US Evacuates Embassy in Libya Amid Clashes

[NaturalHigh]

Source: ABC News

The United States shut down its embassy in Libya on Saturday and evacuated its diplomats to neighboring Tunisia under U.S. military escort amid a significant deterioration in security in Tripoli as fighting intensified between rival militias, the State Department said.

"Due to the ongoing violence resulting from clashes between Libyan militias in the immediate vicinity of the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli, we have temporarily relocated all of our personnel out of Libya," spokeswoman Marie Harf said.

The withdrawal underscored the Obama administration's concern about the heightened risk to American diplomats abroad, particularly in Libya where memories of the deadly 2012 attack on the U.S. mission in the eastern city of Benghazi are still vivid and the political uproar over it remain fresh ahead of a new congressional investigation into the incident.

"Securing our facilities and ensuring the safety of our personnel are top department priorities, and we did not make this decision lightly," Harf said. "Security has to come first. Regrettably, we had to take this step because the location of our embassy is in very close proximity to intense fighting and ongoing violence between armed Libyan factions."


Read more: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/us-evacuates-embassy-libya-amid-clashes-24725309

[kelliekat44]

1. We broke all of it after 9/11. We own it all. How's the "regime change" thingy working out for 'ya ?

Gaddaffi was dubbed a mad-man by RR. No doubt he was a dictator and had many faults and not all in Libya liked or benefited under his despotic rule. But many more people thrive under dictators than under militant militias. Gaddaffi had many detractors but here is what some say about Libya under his rule:

"Gaddafi remained a controversial and divisive figure on the world stage throughout his life and after death. Supporters praised Gaddafi's administration for the creation of an almost classless society through domestic reform.[344] They stress the regime's achievements in combating homelessness and ensuring access to food and safe drinking water. Highlighting that under Gaddafi, all Libyans enjoyed free education to a university level, they point to the dramatic rise in literacy rates after the 1969 revolution.[344] Supporters have also applauded achievements in medical care, praising the universal free healthcare provided under the Gaddafist administration, with diseases like cholera and typhoid being contained and life expectancy raised.[344] Biographers Blundy and Lycett noted that under the first decade of Gaddafi's leadership, life for most Libyans "undoubtedly changed for the better" as material conditions and wealth drastically improved,[70] while Libyan studies specialist Lillian Craig Harris remarked that in the early years of his administration, Libya's "national wealth and international influence soared, and its national standard of living has risen dramatically."[345] Such high standards declined during the 1980s, as a result of economic stagnation.[346] Gaddafi claimed that his Jamahiriya was a "concrete utopia", and that he had been appointed by "popular assent",[347] with some Islamic supporters believing that he exhibited barakah.[300]" Wikipedia

[mainer]

3. When I was in Libya, local doctors and nurses were so glad to see Americans

visiting their clinics. (These were unplanned, spur-of-the-moment drop-ins. Got in a cab, told the driver, "take us to a local hospital." And off we went.) Everywhere, we were greeted with smiles and hopes that more Americans would come as visitors. Out in the desert, we were practically mobbed by Bedouins with cell phone cameras, wanting to take photos with us. Their tourist industry was just in its infancy, with lots of burps, but you could see the future was bright, and Libya has THE most stunning archaeological ruins anywhere in the world.

What a shame it's now all crumbling.

[candelista]

9. Also there is Ghadaffi's 'Man Made River'

The Great Man-Made River (GMR, النهر الصناعي العظيم is a network of pipes that supplies water to the Sahara Desert in Libya, from the Nubian Sandstone Aquifer System fossil aquifer. It is the world's largest irrigation project.

According to its website, it is the largest underground network of pipes (2,820 kilometres (1,750 mi)) and aqueducts in the world. It consists of more than 1,300 wells, most more than 500 m deep, and supplies 6,500,000 m3 of fresh water per day to the cities of Tripoli, Benghazi, Sirte and elsewhere.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Man-Made_River

[jamzrockz]

11. The man was a bright spot in Africa

He also employed a lot of west African in Universities and constructions were they were able to make enough money to live like kings back home. All of that is gone because of radicals in bengazhi wanted ponies.

[BumRushDaShow]

2. "memories of... Benghazi are still vivid"

Only in Issa's, the rest of the RW loons', and their media shills' pea brains.

Expect to see the "cut and run" talking point bandied about any minute now.

[PolarVortex]

4. Mission Accomplished?

I guess we didn't learn our lesson from all the other countries we help destroy.

Where are all the cackleheads that helped cheer this fiasco on now?

[jamzrockz]

6. Dont worry.

She will be showing up in 2016 and lots of people here will be voting for her.

[candelista]

10. Jeebus.

"We came, we saw, he died," amid gales of laughter. This is our next president?

[hrmjustin]

7. Which cacklehards?

[Comrade Grumpy]

8. One of them is in the video right above you

[Agschmid]

15. I don't think there were that many here...

[Maedhros]

27. I was hounded for criticizing Obama for attacking Libya,

just as I was hounded for criticizing Obama for considering attacking Assad in Syria.

There were quite a few people doing the hounding.

Amazingly, the outcome in Libya that I was warning against has now come to fruition.

[24601]

34. K-Daffy would still be there absent outside attacks. Right or wrong? It certainly has strengthened

and emboldened Al Qaeda adherents there. But legal or not, it depends if you (more specifically if SCOTUS) believe(s) the War Powers Act is permissible exercise of Congressional authority as a co-equal branch of government, or an unconstitutional infringement on Article II powers.

In either case, Senator Obama supported the law while President Obama doesn't feel the need to follow it.

[Maedhros]

36. Regardless of the legality of the action, I opposed it on humanitarian grounds and also

because I felt it would destabilize the region. It did.

[Historic NY]

5. Militants took out most of the planes at the airport

last week destroying most of the aircraft there including several Airbus' 330's

[candelista]

12. Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria.

All disasters. And yet the US government keeps trying. The pattern is so consistent that some people think the US wants chaos and civil war in the middle east.

I don't think so. Chaos and civil war are not a comfortable environment for US investment. I think our government, through arrogance and ignorance, just keeps screwing up, hoping that next time the result will be different.

[JackRiddler]

13. Very charitable of you.

When it happens with such consistency, it is the result of a underlying general and witting approach.

[candelista]

14. That's what some ppl think. Is the US aiming at failure?

What good does civil war and chaos do for the 1%? Cui bono?

Disaster capitalism is one thing. But this isn't it. How can you drill for oil or build a pipeline in these conditions?

[jakeXT]

17. If they develop they might use up all our resources under their sand /nt

[JackRiddler]

18. It's a geopolitics.

It's mistaken about its presumed benefits to the U.S. or its ruling class, although it does make profits for some and it has a purpose: to prevent the emergence of rivals on the regional or global level. Also, to justify this war machine, since there are nothing but chaos and supposed threats out there. Also, looking ahead 20 years to some supposed redrawn, rebuilt Middle East.

Here's a sample:

[candelista]

19. That makes no sense to me.

And the buzz-word "geopolitics" is a non-explanation. All the money spent on "nation building" was just theatrics? I don't think so. I think they intended it to succeed, but they were wrong.

And "justifying the war machine"? The US could make war anywhere for this purpose, but it only does so in countries that have oil or pipeline potential.

Finally, "looking forward to 20 years from now, a rebuilt middle east"? Deliberately creating chaos and civil war is an unreliable and risky method that could lead to anything, including Islamicist states, which is what is "emerging" now. And yet, and yet, the US continues to produce these results that are undesirable from the point of view of the US ruling elite.

They are powerful, but not always prudent or smart. They screw up--from the point of view of their own vested interests.

[Uncle Joe]

31. They don't look 20 years into the future, the U.S. government has bought hook, line and sinker into

the corporate rule model, and that is notoriously short-sighted, helped in large part by the corporate media.

The Wall Street mentality; too many mega-corporations live by the quarter, how will their stock perform over the next 3 months, looking out over a year is long term for them.

Politicians have the same short term thinking motivation, that being what will play well in the next election cycle?

It's all about business in the federal government while the long term benefits of public investment ie: infrastructure, education, health-care, the environment and even incarceration are greatly shortchanged.

If the federal government had a history of long term thinking, undermining legitimate democracies while backing brutal dictators would never have occurred whether it be Iran, Central America or anywhere else.

If the federal government had long or even mid-term vision, the staggering costs of ignoring global warming would be a front and center issue, subsidies for fossil fuel corps. would've been weaned down or eliminated years ago while a much larger portion of the budget would be allocated to developing and promoting sustainable energy sources, again the corporate media comes into play here as well.

The most powerful segment of the federal government by budget and from a psychological point of view is the military industrial complex, not so much for the men and women serving but the weapons and armaments manufacturers, this is where they put their faith and is akin to having a hammer as the only tool in the box.

All they see are nails.

[candelista]

33. Good post.

[arcane1]

32. By not drilling, supply is reduced and the price goes up

So there's always something for the 1%.

[kelliekat44]

16. Oh, the PNAC list! nt

[amandabeech]

20. At least it sounds like our people got out.

There are problems in Tunisia as well with Jidahi forces on the move.

How many effective clones of Kerry can we make? The hot spots seem to be cloning themselves without difficulty.

[NaturalHigh]

21. "The hot spots seem to be cloning themselves without difficulty."

No doubt. It's been 100 years since the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand and the beginning of World War 1. I'm really worried that another such incident could trigger another global war. It just seems like the pot is about to boil over.

[amandabeech]

22. Yes, I, too, wonder if we are heading to a repeat of the Guns of August.

Did you read today that the US is considering helping the Ukrainians target separatist missile batteries? My worry would be that we might end up targeting Russian artillery or missiles fired from just inside Russia by mistake. That would have extremely unpredictable consequences.

Frankly, I don't think that there is much we can do in the Middle East and North Africa. Our involvements in those locations so often just seem to backfire. The parties there may just have to fight until they get sick of it, I'm sorry to say.

[NaturalHigh]

23. For the past 50 years or so, the MAD concept...

kept the U.S and the Soviet Union from getting too agressive toward each other. I truly hope the concept will work with all of the former Soviet republics going their separate ways.

[amandabeech]

24. It's hard to imagine that Russia would go to the nukes over Ukraine,

but they might cause a lot of trouble elsewhere, like in the Baltic countries of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. The three former Soviet Socialist Republics are NATO members now.

Somehow, I think that only the US, the Poles and the Brits would try to help them if Putin decided that he needed more of a buffer zone on his northwestern border.

[NaturalHigh]

25. No, I don't think that Russia would...

but do any of the former republics have access to nukes?

[amandabeech]

26. None of the European former SSRs do, but I'm not sure about Khazakstan.

In 1994, Ukraine gave up its nukes to Russia in exchange for a Russian guarantee to respect Ukraine's borders. We and the Brits signed that same agreement.

You can see how much that agreement was worth, particularly with respect to the Russian signature.

[NaturalHigh]

28. Re: Khazakstan

I think Khazakstan is supposed to be nuke free but is still monitored by the international community to ensure compliance.

[amandabeech]

29. That sounds about right.

Maybe this will all work out, but I don't want US boots on the ground in an Eastern European winter.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

30. I'm losing count of all the problems our government is facing

And I'm hoping the new spread of the Ebola virus to the most populous city in Africa is not going to become another major international crisis (if it isn't one already).

[NaturalHigh]

35. "Populous city" being the key words here.

In the past, Ebola has mostly been confined to sparsely-populated regions. Now that it's in a city where a lot of people might have been exposed, we don't really know what's going to happen.