Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

So our Libyan heros are now cutting off supply of goods, electricity and oil to the capital.

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 Donate to DU
 
LadyLeigh Donating Member (130 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-18-11 12:39 PM
Original message
So our Libyan heros are now cutting off supply of goods, electricity and oil to the capital.
Edited on Thu Aug-18-11 12:44 PM by LadyLeigh
And that of course will not lead to the death of innocents.

Good thing this is an uprising of "the people" and not a civil war waged by one part of the population on another.

And of course, after this is all over there surely will be democracy and peace, and not grudges held for ages and rule of force.

:sarcasm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
AlabamaLibrul Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-18-11 12:39 PM
Response to Original message
1. Libya, Libya, Libya, Libya, Libya. From now until forever. (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LadyLeigh Donating Member (130 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-18-11 12:45 PM
Response to Reply #1
5. Fixed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Harmony Blue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-18-11 12:40 PM
Response to Original message
2. This shows how the power of media can distort
reality.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-18-11 12:42 PM
Response to Original message
3. Well civil wars are not civil
far from it.

And grudges are a tradition in tribal societies.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ozymanithrax Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-18-11 12:44 PM
Response to Original message
4. You know, I seem to have heard there is a war there...
Edited on Thu Aug-18-11 12:45 PM by Ozymanithrax
If these people just remembered how wonderful and compassionate, giving, loving, and caring Gaddafi is, they could quit fighting and go home and live in peace and light.

And if those mean, wicked, Syrian civilians who are denying the right of their kind, compassionate giving, and loving Bashar to care for them in the way he knows best they would could stop being vicious murderers of unarmed soldiers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sudopod Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-18-11 02:30 PM
Response to Reply #4
17. If you are against the war you must love Saddam, amirite?
I mean, what kind of sicko is for putting people through shredders? Rape rooms!

etc.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-18-11 03:09 PM
Response to Reply #17
24. I have not seen this oldie but goodie in a while
tell me about the incubators while at it. Yes Sadam was not a nice man, but this is propaganda...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-18-11 12:46 PM
Response to Original message
6. But NATO promised to protect all civilians so I'm sure they will put a stop to this.
:sarcasm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jberryhill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-18-11 12:49 PM
Response to Original message
7. Perhaps they can be persuaded to come to San Francisco and shut down BART
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
denverbill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-18-11 01:39 PM
Response to Original message
8. So you got pretty upset when Americans killed bin Laden.
Specifically because you didn't want bin Laden not to have due process instead of 'a system such as in Libya or Syria, where suspected criminals can be executed at someones whim'.

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

Guess what? The only way Libyans can get rid of Ghadafi is to defeat his military. And his military is holed up in Tripoli. They can feel free to lay down their arms anytime and stand with the people. Or they can fight to the bitter end like the Nazis in Berlin, protecting Hitler.

But go ahead. Defend Hitler and attack the people who wanted to get rid of him because they caused 'the death of innocents'.

I'm not sure exactly what you support based on those two posts, but democracy doesn't seem very high on your list. As for me I hold this truth to be self-evident: That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of a people's rights, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Maybe that's just me though.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-18-11 01:51 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. That's pretty funny. Since when did NATO become citizens of Libya?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
malaise Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-18-11 02:50 PM
Response to Reply #9
19. +1,000 n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
denverbill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-18-11 02:58 PM
Response to Reply #9
21. France shouldn't have helped America during the Revolution either.
They weren't Americans after all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-18-11 03:12 PM
Response to Reply #21
28. You've got the Founders fighting Hitler.
No room for doubt there. :)

NATO has no business deciding the outcome of a civil war, no, in the guise of a humanitarian mission.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
denverbill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-18-11 05:21 PM
Response to Reply #28
31. I didn't go quite that far. Almost :)
But I think the analogies are valid. Hitler was obviously worse than Ghadafi, but there was no way the Russians could get rid of Hitler without causing massive civilian casualties because he turned Berlin into a fortress.

And as for the American Revolution, you had a pretty small group of lightly armed rebels against the most powerful army and navy in the world. The French didn't supply many troops to help us but they did loan us their Navy at a critical junction to help us win at Yorktown. That's not much different from NATO providing a no-fly zone to protect the lightly armed rebels from air attacks by Ghadafi.

The rebels had no hope against fighter jets and helicopters. I don't think it's right to just allow repressed people to be slaughtered because they have no answer to air attacks or tanks. You may not think it's right for us to determine the outcome of a civil war, a revolution is not quite the same as a civil war, and frankly I'm pretty sure you don't want Ghadafi to win any more than I do. I'll always vote against a dictator even if the hope for it to be replaced by a democracy might be slim.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LadyLeigh Donating Member (130 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-19-11 04:34 AM
Response to Reply #31
36. And thus we went from "protecting civilians" to
"accepting massive civian casualties to achieve our goals" :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LadyLeigh Donating Member (130 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-18-11 02:16 PM
Response to Reply #8
13. Clue: All 200.000 citizens of Tripoli are soldiers?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
denverbill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-18-11 02:55 PM
Response to Reply #13
20. What do you want the rebels to do?
How would you suggest they go about getting rid of Ghadafi? Ask politely? Do you really expect them to launch a frontal assault on an entrenched, well-supplied professional army? The rebels only hope of getting rid of him is to force his army to give up and they won't do that when they can sit on their asses in air-conditioned buildings with all the food they can eat and ammo they can fire. They may if they are hungry and uncomfortable and tired.

Or maybe you think the rebels should all just give up and go home and let Ghadafi take over again. That way, no 'innocents' would die, except the ones he keeps grabbing off the street and executing.

I'm sure if you have a suggestion as to how the rebels can get rid of Ghadafi without harming any innocent civilians, the rebels would be happy to hear it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Xithras Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-18-11 03:10 PM
Response to Reply #20
25. Bush logic.
"It's OK to kill a few thousand civilians, as long as we're doing it to get them eeevviill terra'rists!"

It's ALWAYS evil to deliberately harm civilians in a war zone, and it's usually a war crime. It's illegal when we do it. It's illegal when Israel does it. And it's illegal when the Libyan rebels do it.

Hopefully, someday, we'll see some prosecutions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
denverbill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-18-11 04:21 PM
Response to Reply #25
30. So you don't have any suggestions either.
I can only conclude that you think people who live under brutal dictators are just stuck with it. You certainly don't want us to help them. You don't want them to do it themselves since you can't give me any suggestions as to how to do it without harming civilians.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Xithras Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-18-11 06:15 PM
Response to Reply #30
32. No, what I believe...
...is that, if you can't figure out how to win a fight without committing war crimes and slaughtering innocent civilians, then you don't deserve to win.

"My victory is more important than your life" is only an acceptable answer to tyrants and teabaggers.

But, if you really want an answer, the solution is simple. Establish a seige-line around the city without cutting off vital supplies. It might take a few months, or even a few years, but eventually the people supporting Gadaffi will realize that the fight is lost and give him up.

Or is rushing things more important than saving civilian lives?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LadyLeigh Donating Member (130 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-19-11 04:29 AM
Response to Reply #32
35. Indeed. I wanted to reply to that post myself but I figured that if someone
has such a mode of thinking there is hardly a point.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
denverbill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-19-11 05:02 PM
Response to Reply #32
46. We are now, what, one day into the cutoff of supplies.
I don't think the civilian population is in any imminent danger of mass starvation.

And frankly, if this goes on to that point, I think it's entirely possible the rebels will allow humanitarian aid through, just not gasoline or arms. If I end up being wrong, feel free to say I told you so. But I trust the rebels to have a helluva lot more compassion for their fellow countrymen than I do Ghadafi.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sabrina 1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-18-11 06:21 PM
Response to Reply #8
34. And then there's the other possibility.
Since it's now six months since this 'uprising' began and the ARMED (remember the other Arab Spring rebels were not armed) rebels have had help from the Western Colonialists for months now and they still can't defeat Qadaffi, it could be concluded that a majority of Libyans support him.

It only took a few weeks for both the Egyptians and the Tunisians without any help from the Western Oil Barons, and without weapons, to topple their dictatorships, because there was enough popular support for them.

I think the Libyan people ought to be asked what they want, before we go stomping all over their country as we have in Iraq and Afghanistan and now in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia and who knows where else. And by that I don't mean the Ex-Pats who were shipped in to 'lead' the rebellion who had been talking to the Western powers for years, sort of like the Expat Iraqis who were produced to get support for that horrifice and still ongoing genocide.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
denverbill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-19-11 04:42 PM
Response to Reply #34
45. I don't understand the notion that this war is about oil.
Condi Rice was shaking hands with Ghadafi just a few short years ago because he suddenly agreed to allow American oil companies access to his oil. If the rebels win, there is no guarantee they will honor those agreements or if they will even allow American companies access. They will almost certainly demand a greater share of the profits if nothing else.

Iraq was all about oil. Saddam was never ever going to allow western companies access to his oil fields and Cheney knew it. But why Ghadafi when he was already giving us access? That would be like supporting the rebels against the House of Saud.

Also unlike Iraq, this revolution started without us.

Maybe you are right. Maybe Ghadafi does the support of the majority of Libyans. But I seriously doubt it. If he was so well supported, his adoring crowds would have smashed any rebellion before it even started. This revolution started long before the US offered any help. These were unarmed or lightly armed civilians willing to die for a cause. And a lot of them have died facing tanks, aircraft and artillery. Don't think Ahmed Chalabi would have ever done the same for Iraq.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sabrina 1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-19-11 05:17 PM
Response to Reply #45
47. There have been many revolts, mostly by the same people
Edited on Fri Aug-19-11 05:20 PM by sabrina 1
in Libya and they were always put down. As for the oil, it IS about controlling the oil. True, over the past several years, Western Leaders were clammoring to get their photos taken with Qaddafi after Bush decided to stop calling him a terrorist if he allowed access to Libya's oil by Big Oil and other business deals to take place in Libya.

But Qaddafi was never easy to deal with and just getting those contracts in place took a lot of negotiating during which Qaddafi made many demands, most of which were agreed to.

However, he sealed his fate just before this 'revolution' began by talking about reducing the profits on Oil for foreigners, like the French eg, and keeping more of those profis for Libya.

And there were a few other decisions he was talking about that did not sit will with his newfound friends in the West, decisions regarding Africa as a whole and the dollar as currency. Iow, he wanted Africa to grow as a powerful force Internationally regarding currency and resources and to keep much of the profits in Africa.

The Wikileaks Libya cables give a lot of info on the relationship of the West with Qaddafi.

Basically, most people now believe this 'uprising' was backed from before it began by the West, the same way Iraq was 'softened up' by Western powers, mostly France in this case.

And in the end, as observers have said from the beginning, even if Qadaffi leaves, the country will be mired in violence, like Iraq and we will probably end up with troops there, we already have 'agents' there as does Britain eg, to help 'keep the peace' when in reality it will be to 'protect our interests there'.

The West never does anything for African or ME countries unless there is a huge benefit in it for them. And President Obama stated often in the past, that he did not believe the US should be interfering in the business of other countries for 'humanitarian reasons'. He sure has changed his mind on that re Libya.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-18-11 01:54 PM
Response to Original message
10. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Amonester Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-18-11 02:06 PM
Response to Original message
11. All wars are not pretty, and civil wars are not different...
At least the one(s) who started it (gawd-awful in this case) using all he stole to wage it, seems to be pretty much cornered in his own bloody B.S. now.

But it seems you're not supporting the winners (so far)...

Bad camp. Happens.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LadyLeigh Donating Member (130 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-18-11 02:21 PM
Response to Reply #11
14. All citizens of Tripoli started the war?
And to clarify: Are you saying I am in the "Ghaddafi camp" ?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kick-ass-bob Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-18-11 02:23 PM
Response to Reply #14
15. Are you saying that all citizens of Benghazi started the war?
Because they were fucking killed by big Q's forces early on.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LadyLeigh Donating Member (130 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-18-11 02:25 PM
Response to Reply #15
16. You are not making any sense at all but thanks for playing. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Amonester Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-18-11 02:42 PM
Response to Reply #16
18. So it's just 'playing' for you?
Edited on Thu Aug-18-11 02:44 PM by Amonester
Hope you're having fun.

Not me.

It's a civil war the 40-something year long bad guy started. His opponents decided they had enough suffering, torturing and dying.

And, FYI, in any civil war, you can't 'root' for both sides (or against both sides) at the same time. Of course, you (and I) can be against all civil wars to begin with, but that would not be the actual reality.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LadyLeigh Donating Member (130 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-19-11 04:36 AM
Response to Reply #18
37. It can't be a "civil war" and a "revolution" at the same time.
Which is it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
muriel_volestrangler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-19-11 06:40 AM
Response to Reply #37
38. Why not? (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LadyLeigh Donating Member (130 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-19-11 11:05 AM
Response to Reply #38
40. Revolution is "people against their govnernment". Civil war is "people against people".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
muriel_volestrangler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-19-11 11:14 AM
Response to Reply #40
42. Few civil wars do not have a government as one side
eg:
American Civil War: government vs. breakaway confederate states
British Civil War: king vs. parliament (arguably, 2 parts of the same government against each other)
Spanish Civil War: Franco and other generals vs. government
and so on.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LadyLeigh Donating Member (130 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-19-11 12:17 PM
Response to Reply #42
43. On the other hand, one would not speak of a "revolution" in those cases.
Edited on Fri Aug-19-11 12:18 PM by LadyLeigh
The American civil war for instance was a war between two populations. The southern states, represented by their leaders, waged war against northern states. Both sides had combatants and civilians on "their side". A revolution is about power, but not about tribes, nations and so on. People waging war against their own government. Per definition, there cannot be such a thing as an "enemy civilian" in a revolution.

If, as in Libya apparently, non-combatants living in Tripoli are per association considered "enemy civilians" and therefore legitimate targets, then it no longer is a revolution of "the people".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
muriel_volestrangler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-19-11 01:12 PM
Response to Reply #43
44. And yet those on the southern American side were 'rebels'
which goes with calling it a 'revolution'. Probably what stops it being called an attempted 'revolution' normally is that their aim was to split the country, rather than take control of all of it.

Historians do often link civil war and revolution:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/civil_war_revoluti...
http://www.socialistreview.org.uk/article.php?articlenu...
http://www.constitution.org/eng/conpur_.htm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ikonoklast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-18-11 02:11 PM
Response to Original message
12. Crocodile Tears.
Poor Qaddafi, he's running out of apologists.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sudopod Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-18-11 03:10 PM
Response to Reply #12
26. FTFY
Edited on Thu Aug-18-11 03:11 PM by sudopod
Poor Qaddafi, he's running out of apologists.
......Ho Chi Minh
......Saddam Hussein.
......Osama bin Laden
......etc.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Xithras Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-18-11 03:03 PM
Response to Original message
22. So, when will NATO start bombing the rebels, as the UN declaration requires?
The UN declaration on Libya does not authorize us to pick sides or to depose Gaddafi, but does require that participating states protect civilians.

Some select passages from the order:

1. Demands the immediate establishment of a ceasefire and a complete end to violence and all attacks against, and abuses of, civilians;

3. Demands that the Libyan authorities comply with their obligations under international law, including international humanitarian law, human rights and refugee law and take all measures to protect civilians and meet their basic needs, and to ensure the rapid and unimpeded passage of humanitarian assistance;

As the Libyan rebels are now recognized internationally as the legal government, this resolution is FULLY binding on them.

As to NATO, the resolution only authorized:

4. Authorizes Member States that have notified the Secretary-General, acting nationally or through regional organizations or arrangements, and acting in cooperation with the Secretary-General, to take all necessary measures, notwithstanding paragraph 9 of resolution 1970 (2011), to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, including Benghazi, while excluding a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory...


It is NATO's duty, under international law, to protect the civilians in Tripoli, even if that means protecting them from the rebels.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
denverbill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-18-11 03:07 PM
Response to Reply #22
23. I'm fine with deploying NATO soldiers to Tripoli to protect the citizens of Tripoli as you suggest.
I'm not so sure Ghadafi would feel the same.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Xithras Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-18-11 03:13 PM
Response to Reply #23
29. That would also be illegal.
The UN resolution ORDERS us to protect the civilians while BANNING us from putting soldiers on the ground.

That means our ONLY recourse is to bomb those who will not listen to orders to cease harming civilians.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
indurancevile Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-18-11 03:12 PM
Response to Original message
27. The PNAC plan to remake the map of the Middle East continues apace.
Just a little collateral damage.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU GrovelBot  Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-18-11 06:15 PM
Response to Original message
33. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##



This week is our third quarter 2011 fund drive. Democratic Underground is
a completely independent website. We depend on donations from our members
to cover our costs. Please take a moment to donate! Thank you!

Click here to donate

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Baby Bear Donating Member (104 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-19-11 07:52 AM
Response to Original message
39. An Even Handed Policy by Nato
could keep this war going indefinitely. That would not be good.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LadyLeigh Donating Member (130 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-19-11 11:06 AM
Response to Reply #39
41. At this point, there hardly will be an end to the fighting even if Ghaddafi leaves.
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 Fri Aug 01st 2014, 02:07 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » General Discussion 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