Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

“Exposed: The U.S.-Saudi Libya Deal”

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » General Discussion: Presidency Donate to DU
 
Billy Burnett Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-01-11 12:23 PM
Original message
“Exposed: The U.S.-Saudi Libya Deal”
“Exposed: The U.S.-Saudi Libya Deal”
http://www.accuracy.org/release/exposed-the-u-s-saudi-l... /

“You invade Bahrain. We take out Muammar Gaddafi in Libya. This, in short, is the essence of a deal struck between the Barack Obama administration and the House of Saud. Two diplomatic sources at the United Nations independently confirmed that Washington, via Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, gave the go-ahead for Saudi Arabia to invade Bahrain and crush the pro-democracy movement of their neighbor in exchange for a ‘yes’ vote by the Arab League for a no-fly zone over Libya — the main rationale that led to United Nations Security Council resolution 1973. …
“A full Arab League endorsement of a no-fly zone is a myth. Of the 22 full members, only 11 were present at the voting. Six of them were GCC members, the U.S.-supported club of Gulf kingdoms/sheikhdoms, of which Saudi Arabia is the top dog. Syria and Algeria were against it. Saudi Arabia only had to ‘seduce’ three other members to get the vote.





Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Mimosa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-01-11 01:26 PM
Response to Original message
1. This info needs to be everywhere. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AzDar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-01-11 02:12 PM
Response to Original message
2. K & R
:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vattel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-01-11 02:57 PM
Response to Original message
3. I hope this isn't true.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Billy Burnett Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-01-11 05:10 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. Me too, but I suspect it's true. eom
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
killbotfactory Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-01-11 07:30 PM
Response to Original message
5. Gaddafi had an assassination plot against the Saudi Royals
I doubt we had to do much to convince them to support the NFZ.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Exilednight Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-01-11 07:51 PM
Response to Original message
6. WTF? How the fuck do we call ourselves a democracy and support such shit? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gateley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-01-11 09:44 PM
Response to Reply #6
9. I heard someone discussing/explaining Foreign Relations, and boy, is it complicated!
It seems so basic to us -- we do this, we don't do that -- but there are so many contributing factors and aspects to have to be taken into account. No way could I do such a job, and if I did, not sure I could sleep nights. But wow, what do you do when presented with seemingly impossible choices?

We've been supporting this shit forever, and I think that's how the entire world runs. I don't know how to put an end to it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Exilednight Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-02-11 06:20 AM
Response to Reply #9
12. That's only because they make it more complicated than it needs to be. I
understand that at times things can become dicey when it comes to relationships with foreign powers. But this is not one of those times. In 1979, Carter was put in a tight situations with Iran because they were holding our hostages, but the current problems in the middle-east are internal power struggles that can only be further complicated by us interjecting ourselves into the situation.

The only way to put an end to it is to find a president who is willing to put basic human-rights at the center of their foreign and domestic policy. Sadly, I think this party has lost their moral compass when it comes human-rights - even within our own borders.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gateley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-02-11 12:21 PM
Response to Reply #12
18. In this instance, I think the British and French were pushing intervention -- no?
So we, politically, had to support them and engage ourselves. Frankly, I think being in that position, Obama did the best he could, help with the air strikes, turn it over, and get out. Of course, this was before we sent in the CIA. I got the sense he was reluctant to get involved but -- because of foreign relations with our allies -- almost had to.

I think most Presidents -- well, many -- do care about human rights but are faced with the reality of the office that they can only do so much, and what they CAN do has to benefit the US somehow.

I would have said I feel Obama hasn't lost his moral compass (after all, the guy went from Harvard Law to the streets of Chicago rather than to a cushy job somewhere), but I'm puzzled by some of his actions - or lack thereof.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
polichick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-02-11 06:32 AM
Response to Reply #6
13. We've been doing underhanded shit in the Middle East for decades...
It's not "our freedoms" that make them hate us.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Distant Observer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-13-11 10:29 AM
Response to Reply #13
24. Really?? What a surprise!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gravel Democrat Donating Member (598 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-01-11 08:13 PM
Response to Original message
7. Ruh Roh ^^^
“It takes many good deeds to build a good reputation, and only one bad one to lose it”
Benjamin Franklin

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-01-11 08:16 PM
Response to Original message
8. "via Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, gave the go-ahead for Saudi Arabia to invade Bahrain"
Sounds true.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
InAbLuEsTaTe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-02-11 07:52 AM
Response to Reply #8
15. NOW can we all agree our neocon SOS needs to fired pronto before she does any more damage?
Edited on Sat Apr-02-11 07:52 AM by InAbLuEsTaTe
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Autumn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-13-11 11:57 AM
Response to Reply #15
26. "Washington, via Secretary of State Hillary Clinton,"
I think "Washington" might just be her boss, Obama. As always the buck stops 40 feet away from Obama.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Autumn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-13-11 11:45 AM
Response to Reply #8
25. Obama needs to fire her, she keeps making these decisions
that are bad, and Obama has to be against them.




:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bvar22 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-01-11 10:06 PM
Response to Original message
10. I will K&R this thread,
and link to MY thread for the ulterior motives.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

This whole cluster fuck of a Brand New WAR smelled bad from the start.
They didn't even change the marketing.

You are either for BOMBING Libya,
or you're with The Communists AlQaeda Saddam Qaddafi!!!

Oh...and THIS just in:
NATO Chief Opens the Door to Libya Ground Troops
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/03/nato-chief-open... /

Wait!
Whats that sound?
Why...its the little pitty-patter of "Boots on the Ground".
BOHICA
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-01-11 10:24 PM
Response to Reply #10
11. "Oh...and THIS just in: NATO Chief Opens the Door to Libya Ground Troops"
That's a blog post from three days ago.

The day before that: Rasmussen says no NATO ground troops for Libya

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jefferson_dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-02-11 07:24 AM
Response to Original message
14. Oh, if Pepe Escobar is reporting this in the "Asia Times"... it must be TRUE.
After all, he reaches his conspiratorial conclusion based on two unnamed "diplomatic" sources. Yeah...right. I'll wait for reportage from a (more) reliable source.

Here's the original investigative polemic - http://atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/MD02Ak01.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Swede Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-02-11 11:49 AM
Response to Reply #14
16. Anything to slag Obama is good enough for some.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stockholmer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-03-11 02:56 AM
Response to Reply #16
21. with the anti-humanistic, anti-progressive, pro-war policies he renders forth, yes, yes it is
:grr:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JoePhilly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-03-11 10:04 AM
Response to Reply #14
22. Sounds like a note that teenage girls would pass around to each other ...
"Did you hear? That cute kid Pepe over at Asia Times, quotes 2 unnamed Europeans, about what America said to Saudi Arabia about Libya!! OMG OMG!!"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Exilednight Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-03-11 02:33 PM
Response to Reply #14
23. If you really had something to fight back with, then you wouldn't be attacking the messenger. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dokkie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-02-11 12:01 PM
Response to Original message
17. K & R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Catherina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-02-11 01:21 PM
Response to Original message
19. People of good heart should weep.
Edited on Sat Apr-02-11 01:22 PM by Catherina
Former British ambassador Craig Murray wrote on March 14: “A senior diplomat in a western mission to the UN in New York, who I have known over ten years and trust, has told me for sure that Hillary Clinton agreed to the cross-border use of troops to crush democracy in the Gulf, as a quid pro quo for the Arab League calling for Western intervention in Libya.”



The Invasion of Bahrain
by craig on March 14, 2011 2:38 pm in Middle East

...

But do you think that those in power, who rightly condemn Gadaffi’s apparent use of foreign mercenaries, will condemn this use of foreign military power by oil sheiks to crush majority protestors in Bahrain? Of course they won’t. We just had Sky News rationalising it by telling us that the Gulf Cooperation Council have a military alliance that a state can call in help if attacked. But that does not mean attacked by its own, incidentally unarmed, people. NATO is a military alliance. It does not mean Cameron could call in US troops to gun down tuition fees protestors in Parliament Square.

...

I do hope this latest development will open the eyes of those duped into supporting western intervention in Libya, who believe those who control the western armies are motivated by humanitarian concern. Bahrain already had foreign forces in it – notably the US fifth fleet. Do you think that Clinton and Obama will threaten that they will intervene if foreign armies are let loose on pro-democracy demonstrators? No they won’t.

...

It appears that getting rid of Gadaffi may be a longer slog than we would like, but an attempt at a quick fix will lead to another Iraq, and give him an undeserved patriotic mantle. It was former UK Ambassador to Libya, Oliver Miles who said western military intervention in Libya should be avoided above all because of the law of unintended consequences. One consequence has happened already, unintended by the liberals who fell in behind the calls for military attacks on Gadaffi. They helped cause the foreign military suppression of democracy in Bahrain. For Clinton and Obama, it is a win-win forwarding US foreign policy on both Libya and the Gulf, where they don’t want democracy.

People of good heart should weep.

http://craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2011/03/the-invasion...



And that was on March 14.

Too late to recommend.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
agent46 Donating Member (424 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-02-11 01:28 PM
Response to Original message
20. IIRC the original Neocon plan was
The original Neocon plan was the creation of American "client states" throughout the ME, including Libya and starting with Iraq. Bush never finished what they started but could it be the New American Century has been refitted with a new look and feel - and is still on track? I always thought it odd how sure Bush was that history would favor his administartion's policies and decisions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Oct 21st 2014, 01:12 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » General Discussion: Presidency Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC