Libya?

[buckethead]

MARCH 19, 2011
OBAMA: 'Today we are part of a broad coalition. We are answering the calls of a threatened people. And we are acting in the interests of the United States and the world'...

MARCH 19, 2003
BUSH: 'American and coalition forces are in the early stages of military operations to disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger'...



Ah well. A girl can dream...

[chipwich]

I very much respect Dennis Kucinich.  His intentions and convictions certainly cannot be questioned. 

However, I must fervently disagree with him on this issue. The mission in Libya is much different than Iraq (which was an unnecessary quagmire).  It seems like we have borderline genocide in Libya with indiscriminate shelling and shooting of civilians by a rogue regime.  What makes our country great is the fact that we have enough heart and courage to step in and help those in dire situations.  We also have international cooperation and support from several countries (including the Arab League).  War is never an easy subject, but seems necessary at this time.

I feel we should have done this in Sudan years ago as well.  It may have saved millions of innocent lives.

Our intervention worked in Germany (WWII) and Bosnia as well.

Please do not confuse humanitarian missions with the Iraq war.  I only worry is to not get dragged back into nation-building here.

[NotNow]

chip Your logic seems amiss.  Between Iraq and Libya, which crazy dictator do you think killed more of his own people?  What do you think the purpose of the Iraq invasion was?  What do you think is the purpose of intervening in Libya?  Ding, ding, ding if you said regime change.

My argument for Iraq is its strategic importance to the US.  Libya has no such importance.

"Humanitarian" reasons is a pretty broad reason for military conflict.  It can get us involved in much more than we are capable of handling, and such values differ among the worlds cultures.  I would repeat my argument that we should only employ military power when vital national interests are imperiled, and it is a last resort.

[buckethead]

I very much respect Dennis Kucinich.  His intentions and convictions certainly cannot be questioned. 

He did cave to pressure on the health insurance reform bill.

Nevertheless, he deserves credit for criticizing each administration that attacks a foreign nation that did not attack us.

[BridgeTroll]

http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/features/2011/03/201132017312717811.html

Framing the narrative of Libya 

Despite all the rhetoric, the Gaddafis bear the responsibility for the ills and misfortunes of their country.


As soon as the UN-mandated international protection of the Libyan people got under way, Colonel Muammar Gaddafi has rushed to condemn the new "Crusaders'" war against Islam and rally national sentiment against the "Western-led military assault".

These words might ring hollow today, but as he continues to prolong and escalate the war, Gaddafi hopes to turn his attempt to preserve a brutal regime into a national anti-colonial struggle.

Symbolism aside, how the battle over Libya is framed is paramount for the future of the revolution in the country and the Arab world beyond.

Since the first hours of the uprising in the eastern parts of the country, Gaddafi has tried to frame it as a criminal activity carried by hallucinating drug addicts and their pushers.

But as soon as the desire for change turned into a reality and the revolutionaries swept through a number of cities and took over state institutions, Gaddafi began to speak of serious offense against the republic by thugs and rats that must be crushed.

Later, he threatened to punish these foreign-instigated ''armed gangs'' for holding people hostage and threatening the security of the country.

And when finally Libya caught international attention beyond the dramatic changes in Tunisia and Egypt, the Libyan dictator changed his tune once again.

Bearing in mind Western public opinion, Gaddafi then advanced the ''war-on-terror'' framework where his regime is confronted by Al Qaeda and its Islamist affiliates.

As more and more officials, diplomats and military personnel began to defect in favour of the revolution Gaddafi warned against betrayal of traitors and of Libyan fifth column.

The regime's failure to stem the defiance of Libyans and their aspiration for change, prompted "Gaddafi junior" to threaten a civil war and "rivers of bold".

Anticipating Arab condemnation of the regime's use of excessive force against civilians, the Gaddafis took the righteous path, boasting of their ''great republic'' fight against reactionary Arabs whom they cursed and mocked at their [Arab] League.

And when, finally, the UN Security Council adopted resolution 1973 that authorised the use of force and Western powers began to implement it, Gaddafi reverted to his favourite framework and preached a populist nationalist/Muslim struggle against Western/Christian colonial powers!

Make no mistake about it, the battle over Libya did take a turn for the worse with the international intervention to protect the Libyan people and impose no-fly zone among other measures.

The ongoing bombardment is and will remain a controversial subject that has already been criticised by the Arab league. Further escalation could lead to a backlash.

So who bears the responsibility for turning Libya into a war zone and an object of an international military intervention?

Could it be those who confronted a peaceful civil uprising for freedom with lethal force, and when it escalated into a full-fledged revolt, used aerial bombardments, heavy artillery to quell it?

Libya could have and should have gone Tunisia or Egypt's path of change. But while their militaries conceded the need for regime change, in Libya the family-led powerful militias, financed and groomed to defend the regime's "country estate", sided with their pay masters.

While the Gaddafis continue to show images of pro-Gaddafi demonstrators in Tripoli to offset the images of widespread anti-Gaddafi/pro-change, in reality, Libya is not divided between two visions for their country.

Rather between a majority that seeks free and prosperous Libya, and a mostly small heavily-armed minority that runs or benefits from a corrupt rule.

Alas, even the worse regimes in history have had following among their subjects that had a stake in the system.

Needless to say, Libyans in general deserve better than to see their country ruled like a ''family farm''. That''s why they insist on taking down the regime. But the Gaddafi dynasty would not have it, threatening to take the country down with them.

That is why despite all the inflamed rhetoric and populist propaganda, when all is said and done, it is the Gaddafis who bear the responsibility for the ills and misfortunes of their country.

[ben says]

There's no such thing as a 'humanitarian mission' within the framework of United States foreign policy. 'States' are not moral actors, just like corporations are not moral actors. For a corporation, the bottom line is profit. For a state, the bottom line is strategic development.

No war, from the American Revolution to the Civil War, WWI & WWII, Iraq I & II, Afghanistan, etc, have been for 'moral' or 'humanitarian' reasons...

[BridgeTroll]

There's no such thing as a 'humanitarian mission' within the framework of United States foreign policy.

Really?  Wow! 

[Ajax]

Does it bother anyone else here that Obama moved forward after the UN said ok, but didn't bother to run it by Congress?  

[buckethead]

It seems relevant, but is it unconstitutional?

War has not been declared, to my knowledge.

[Ajax]

Here's a quote from Obama the constitutional scholar/candidate:

On the campaign trail in late 2007, he told reporter Charlie Savage that the president lacks the constitutional power "to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation."

Here's the rest of the article:

http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/2011/03/what-authority-has-obama-gone-war-libya

My concern is that Obama is showing more deference to the UN Security Council than he's giving to the US Congress and the Constitution. 

Quite frankly, Obama reminds me of George W. Bush more and more each day. 

[BridgeTroll]

W consulted with congress every time.

[Ocklawaha]

Bosnia and Herzegovina         Ivan Barbalić
Brazil         Maria Luiza Ribeiro Viotti
Gabon, Africa    Emmanuel Issoze-Ngondet
Lebanon     Nawaf Salam
Nigeria     Joy Ogwu
Colombia     Néstor Osorio Londoño
Germany         Peter Wittig
India        Hardeep Singh Puri
Portugal     José Filipe Moraes Cabral
South Africa       Baso Sangqu

Of course you already know who the permanent members are, the above are this years rotating members.

None of them are real oil exporters, and are therefore just as dependent as the Permanent members on oil prices being stable.

Actually Stephen, two of these country's are in the top 15 world oil exporters. The numbers represent thousands of barrels daily toward the end of 2009.  http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/company_level_imports/current/import.html

CANADA       1,943
MEXICO       1,092
SAUDI ARABIA    980
NIGERIA    776
VENEZUELA    951
IRAQ    336       449
ANGOLA        448
BRAZIL        295
ALGERIA        281
COLOMBIA       251
ECUADOR       181
RUSSIA       230
KUWAIT        180
UNITED KINGDOM   103
ARGENTINA     53

OCKLAWAHA

[CityLife]

nm

[spuwho]

[BridgeTroll]

Seems there should be a donkey standing next to the elephant...