[PAX] UN okays military action on Libya

Watching Reuters I believe the statement from the Libyan dictatorship was 'Colonial, Crusader aggression overloading the hospitals across Libya with civilian casualties'. The same old pre-determined rhetoric. Of course, they didn't necessarily discuss the Gadaffi mercenaries bombarding the city of Misurata with artillery barrages or the Gadaffi tanks shooting their way through the western entrance to Benghazi.

I wasn't really referring to the way statements are given. The rhetoric is going to be the same on both sides, it's the information what I'm looking for.

I don't necessarily believe in what they said that Gaddafi did when it comes to what happened in Misurata and Benghazi.

All that has happened seems very staged. I think that all protests happening lately were staged and organized by outside forces as it usually is so (from those in Egypt to those in Libya) and I'd like to have a bit more information about who are actually the rebels in Libya, and the ways they organized themselves. Knowing how things happened in my country, and that people seem to be very hasty in making conclusions on very little and selected information given to them, I'm not inclined to make the same mistake and say that either Gadaffi or rebels are right in any way about what they are doing.
 
I don't necessarily believe in what they said that Gaddafi did when it comes to what happened in Misurata and Benghazi.

I've worked in Arab countries. I do. No offense, but I think you might be being very naive and it's usually a consequence of the poor insular nature of the American Medias portrayal of international news. We've had news teams filming people being chased and shot in the streets of Libya by mercenaries and army units for a few weeks.

Yes, I know Egyptians who have had members of their families 'taken away' only to reappear a week or so later after suffering torture from speaking out against their leaders. This is a theme which repeats across North Africa and some of the middle east. Today there were people shot in Yemen and Bahrain for protesting.

Simply put, I support people looking for a little right to plurality in their life.

What you seem to imply is that there is some massive deception as opposed to a consequence of economic factors coming into play. I would always advise someone to adopt the view that considering the gross incompetence of most governments that malice is distinctly more unlikely than naivety.
 
Thanks for that link, I'm amazed by the quotes there.

What bothers me is that people, middle class people doesn't seem to care any more or are just repeating some stupid phrases they read in the newspapers. There used to be a time when people would show at least some form of a protest, nowadays they seem apathetic at best.

It bothers me that people are just so willing to be blind and to believe anything they see or hear.

I think that is set to change

Nothing has been done to reform the financial sector. We are basically walking right into another economic crisis. The government is currently cutting public services in order to get money ready so that they can bail out the banks again in the next crisis. (this idea has been put forward by Professor John Van Reenen, the Director of the ESRC Centre for Economic Performance, London School of Economics). Even Mervyn King the head of the Bank of England has said as much in the press.

So what does that mean? I'm guessing it means inflation, possibly hyper inflation and more public wealth handed over to the private investors. When countries borrow money, they basically borrow it from global bankers....which means we are all collectively indebted to the global investors due to the actions of our politicians

Inflation essentially means that your money is worth less. That is why we are seeing rising fuel and food costs. What it will do is eat up the savings of the middle class leaving them impoverished. This will create a chasm between the capitalist class who have invested their wealth in ways that won't be eroded and then the rest of us

The 'conspiracy theorists' might suggest that we will all be left looking into an abyss; at that point the global investors will offer their solution (which they have had prepared all along). Suggestions include ideas such as a global currency and a global government

Greece has already been forced into making savage cuts in order to pay off the debts its politicians have run up. the people have been rioting in the streets...but many of the protestors are middle class, because they have been affected as well....so teachers, doctors and nurses etc are also out protesting

In the UK there is going to be a massive public demonstration against the governments cuts next weekend in London

The government is all about privatisation. What privatisation is all about is access. Access to goods & services, access to places, access to the means of production. The people who have the money to buy up the items being privatised are the global investors. So what we are seeing is a small proportion of humanity controlling the access to everything. The rest of us will have to work very hard to be able to pay for access to things. The capitalist class won't work very hard at all....their accountants, lawyers and managers will take care of business, while they soak up the sun in Monaco
 
Last edited:
I've worked in Arab countries. I do. No offense, but I think you might be being very naive and it's usually a consequence of the poor insular nature of the American Medias portrayal of international news. We've had news teams filming people being chased and shot in the streets of Libya by mercenaries and army units for a few weeks.

Actually I know many people who worked for a very long time there, both in Libya and other Arab counties, including members of my immediate family, so I'm aware of their ways. Also I'm not a fan of any American news media since I had a special opportunity to see just how biased they can be, and I don't live there so what I have to say has very little to do with any of their portrayal of international news.

I think that you might have just misinterpreted what I wanted to say.
 
If it were about securing oil, why wouldn't the allies and NATO let Gaddafi continue his despotic rule? After all, he has kept the oil flowing consistently for more than forty years. There's no certainty that the rebels (whom I support) will be as effective in providing oil.

The price of gas went up - directly or indirectly related to the Middle East...and it seems as if the United States will act a whole lot faster when that occurs than when simple genocide occurs. I hate to say that, but I see the US responding far faster to oil crises than I do humanitarian ones.

The "bonus" is that both of these took place at the same time, so at least we're saving lives. I'm definitely grateful for that.

We had the chance to take down Qaddafi years ago, in the 1980s. But we didn't. I can only think that it could've been money related then, too.
 
We were there for Japan far faster than we are there in Libya. I agree with the earlier post we do not really know who we are helping, or at least you and I do not know.
 
The people are usually faster than the government in general, though.

I'll widen it, though; nations we (as in US) have a vested interest in, in some way, will get our help before others nations will...or, our allies will receive more money first. That's the government, though - that has nothing to do with aid workers on the front lines.
 
The people are usually faster than the government in general, though.

I'll widen it, though; nations we (as in US) have a vested interest in, in some way, will get our help before others nations will...or, our allies will receive more money first. That's the government, though - that has nothing to do with aid workers on the front lines.

It's also very easy for the US to support Japan, there aren't people shooting one another in the streets and there are about 36,000 US army/navy/airforce permanently stationed there across the country.

By contrast, in this case no-one at the time had any real assets based around Libya, it's satisfactorily far from NATO airbases to only go to Libya if it is necessary; you can fly from Sicily, or Cyprus or Marseilles at a push, but a 1,000 mile round trip is expensive and you wouldn't be over the sky long before you have to fly home.

What is most interesting in this case is that Qatar and the UAE are providing aircraft to enforce the no fly zone in addition to western countries. They will probably move their aircraft and supplies into Egypt because that is more palatable than Egypt allowing a western country to use those bases considering their current turmoil. In addition there is a lot of value in bringing these 'more moderate' Muslim countries into these joint operations so they can oversee on behalf of Arab countries that what is done is never to intentionally cause harm civilians, but to blunt aggressive military assets being used against the populace.

What is going to be more controversial in the Arab world is the lack of action on Bahrain where the US has substantial assets, like US naval forces central command and the fifth fleet which always has a carrier strike group in place and where protesters are also being shot in the streets.
 
Last edited:
What is going to be more controversial in the Arab world is the lack of action on Bahrain where the US has substantial assets, like US naval forces central command and the fifth fleet which always has a carrier strike group in place and where protesters are also being shot in the streets.

Exactly my sentiments. Now Syria has the same problem in their streets, too. How about how Iran is handling their problems?

This is where the two-faced attitudes will be exemplified. The UNSC simply cannot stop all that is going on or that will be happening, so why choose Libya? At some point in time, someone will realize chaos in the streets is not the(proper) road to change. Even the way Hezbollah took over the government in Lebanon is not the proper road to change.

What is the proper road to change?
 
Exactly my sentiments. Now Syria has the same problem in their streets, too. How about how Iran is handling their problems?

This is where the two-faced attitudes will be exemplified. The UNSC simply cannot stop all that is going on or that will be happening, so why choose Libya? At some point in time, someone will realize chaos in the streets is not the(proper) road to change. Even the way Hezbollah took over the government in Lebanon is not the proper road to change.

What is the proper road to change?

Indeed, although as the UK PM said 'Just because we can't do the right thing everywhere doesn't mean we shouldn't do the right thing somewhere'.
 
copied from Wikipedia
"The 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake was an undersea megathrust earthquake that occurred at 00:58:53 UTC on Sunday, December 26, 2004, with an epicentre off the west coast of Sumatra, Indonesia. The quake itself is known by the scientific community as the Sumatra-Andaman earthquake."

We act quickly in most every "act of God" type catastrophe globally. We spend money we do not have. They are different in that they do not all happen at the same time, while these uprisings are happening at the same time.
 
I think 'chaos in the streets' is the answer in this case

These people have not got the democratic infrastructure to bring about change. They are living under dictatorships that have lasted for decades. These dictators have been propped up by the west because they have allowed the west access to their countries resources. The west has rewarded the dictators (who have made vast personal fortunes) but none of the wealth has trickled down to the people (whose country and resources it is)

The only option they have been left with is taking to the streets in order to demand change. This has yielded results in egypt and Tunisia; the struggle of the people is ongoing elsewhere

The west does not react quickly to 'acts of god' just look at how slowly the US government reacted to the flood in New Orleans. Thats because there was no oil there...only poor people.The governments actions is not for the benefit of the people it is to do with resources

The west has interests in Libya. It has many of its corporations working in Libya, most importantly in oil.

If the west really only cared about toppling dictatorships then why does every dictator they topple sit on top of vast oil reserves?

When the west gives money it is pretty much always with strings attached, which is why many countries are in debt to global investors or to the IMF.....it is not about humanitarianism it is about greed

You have to ask yourself 'what right do we have to keep going in to other peoples countries?'

Seriously.....ask yourself, how would you like it if a more powerful country decided that your government was a dictatorship of a small elite and that thy should come in and impose their own puppet government instead....all the while their corporations are sucking up all your countries oil?

You would watch their tanks driving down your streets, hear their bombs landing on your cities and hear stories about people being taken away and tortured

If you have trouble getting your head around that concept then think about the recent (ish) hollywood film 'War of the Worlds'. What you have in that film is the United States being invaded by an imperialistic force with a vastly superior military capability

Now remind yourself that the US and UK are the martians and the poor countries they are exploiting, invading, occuying, murdering and raping are the earthlings....cos there ain't no difference
 
If the west really only cared about toppling dictatorships then why does every dictator they topple sit on top of vast oil reserves?

Simples, the UN charter rules out 'interfering' in the internal affairs of other countries. Of course, if you are global megacorp you can then 'negotiate' to make money out of corrupt states. Don't be under any delusions, this isn't a uniquely western phenomenon (observe the China/Sudan relationship). Whenever you want to violate that you are supposed to go to the UN an negotiate a 'sure, okay' from the security council to have a legal basis.

I think the west is learning the lessons of Bosnia and Rawanda regarding what happens when you do nothing and hopefully lessons regarding 'dropping democracy from planes' like in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Democracies need to be better skilled in advancing free and fair states around the world. There is always an optimum time to act and in this case it was almost too late.
 
Last edited:
Simples, the UN charter rules out 'interfering' in the internal affairs of other countries. Of course, if you are global megacorp you can then 'negotiate' to make money out of corrupt states. Don't be under any delusions, this isn't a uniquely western phenomenon (observe the China/Sudan relationship). Whenever you want to violate that you are supposed to go to the UN an negotiate a 'sure, okay' from the security council to have a legal basis.

I think the west is learning the lessons of Bosnia and Rawanda regarding what happens when you do nothing and hopefully lessons regarding 'dropping democracy from planes' like in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Democracies need to be better skilled in advancing free and fair states around the world. There is always an optimum time to act and in this case it was almost too late.

It seems we both want the same thing, essentially, which is to see democracy grow

I have an issue with what form that democracy takes though. I think the style of democracy that the UK and US are trying to export around the world, by violent, economic or subversive means, 'liberal democracy' is not really democracy at all

I think liberal democracy offers a very limited form of freedom, an unsustainable approach to resources and a culture which leaves many people feeling that there is just no meaning to life. People have very little say in the way things are run under this system but live under the illusion that they do ('democracy')

The real power is with the bankers and the corporations. As Marx said over a hundred years ago: 'the government is the committee of the bourgeoisie'

To put it another way, the government is the committee of the capitalist class...it represents their interests not the intersts of the people.....who are essentially a slave class, given circus and bread to shut them up. The country is run by a small elite of very wealthy people.

That's what our leaders want to export to these countries. They want to take their oil and in return give them: coca cola, mcdonald's, starbucks, pop music, hollywood etc

The west don't want to liberate countries, they just want to enslave the people under their brand of control...a whole new and more insidious threat to their human dignity

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jxiT30N6ti4"]YouTube - The world is a business, Mr. Beale![/ame]
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BqEcLlp_Big&feature=related"][/ame]
 
Last edited:
Well, I wouldn't say that I especially favour democracy, but I do favour plurality and the rule of natural justice.
 
I am for democracy...consensus democracy, where everyone has a say

What i'm not up for is fascism pretending to be democracy

I want to see power de-centralised and pushed back down to the people
 
[mods]Please keep the OP in mind. This thread is about the recent military action in Libya, not the fitness of a government and it's functions. If members would like, that discussion can be split out into it's own thread.

Carry on :)[/mods]
 
Just for information, this is being called "Operation Odyssey Dawn" in America.
 
UNSC meeting behind closed doors as opposition to the use of missiles and jets grows among other member nations and other non-member nations. The no-fly zone is in effect.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomahawk_(missile)


The use of these is already listed in this information. Click on the suggested link.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top