Libya Superthread

Lenin Cat · Mar 22, 2011

I would resign because clearly I am not fit to lead.

BurGroBro · Mar 22, 2011

You all say that now, but under the threat of total annihilation you would all do the deed. I am the only one here that is man enough to admit it, it seems.

I could say that that is sexist, but I wont.

Anyways, I am more of a human being because I actually would. And I admit I am wrong sometimes.

And did you just admit that Gadafi should use all force in his command to displace anyone who opposes him?

Benerfe · Mar 22, 2011

Lenin Cat said:

I would resign because clearly I am not fit to lead.

What about your loyalist community?

CheFlegel · Mar 22, 2011

And did you just admit that Gadafi should use all force in his command to displace anyone who opposes him?

Against armed rebels that are lynching African Immigrants while the majority of your nation are on your side? Of course.

BurGroBro · Mar 22, 2011

Benerfe said:

Lenin Cat said:

I would resign because clearly I am not fit to lead.

What about your loyalist community?

they can fuck off. Or choose a better leader.

CheFlegel · Mar 22, 2011

The betterment for a nation and its people as a whole outweighs a few "Shit disturbers"

BurGroBro · Mar 22, 2011

CheFlegel said:

Against armed rebels that are lynching African Immigrants while the majority of your nation are on your side? Of course.

TANGENT FTW

CheFlegel · Mar 22, 2011

"When they’re fighting against the United States in Iraq and Afghanistan they’re insurgents, illegal combatants and terrorists. When they’re fighting on the US side in Afghanistan against the Soviets, in Bosnia against the Serbs, and now in Libya against Gaddafi, they’re freedom fighters, rebels, and pro-democracy activists."

-Stephen Gowans (Sanitizing the Bahraini Crackdown)

Yugoslavia, Iraq, Libya: beware the lies of March
By Neil Clark
March 20, 2011

It’s March, the sun is shining and spring is just around the corner. Oh, and Britain is bombing a foreign country again. If you’ve got a distinct feeling of deja vu about what’s been going on this weekend, then it’s hardly surprising.

In this very week in 1999 Britain took a leading role in the bombing of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.

And on this very day in 2003, Britain took a leading role in the bombing – and invasion – of Iraq.

And now we’re at it again in Libya.

We’re being told we have to intervene in Libya to “protect the Libyan people” from being murdered by the forces of Gaddafi. We’re told that having declared a ceasefire, Gaddafi “stepped up the attacks” on civilians. And that doing nothing about the dictator is simply not an option.

Now all this could be true – but our experience of other March military assaults in which Britain has played a prominent role suggests we should, at the very least, treat with one huge barrow-load of salt the claims currently being made about why we’re going to war.

Back in March 1999 we were told that we had to intervene because the Yugoslav leader, Slobodan Milosevic, was “set on a Hitler-style genocide equivalent to the extermination of the Jews during world war two“. That wasn’t true.

In March 2003 we were told that we had to invade Iraq, because Saddam had WMDs that “could be activated within 45 minutes”.

That wasn’t true either.

Far from Milosevic engaging in a “Hitler-style genocide”, what was occurring in Kosovo was a civil war between Yugoslav forces and the western-backed Kosovo Liberation Army, with atrocities committed on both sides. And the claims about Iraqi WMD were pure hogwash put forward to justify a military intervention to topple a regime that the west, having supported in the 1980s, now wanted out.

Both in 1999 and 2003 our leaders lied to us about the real reasons for our country’s involvement in military conflict. How can we be sure that what is happening in 2011 is any different?

If the US, Britain and France are acting out of genuine humanitarian concerns for Libyan civilians, why has there been no discussion of similar action against the government in Bahrain – which last week invited into the country military forces from that "great democracy" Saudi Arabia to crush pro-democracy protests – or against the regime in Yemen, where 45 anti-government protesters were killed on Thursday?

The other lesson to draw from the previous March conflicts is that military interventions – sold to the public as reasonably straightforward operations against dictators with little public support – rarely go to plan. Nato thought that a few days of heavy bombardment would force Milosevic to cave in – they were wrong: the war lasted 78 days and at the end of it the Yugoslav federal army was undefeated.

The invasion of Iraq, its neocon cheerleaders assured us, would be a cakewalk, with grateful Iraqis – all of whom hated Saddam Hussein – lining up to hand bouquets of flowers to their “liberators”.

And today, supporters of the Libyan action, such as the Tory MP Colonel Bob Stewart, predict that Gaddafi’s forces are likely to desert. But what if the advocates of military action are wrong – as they were in 1999 and 2003? What if support for Gaddafi within Libya is stronger than we have been led to believe? Then we could be involved in yet another Middle Eastern quagmire.

The Libyan intervention is of course different in one respect from the assaults on Yugoslavia and Iraq in that it has been officially sanctioned by the UN security council. But UN backing doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t remain cynical about the real reasons for the attack.

For all the talk of “liberating” the people and protecting civilians, the wars against Yugoslavia and Iraq were classic imperialist ventures whose real aim was to extend western economic and military hegemony. It’s unlikely that this latest March assault on an independent sovereign state is any different.

lukakiwi · Mar 22, 2011

CheFlegel said:

Yugoslavia, Iraq, Libya: beware the lies of March
By Neil Clark
March 20, 2011

It’s March, the sun is shining and spring is just around the corner. Oh, and Britain is bombing a foreign country again. If you’ve got a distinct feeling of deja vu about what’s been going on this weekend, then it’s hardly surprising.

In this very week in 1999 Britain took a leading role in the bombing of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.

And on this very day in 2003, Britain took a leading role in the bombing – and invasion – of Iraq.

And now we’re at it again in Libya.

We’re being told we have to intervene in Libya to “protect the Libyan people” from being murdered by the forces of Gaddafi. We’re told that having declared a ceasefire, Gaddafi “stepped up the attacks” on civilians. And that doing nothing about the dictator is simply not an option.

Now all this could be true – but our experience of other March military assaults in which Britain has played a prominent role suggests we should, at the very least, treat with one huge barrow-load of salt the claims currently being made about why we’re going to war.

Back in March 1999 we were told that we had to intervene because the Yugoslav leader, Slobodan Milosevic, was “set on a Hitler-style genocide equivalent to the extermination of the Jews during world war two“. That wasn’t true.

In March 2003 we were told that we had to invade Iraq, because Saddam had WMDs that “could be activated within 45 minutes”.

That wasn’t true either.

Far from Milosevic engaging in a “Hitler-style genocide”, what was occurring in Kosovo was a civil war between Yugoslav forces and the western-backed Kosovo Liberation Army, with atrocities committed on both sides. And the claims about Iraqi WMD were pure hogwash put forward to justify a military intervention to topple a regime that the west, having supported in the 1980s, now wanted out.

Both in 1999 and 2003 our leaders lied to us about the real reasons for our country’s involvement in military conflict. How can we be sure that what is happening in 2011 is any different?

If the US, Britain and France are acting out of genuine humanitarian concerns for Libyan civilians, why has there been no discussion of similar action against the government in Bahrain – which last week invited into the country military forces from that "great democracy" Saudi Arabia to crush pro-democracy protests – or against the regime in Yemen, where 45 anti-government protesters were killed on Thursday?

The other lesson to draw from the previous March conflicts is that military interventions – sold to the public as reasonably straightforward operations against dictators with little public support – rarely go to plan. Nato thought that a few days of heavy bombardment would force Milosevic to cave in – they were wrong: the war lasted 78 days and at the end of it the Yugoslav federal army was undefeated.

The invasion of Iraq, its neocon cheerleaders assured us, would be a cakewalk, with grateful Iraqis – all of whom hated Saddam Hussein – lining up to hand bouquets of flowers to their “liberators”.

And today, supporters of the Libyan action, such as the Tory MP Colonel Bob Stewart, predict that Gaddafi’s forces are likely to desert. But what if the advocates of military action are wrong – as they were in 1999 and 2003? What if support for Gaddafi within Libya is stronger than we have been led to believe? Then we could be involved in yet another Middle Eastern quagmire.

The Libyan intervention is of course different in one respect from the assaults on Yugoslavia and Iraq in that it has been officially sanctioned by the UN security council. But UN backing doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t remain cynical about the real reasons for the attack.

For all the talk of “liberating” the people and protecting civilians, the wars against Yugoslavia and Iraq were classic imperialist ventures whose real aim was to extend western economic and military hegemony. It’s unlikely that this latest March assault on an independent sovereign state is any different.

good article, i miss Yugoslavia

Kalalification · Mar 22, 2011

CheFlegel said:

"When they’re fighting against the United States in Iraq and Afghanistan they’re insurgents, illegal combatants and terrorists. When they’re fighting on the US side in Afghanistan against the Soviets, in Bosnia against the Serbs, and now in Libya against Gaddafi, they’re freedom fighters, rebels, and pro-democracy activists."

-Stephen Gowans (Sanitizing the Bahraini Crackdown)

Well, DUH. From a Western perspective those who seek the same goals as us are our allies. They are however, as the old saying goes, "the enemy of my enemy," and as such are not ideal allies. Status quo Libya was staunchly anti-Islamist. That's a good thing. However, popular instability, fueled by mass media, prompted a full on revolution in Libya. This in turn has created a window of opportunity that the short-sighted parliamentary governments of France and the UK have taken. Whether or not the short-term gains will be worth a large and powerful Islamist faction in control/influencing the government of Libya remains to be seen.

It's not about America this time Che. It's about Europe.

For all the talk of “liberating” the people and protecting civilians, the wars against Yugoslavia and Iraq were classic imperialist ventures whose real aim was to extend western economic and military hegemony. It’s unlikely that this latest March assault on an independent sovereign state is any different.

This is a bad thing, why?

BurGroBro · Mar 22, 2011

vague anti west comment from questionable source ftw

JJ12354 · Mar 22, 2011

Kalalification said:

CheFlegel said:

"When they’re fighting against the United States in Iraq and Afghanistan they’re insurgents, illegal combatants and terrorists. When they’re fighting on the US side in Afghanistan against the Soviets, in Bosnia against the Serbs, and now in Libya against Gaddafi, they’re freedom fighters, rebels, and pro-democracy activists."

-Stephen Gowans (Sanitizing the Bahraini Crackdown)

Well, DUH. From a Western perspective those who seek the same goals as us are our allies. They are however, as the old saying goes, "the enemy of my enemy," and as such are not ideal allies. Status quo Libya was staunchly anti-Islamist. That's a good thing. However, popular instability, fueled by mass media, prompted a full on revolution in Libya. This in turn has created a window of opportunity that the short-sighted parliamentary governments of France and the UK have taken. Whether or not the short-term gains will be worth a large and powerful Islamist faction in control/influencing the government of Libya remains to be seen.

It's not about America this time Che. It's about Europe.

For all the talk of “liberating” the people and protecting civilians, the wars against Yugoslavia and Iraq were classic imperialist ventures whose real aim was to extend western economic and military hegemony. It’s unlikely that this latest March assault on an independent sovereign state is any different.

This is a bad thing, why?

About the status quo of Libya, I agree completely. Muslim extremists may also influence the government or take control of Egypt and Tunisia next. In Egypt for example, the Muslim Brotherhood, one of the biggest Islamist movements(banned under Mubarak) pretty much promoted the rebellion which overthrew him. So yeah, I don't believe helping out the rebels (when we don't know their ultimate goals) is a good idea. Out of interest, how many of the posters here would still support the rebels if in a (hypothetical) victory they took revenge on the Gaddafi supporters and killed them (again a hypothetical situation)?

0bserver92 · Mar 22, 2011

It is the flag of The Republic of Libya.

pedro3131 · Mar 22, 2011

JJ12354 said:

About the status quo of Libya, I agree completely. Muslim extremists may also influence the government or take control of Egypt and Tunisia next. In Egypt for example, the Muslim Brotherhood, one of the biggest Islamist movements(banned under Mubarak) pretty much promoted the rebellion which overthrew him. So yeah, I don't believe helping out the rebels (when we don't know their ultimate goals) is a good idea. Out of interest, how many of the posters here would still support the rebels if in a (hypothetical) victory they took revenge on the Gaddafi supporters and killed them (again a hypothetical situation)?

the brotherhood is nowhere near a Muslim extremist group.

BurGroBro · Mar 22, 2011

pedro3131 said:

JJ12354 said:

About the status quo of Libya, I agree completely. Muslim extremists may also influence the government or take control of Egypt and Tunisia next. In Egypt for example, the Muslim Brotherhood, one of the biggest Islamist movements(banned under Mubarak) pretty much promoted the rebellion which overthrew him. So yeah, I don't believe helping out the rebels (when we don't know their ultimate goals) is a good idea. Out of interest, how many of the posters here would still support the rebels if in a (hypothetical) victory they took revenge on the Gaddafi supporters and killed them (again a hypothetical situation)?

the brotherhood is nowhere near a Muslim extremist group.

I beleive their militant wing was Hamass. Though I may need to check that.

pedro3131 · Mar 22, 2011

BurGroBro said:

I beleive their militant wing was Hamass. Though I may need to check that.

Yea, its not lol.

BurGroBro · Mar 22, 2011

pedro3131 said:

BurGroBro said:

I beleive their militant wing was Hamass. Though I may need to check that.

Yea, its not lol.

Ok, Hamass had to of been a militant wing of something else. I studied the middle east but I can confuse one thing with an other.

JJ12354 · Mar 22, 2011

pedro3131 said:

JJ12354 said:

About the status quo of Libya, I agree completely. Muslim extremists may also influence the government or take control of Egypt and Tunisia next. In Egypt for example, the Muslim Brotherhood, one of the biggest Islamist movements(banned under Mubarak) pretty much promoted the rebellion which overthrew him. So yeah, I don't believe helping out the rebels (when we don't know their ultimate goals) is a good idea. Out of interest, how many of the posters here would still support the rebels if in a (hypothetical) victory they took revenge on the Gaddafi supporters and killed them (again a hypothetical situation)?

the brotherhood is nowhere near a Muslim extremist group.

It isn't? I remember seeing an article on the BBC News site describe it as Egypt's "largest and oldest Islamist groups".

BurGroBro · Mar 22, 2011

JJ12354 said:

pedro3131 said:

JJ12354 said:

About the status quo of Libya, I agree completely. Muslim extremists may also influence the government or take control of Egypt and Tunisia next. In Egypt for example, the Muslim Brotherhood, one of the biggest Islamist movements(banned under Mubarak) pretty much promoted the rebellion which overthrew him. So yeah, I don't believe helping out the rebels (when we don't know their ultimate goals) is a good idea. Out of interest, how many of the posters here would still support the rebels if in a (hypothetical) victory they took revenge on the Gaddafi supporters and killed them (again a hypothetical situation)?

the brotherhood is nowhere near a Muslim extremist group.

It isn't? I remember seeing an article on the BBC News site describe it as Egypt's "largest and oldest Islamist groups".

man, we are racist fucks to think that Muslums=extrimists

CheFlegel · Mar 22, 2011

BurGroBro said:

vague anti west comment from questionable source ftw

Questionable sources? You really are ignorant are you. This is from the Guardian, which is actually very surprising for the fact that the Guardian is very anti progressive. Kid just stop posting if you aren't going to post anything useful.

Log in or Sign up

Libya Superthread

Lenin Cat Well-Known Member

BurGroBro Well-Known Member

Benerfe Well-Known Member

CheFlegel New Member

BurGroBro Well-Known Member

CheFlegel New Member

BurGroBro Well-Known Member

CheFlegel New Member

lukakiwi Well-Known Member

Kalalification Guest

BurGroBro Well-Known Member

JJ12354 Well-Known Member

0bserver92 Grand King of Moderation

pedro3131 Running the Show While the Big Guy's Gone

BurGroBro Well-Known Member

pedro3131 Running the Show While the Big Guy's Gone

BurGroBro Well-Known Member

JJ12354 Well-Known Member

BurGroBro Well-Known Member

CheFlegel New Member

Share This Page

Log in or Sign up

Libya Superthread

Lenin Cat Well-Known Member

BurGroBro Well-Known Member

Benerfe Well-Known Member

CheFlegel New Member

BurGroBro Well-Known Member

CheFlegel New Member

BurGroBro Well-Known Member

CheFlegel New Member

lukakiwi Well-Known Member

Kalalification Guest

BurGroBro Well-Known Member

JJ12354 Well-Known Member

0bserver92 Grand King of Moderation

pedro3131 Running the Show While the Big Guy's Gone

BurGroBro Well-Known Member

pedro3131 Running the Show While the Big Guy's Gone

BurGroBro Well-Known Member

JJ12354 Well-Known Member

BurGroBro Well-Known Member

CheFlegel New Member

Share This Page

Useful Searches