to intervention in other countries
Fri Jan 9, 2015, 10:47 AM
Jan 2015

have responsibility for the Rwandan genocide. For those opposed to forceful on the ground intervention are responsible for the Srebrenica massacre.

If you disagree with that logic, ask yourself what you would do if you saw a random stranger beating their kid or their wife. Would you say "It's none of my business because I don't know their relationship"? Or would you feel obligated to help where you could?

People will be killed by their government whether we intervene or we don't. But doing nothing doesn't mean we have no responsibility for it. What we can do is intervene where we think we can do the most good or at least prevent the worst harms.

 

jamzrockz

(1,333 posts)
73. You cannot be blamed for anything
Fri Jan 9, 2015, 11:47 AM
Jan 2015

If you mind your own business. But the real problem with the Libyan affair is how it went down. This was clearly a CIA inspired regime change not any sort of humanitarian assistance by the west. They wanted to forcefully take over that country just like Gen Wesley Clarke said in the speech and that is exactly what happened. The only people Gaddafi was going to kill in Benghazi are the same type of people that make up ISIS. I am again going to post my last video which I stole from polly7's blog because it shows just how much we were lied to by the likes of HRC.

Watch and understand how a nation was lied into supporting another CIA meddling into another country that never needed it.

&feature=player_embedded

The2ndWheel

(7,947 posts)
130. Nothing ever works right unless the people that live in a given area do it
Fri Jan 9, 2015, 02:03 PM
Jan 2015

The borders of Iraq, for example, were drawn up by outside interests. Has it ever functioned as a state without a dictator holding it together? No.

It takes war and violence to figure out who's rules people are going to live by, or what borders will be drawn. That's how every nation has ever been built. Whoever wins gets to make the rules. That's how it works. That's the only way it works.

You have to let it play out, however it's going to go. Imagine if something like the UN had been around when America was being founded and established. The US doesn't even get off the ground, what with the killing, and taking of land, and whatever else.

Calista241

(5,584 posts)
134. So do we blame wikileaks and Chelsea Manning for starting the Arab Spring?
Fri Jan 9, 2015, 02:32 PM
Jan 2015

The NYT published that the state department cables led to the protests in Tunisia, which ultimately spread throughout the middle east as the Arab Spring.

MisterP

(23,730 posts)
136. we loved AQ then, and in Syria (heck, Israel's upping its support for Nusra), but only south of the
Fri Jan 9, 2015, 02:57 PM
Jan 2015

36th parallel

(some people actually do think this way, that it's not hypocritical or gonna cause any blowback)

drmeow

(4,995 posts)
140. A colleague in Niger
Fri Jan 9, 2015, 11:12 PM
Jan 2015

attested to this when I was there in 2013:

"And the poison in Libya is seeping out across a great swathe of the Sahel, Africa’s scrublands south of the Sahara desert, from Mali in the west, through Niger and northern Nigeria, eastwards on to Sudan and Somalia, and even as far as Egypt’s Sinai desert abutting Israel."

Qaddafi kept the extremists in the region in check (most by giving them checks, so to speak).

drmeow

(4,995 posts)
158. The quote was from the article
Sat Jan 10, 2015, 11:44 PM
Jan 2015

but I don't think Abdoulaye would have disagreed with it. This was not long after the fighting in Mali which was definitely partly a result of the removal of Gaddafi. When I was in Niamey we visited the Gaddafi Mosque (also known as the Grand Mosque) which was funded by him and is the largest mosque in the city.

bhikkhu

(10,708 posts)
147. So the country is fracturing; sometimes that happens
Sat Jan 10, 2015, 02:36 AM
Jan 2015

I would never advocate supporting a ruthless dictator for the sake of maintaining a nation's unity; its the people that matter, not the nation's borders or internal integrity. We like to see a neat globe with clean borders, but the world is full of autonomous regions, self-governing regions, oppressed minorities, break-away republics, cohesive cultures spanning borders, etc.

While the world has become a much more peaceful place since WWII, I do think the UN has more or less failed to provide a solution to what are typically seen as "internal issues" of member states. Lacking a solution, pointing fingers isn't much use. I don't think many in Libya want to go back, however difficult the way forward is. Respect would say we let them, and help if we are asked, and if we can.

on edit - reading a bit from our own revolution, post-war: "John Adams feared that greed, disobedient children and apprentices, and turbulent schools and colleges would weaken the Republic. In 1813, he asked when, where and how "the present chaos" would be "arranged into Order." Thomas Jefferson believed that the nation was moving backward rather than forward; Alexander Hamilton concluded that "this American world was not made for me," and by the time George Washington died, his hopes for democracy had waned. Benjamin Rush, a physician and signer of the Declaration of Independence, eventually threw his notes and documents for a planned memoir of the Revolution into the fire. "America's revolutionary experiment on behalf of liberty," he wrote in 1812, "will certainly fail."

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/mwt/sfeature/sf_after.html

 

quadrature

(2,049 posts)
150. setting Syria on fire. much worse decision....
Sat Jan 10, 2015, 03:31 AM
Jan 2015

helping start the civil war in Syria.

tragic and epic failure.
hundreds of thousands dead

eridani

(51,907 posts)
151. Perhaps, but both are instances of fucking around with countries that we don't understand
Sat Jan 10, 2015, 04:37 AM
Jan 2015

Sure, dictatorships are bad, but butting in without having the vaguest clue about how to establish functioning states in their place is always an idiotic thing to do.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»For all the cheerleaders ...