Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

False pretense for war in Libya?

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
 
PurityOfEssence Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-13-11 11:29 PM
Original message
False pretense for war in Libya?
Here's an editorial from the Boston Globe by Alan J. Kuperman that is a must-read:

But Khadafys acts were a far cry from Rwanda, Darfur, Congo, Bosnia, and other killing fields. Libyas air force, prior to imposition of a UN-authorized no-fly zone, targeted rebel positions, not civilian concentrations. Despite ubiquitous cellphones equipped with cameras and video, there is no graphic evidence of deliberate massacre. Images abound of victims killed or wounded in crossfire each one a tragedy but that is urban warfare, not genocide.

Nor did Khadafy ever threaten civilian massacre in Benghazi, as Obama alleged. The no mercy warning, of March 17, targeted rebels only, as reported by The New York Times, which noted that Libyas leader promised amnesty for those who throw their weapons away. Khadafy even offered the rebels an escape route and open border to Egypt, to avoid a fight to the bitter end.

Boston Globe

We have been suckered in a most cynical way.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
L. Coyote Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-13-11 11:33 PM
Response to Original message
1. HUGH D'oh!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-13-11 11:34 PM
Response to Original message
2. This guy:
Edited on Wed Apr-13-11 11:35 PM by ProSense
Theres Only One Way to Stop Iran

<...>

Negotiation to prevent nuclear proliferation is always preferable to military action. But in the face of failed diplomacy, eschewing force is tantamount to appeasement. We have reached the point where air strikes are the only plausible option with any prospect of preventing Irans acquisition of nuclear weapons. Postponing military action merely provides Iran a window to expand, disperse and harden its nuclear facilities against attack. The sooner the United States takes action, the better.

Alan J. Kuperman is the director of the Nuclear Proliferation Prevention Program at the University of Texas at Austin.


"We have been suckered in a most cynical way."

Speak for yourself.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gateley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-13-11 11:37 PM
Response to Original message
3. The people ASKED for help and the citizens ARE being massacred! This is bullshit. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
upi402 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-13-11 11:40 PM
Response to Original message
4. Good Kuperman is digging into it. I don't trust CNN a bit
It IS an editorial. And the title has a '?' mark on the end.
Some dust needs to settle and I hope journalists stay on top of it -somehow.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slipslidingaway Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-14-11 12:26 AM
Response to Original message
5. kick for later n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gravel Democrat Donating Member (598 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-14-11 12:37 AM
Response to Original message
6. k/r Richard N. Haass, President, Council on Foreign Relations agrees
from a post by DUer Distant Observer:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

"Richard Nathan Haass advised General Coin Powell at the State Department as Director of Policy and Planning under G.W. Bush. As such he is very familiar with the techniques used for creating rationales for war. He resigned publicly in protest over what he called false pretext for War in Iraq.

Now in calm, methodological testimony before congress, he pull the covers of the false pretexts used in Hilary Clintons State Department argument for intervention in Libya."



1. There were no real massacres of civilians in Libya prior to the call for intervention.
2. There was no reasonable evidence that civilian massacre would have occurred in Benghazi without coalition intervention.
(most evidence was based on out-of-context clips from Gaddafi threats directed explicitly at a small group of insurgents and that was accompanied by offers of unconditional amnesty and political reforms.)
3. The actions of the Libyan government and the destruction that came with the conflict was typical of a States response to armed insurrection.

http://www.cfr.org/africa/perspectives-crisis-libya/p24...

"We have been suckered in a most cynical way."

again. And worse, who will follow up on this? If it is true, will anyone be held accountable?

Not likely.

********

http://costofwar.com




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pampango Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-14-11 07:54 AM
Response to Original message
7. If it were a unilateral US intervention, I would agree. As a UN-sanctioned humanitarian
intervention, I disagree. The UN has used its Responsibility to Protect to intervene in:

Darfur
Sudan
Burma
Zimbabwe
The Democratic Republic of Congo
Sri Lanka
Kenya
Guinea
Nigeria
Kyrgyzstan
Cte dIvoire

http://www.responsibilitytoprotect.org/index.php/crises

The others you mentioned (Rwanda, Kosovo and Cambodia ("killing fields")) occurred before R2P was adopted in 2005. Indeed it was the lack of UN action in those cases that spurred the adoption by the UN of R2P so that such humanitarian crises would not be ignored in the future.

Now if you're saying that the entire Security Council was duped or stupid, you may have a case.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Poboy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-14-11 09:56 AM
Response to Original message
8. Bombimg of Lybia - punishment for Ghaddafi for his attempt to refuse US dollar
This may be true, or not. It is a fact he has an enormous gold stash. Unresearched by me but I came across this article-


----
Bombimg of Lybia - punishment for Ghaddafi for his attempt to refuse US dollar
Mar. 28th, 2011 at 9:27 PM

Source in Russian
Thanks Squid Room for translation

The last world economic crisis made a number of countries start discussion about interstate trading calculation in gold. China announced minting of golden yuan and the Eastern countries also discussed the possibility of golden standard. Mummar Ghaddafi became the main initiator of idea of refusing from dollar and euro. He called arabian and african world to start use one new currency - golden dinar. He suggested to establish united African country with 200 millions of population using this currency. The idea of making the one golden currency and uniting african countries into one powerful federative state was strongly approved by many arabian countries and almost all african countries during last year. The only opponents were Republic of South Africa and the head of League of Arabian states.

Such initiative of Lybia was very negatively estimated by USA and European Union. According to the words of french president Nickola Sarkozi, "lybian people caused a threat for financial security of mankind". Numerous arguments drawn by them to the leader of the Libyan revolution gave no results: Ghaddafi still made steps that led to the creation of United Africa.

There were two versions for hiding real reason for intervention to Lybia: the official one - protection of human rights and the unofficial - stealing oil. Both seem fake. The truth is that Mummar Ghaddafi tried to repeat plans of general De Gaulle - refuse from banknotes and start using gold coins again like in old times. This would lead the destruction of banking system.

http://kir-t34.livejournal.com/14869.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wuushew Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-14-11 10:59 AM
Response to Original message
9. kick
:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
David__77 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-14-11 11:48 AM
Response to Original message
10. The intervention was to prevent peace, not create it.
They Western countries did not want a "peace" with Gaddafi in power. There would have been executions, but not a genocide. It is entirely possible that people would be shopping and going to school in Misrata right now, not cowering in their homes, trapped between two sides. I am not saying that Gaddafi remaining in power is a desirable outcome to the people of Libya. But I do argue that the West should not have intervened to give an advantage to the other side.

The elimination of an armed force is not genocide.

The fact that NATO air raids targeted peaceful places like Sirte shows this is not about "protection of civilians."

I hope that this fumbled intervention is a nail in the coffin of "humanitarian imperialism." It's time to return to principles of national sovereignty.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Taverner Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-14-11 11:50 AM
Response to Reply #10
11. Someone's been paying attention here
How dare you! Don't you know we're supposed to support anybody and everybody with a 'D' next to their name????

Think of the kittens!!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PurityOfEssence Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-14-11 02:00 PM
Response to Reply #10
14. Yes, and a very measured and decent assessment
Business usually abhors instability, to the point that it usually prefers totalitarian regimes over democracies. Democracies are unstable and evolutionary, whereas totalitarian regimes are an attempt to freeze everything as it is.

The only time a totalitarian regime isn't preferable to business is when the leader can't be bought or can't be bought for a good enough price. That's Qaddafi. As soon as he started to threaten nationalization a few years back, he was in trouble; when he coerced the French to reducing the amount they could keep from their production from 50% to 27%, he was in REAL trouble. Once the French recognized the Provisional Government, they HAD to make sure Qaddafi was taken out, or they knew they'd get nothing.

You are completely correct on the definition of genocide, and it is most tiresome to hear people use crazed hysteria-speak of ostracism to shut down anyone who doesn't agree with them.

The children killed in the crossfire in the last four weeks would be alive now if the "revolution" had been allowed to fail.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joshcryer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-14-11 07:30 PM
Response to Reply #10
19. Misrata has gained very little from NATO intervention, even the humanitarian aid...
...isn't helping them much. Ultimately the rebellion in Misrata is how Benghazi would've looked, it's really a template. Now you can argue all day and night about numbers. I won't dispute them because it's a war and solid numbers never come out until after the fact. But it remains a fact that Misrata is under siege. It is highly fucking unlikely that Misrata would be "at peace" had the international community not intervened. We're talking about a city of 300k. It's easy enough to silence a city much smaller than that (Az Zawaiya, or a better example might be Zinten). Misrata is different, it's closer to Sarajevo with how the long term results would be. So you have to side with someone. And yes, not acting is the same as siding; we didn't act in the Siege of Sarajevo, and we saw what happened there. I hope you're not really trying to push off that view, because that is the ultimate outcome, I don't care what sort of rationalizations you try to make.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fool Count Donating Member (878 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-14-11 10:55 PM
Response to Reply #19
31. Both Misrata and Benghazi would have been long (and
with very low casualties) at peace without the NATO intervention. The intervention is the only reason they are still fighting and
causing death and destruction to the city. As with every example of double-speak, the results are exactly the opposite of
the declared goals. That's like almost an indication for them that everything is going according to plan. It's like they are
actually using the book as a manual: war = peace, killing people = protecting civilians, regime change = democracy,
bombing = humanitarian assistance, band of terrorists = people. What the hell did those pissants have to destroy perfectly
livable and functional country for? Democracy?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joshcryer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-14-11 11:12 PM
Response to Reply #31
36. That's nonsense. How has NATO's "interference" changed the outcome in Misrata?
Edited on Thu Apr-14-11 11:16 PM by joshcryer
They've hit a few tanks but overall Misrata has hardly been helped by NATO.

I cannot believe people actually think that Gaddafi would've magically restored peace in two major cities that rose up against him in the beginning, it's preposterous. It would have taken him months if not years to "restore peace" to those cities.

edit: Note: I do think he would have, eventually, mind you. But it would've been a protracted slaughter. Gaddafi, if the international community turned a blind eye as it does in so many other places would have certainly squashed the uprising.

That is not reason to simply side with the "sovereign state of Gaddafi's Libya." Just because the other side will win is not reason to say "oh, the other side is worthless rebels."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fool Count Donating Member (878 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-15-11 02:17 AM
Response to Reply #36
42. How has NATO's interference changed the outcome in Misrata?
Very simple - without NATO bombing Benghazi would have fallen quickly and easily and Misrata resistance
would have just melted away without much casualties and destruction. No one would have fought for such
an obviously lost cause and peace would have prevailed in days, not months or years as you claim.
Why in the world would victorious Qaddafi forces engage in any kind of slaughter, most of all a "protracted"
one? That imaginary future "slaughter" is just a sick fantasy sucked out of their fingers by the Sarkozy/Cameron
cabal to justify the intervention with a real purpose of regime change in Libya - getting rid of Qaddafi
being their, as well as Saudis' and Gulf Arabs', ancient wet dream. I certainly agree that just because one
side is stronger and will win doesn't make it right. What does make it right though, is popular support
that side enjoys, and more often than not that is actually the main reason it is stronger and will win.
So going with a stronger side will quite often mean going with the popular will. When a fair election is
impossible or remote, it would not be a bad bet at all. That would certainly be a better general rule than
going with some obscure proteges of a narcissistic French pop-"philosopher". Why do the "rebels" reject
ceasefire and a fair internationally monitored election/referendum? How discovering what people of
Libya really want can be wrong? Why must Qaddafi leave as a precondition to anything? Who can decide that
he "lost all legitimacy" but the Libyan people themselves? If he, in fact, did lose his legitimacy and everyone
in Libya wants him out, would it not be more valuable to have that decision ratified by a referendum?
Qaddafi accepts such a roadmap that would, if everyone is right about him, would end his regime. That's
the rebels who refuse negotiations and direct democracy and demand unconditional surrender. That's all I need
to know to decide which side to support. In fact, no responsible leader would accept such conditions and
subject his country to uncontested rule by such blatantly unpatriotic force. Neither should Qaddafi.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PurityOfEssence Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-14-11 11:16 PM
Response to Reply #19
37. Are you KIDDING? NATO is pinning down Qaddafi's heavy weapons and armor
The first thing the French did was attack a mechanized battle group outside of Benghazi, with estimates of 70 vehicles destroyed in the first few days. You're literally the first person I've heard to argue that NATO attacks have had little effect on Misrata.

Had no action been taken to stop Qaddafi, the rebels in Misrata wouldn't have as much reason to hang on as they do now, because the rebellion would probably be collapsing or have already collapsed elsewhere; they would also have been under much more deadly fire. We're not there, and we're speculating based on sketchy and skewed information, but there's a very serious probability that the revolution would have been put down by now. That's a big deal. It's also the argument that the interventionists have been using.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joshcryer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-14-11 11:20 PM
Response to Reply #37
38. That's total garbage. Misrata held on past Zinten, past Azawiya, and likely would've...
...held on for months. Urban warfare is a different creature.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PurityOfEssence Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-15-11 01:56 PM
Response to Reply #38
48. and NATO has had little effect on that?
Their very presence bolsters the morale. Their targeting of heavy weapons makes them much less effective. Their targeting of the roads makes logistics much harder for Qaddafi. Their maintenance of a no-fly zone allows those ships to get into the harbor.

Is there anything in the future you don't absolutely KNOW? If so, why is it so very impossible for you to read treaties and laws or keep your stories straight?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Distant Observer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-15-11 04:08 PM
Response to Reply #10
49. Basic principles of international law of national sovereignty have been abandonned
in an orgy of arrogance and greed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PurityOfEssence Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-15-11 07:09 PM
Response to Reply #49
50. Makes ya proud, doesn't it?
Hey, but at least it's going to be done on the cheap and with vulgar displays of false decency.

When Obama, Cameron, Sarkozy, Ahmadinijad, Chalabi, Wolfowitz, Perle, McCain, Lieberman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the Muslim Brotherhood, the LIFG, Al-Queda, Hitchens and most of the Republican Party are all for something, I've got a problem. I've changed enough diapers to know this smell.

More than anything, this is about the inherently uncontrollable nature of Qaddafi and his threats of nationalization to various oil companies. We--especially the French--thought we could pull a fast one here and have other people do our dirty work for us. Now we've got a problem, and it doesn't seem like we're doing anything about it. Denial reigns supreme.

Sovereignty is, for me, the huge issue, along with adherence to US law and the ramifications of seizing the assets of people we don't like, whether in the ground or in banks we control. Couple this with the sheer cynicism of forcing an arms embargo and having at least our allies flout it completely, and making a farce out of the whole UN Resolution by continued offensive action, and our word means literally nothing. These people have just trashed our national integrity, even if such a concept is a bit of a stretch anyway.

On all levels, this is ridiculous: pompous, poorly led, ill-conceived, trumped-up, without clear aims and casual beyond all belief. Mister Rogers goes to war. Field Marshall Bing Crosby takes command. It's deplorable on every level.

If one is going to engage in war, one should have the decency to fully commit and prosecute it to a conclusive end with all dispatch. The idea of "starving Qaddafi out" will kill far more innocents than any much-heralded imminent exterminations the interventionists claim repeatedly as FACT. We've been had, and we've been had in beach shorts with a magazine and a canned mai-tai.

What an abomination.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FlyByNight Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-14-11 12:17 PM
Response to Original message
12. Gotta justify that $700+ billion "defense" budget somehow
:banghead:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
crickets Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-14-11 12:58 PM
Response to Reply #12
13. Yup. *sigh*
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fool Count Donating Member (878 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-14-11 05:46 PM
Response to Original message
15. Remove that question mark already.
There would not have been any "genocide" or even "massacre" in Benghazi.
From what we now have learned about the "rebels", there would not have
even been a fight. They would have junked or stashed their weapons and
blended right back into the general population. Only a couple of dozen
of most visible characters would have crossed into Egypt, but even
those were offered full amnesty by Qaddafi. This whole "rebellion" was
started by a bunch of pissed off lawyers. That's all one needs to know to judge
how grass-roots and people-power that thing was. How "despotic" and "totalitarian"
the Qaddafi regime could possibly be if there was enough grumpy lawyers in
the country to start a revolution? The reason the "revolutionaries" do and
will reject any peace plan involving a fair election is that in any remotely
democratic process they would be simply embarrassed by loyalist candidates.
Foreign occupation of Libya is their only chance to come and hold on to
power.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Distant Observer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-14-11 06:04 PM
Response to Original message
16. The WHOLE OPERATION seems to be a SCAM. Question is whether the "protests" were
orchestrated and who are the parties behind it.

The best theory I have seen is the Saudi connection -- Gaddafi is the arch enemy and stirring a war in
Libya is a good distraction from their zone in interest -- the Arabian Gulf
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PurityOfEssence Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-14-11 07:15 PM
Response to Reply #16
17. Hmmm...where DID those opposition flags come from, after all...
It's a flag that hasn't been in use for 42 years, yet somehow there were a bunch of nice-looking ones...

There are all sorts of "huh?" moments when looking at the chain of events.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fool Count Donating Member (878 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-14-11 11:02 PM
Response to Reply #17
34. The same place the "Gotov je" stickers in Serbia came -
some Western NGO (fronting for CIA) printed them out and flew in for distribution.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hannah Bell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-15-11 01:38 AM
Response to Reply #34
40. Egyptian revolt & Serbian revolt had the same logo, too:



Otpor Logo, Serbia 1998-2000





April 6 Youth Movement: Egypt 2008-2011


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tabatha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-15-11 01:32 AM
Response to Reply #17
39. The women of Libya made them and are still making them.
There was an article about it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tabatha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-15-11 02:32 AM
Response to Reply #17
44. Purity of facts
"Since the Libyan revolution began Feb. 17 and anti-government protesters seized on the former flag as their own, a cottage industry in Benghazi has sprung up to meet the demands of people wanting to hang it from their balconies, attach it to their cars or wave it during rallies.

At the fabric shops, only the black, red, green and white cloth is selling. Tailors do little other than sew thick strips of red, black and green together. Printers imprint the white star and crescent and make stickers and banners with revolutionary messages. Narrow black PVC piping works well as a flag pole.

"All of Benghazi is now in the service of making the flags," said Ashraf Ahmad, 45, an Egyptian who owns a tailor shop. "They come here before they go to fight, and get a bunch and take them to the front lines."

Sharif thought about making the flags on the first day of the protests, when he went to the courthouse. It was nothing like the images coming out of Egypt, where Tahrir Square was a sea of waving flags."

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/mar/13/world/la-fg-lib...

Guessing and making stuff up is so right-wing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PurityOfEssence Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-15-11 01:49 PM
Response to Reply #44
47. I stand corrected about the flags
By what possible standard am I "right wing"? What instances can you find of me "making things up"?

Disagree with my posts or not, I generally do and present my homework, and stand by the results.

You're the one on the side of imperialistic intervention in this instance, so go explain that to your sense of moral perfection.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-14-11 07:25 PM
Response to Original message
18. "he suggested that Darfurs victims kind of had it coming."
Kuperman has a history of providing intellectual cover for policy choices that result in huge numbers of deaths. In a 2000 Foreign Affairs essay, he argued that humanitarian intervention in Rwanda wouldve just made things worse. In 2006 op-ed, he suggested that Darfurs victims kind of had it coming. It is utterly unsurprising that he should now apply his brand of human bean-counting to the thousands of Iranian (and American, and Iraqi, and Israeli) casualties that would very likely result from the action he advocates.

link


Bomb Iran, screw Darfur!

Again, Kuperman's bullshit claim from the OP:

But Human Rights Watch has released data on Misurata, the next-biggest city in Libya and scene of protracted fighting, revealing that Moammar Khadafy is not deliberately massacring civilians but rather narrowly targeting the armed rebels who fight against his government.


Human Rights Watch: Libya: Government Attacks in Misrata Kill Civilians

Enjoy propping up this asshole!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-14-11 07:30 PM
Response to Reply #18
20. It's already been pointed out to you that "this asshole"
Edited on Thu Apr-14-11 07:31 PM by EFerrari
is by no means the only one who has come to this conclusion.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-14-11 07:41 PM
Response to Reply #20
21. What the hell does someone else's opinion have to do with
the bullshit lie "this asshole" told about HRW report?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PurityOfEssence Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-14-11 08:29 PM
Response to Reply #21
25. We've already determined that only your opinion and those of people who agree with you matter
How dare anyone differ with you. How dare they present proof. The fiendishness of it all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-14-11 08:34 PM
Response to Reply #25
26. Kuperman 2012:
Bomb Iran because humanitarian missions are teh suck!!!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-14-11 10:06 PM
Response to Reply #21
27. You mean, what do other corroborating opinions have to do with
your attempt to kill the messenger?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PurityOfEssence Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-14-11 10:57 PM
Response to Reply #21
32. Odd...I click on your link labeled "lie", and it comes up as one of your posts...
Apparently, not only do you consider yourself a significant enough source to reference, but you're firmly convinced that you're wrong to the point of deserving invective.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
inna Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-14-11 11:09 PM
Response to Reply #32
35. .

:spray:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-14-11 07:44 PM
Response to Reply #20
22. Also,
Haass' testimony was about Benghazi, not Misurata or HRW.

Analysis must be rigorous. In two critical areas, however, I would suggest that what has been asserted as fact was in reality closer to assumption. First, it is not clear that a humanitarian catastrophe was imminent in the eastern Libyan city of Benghazi. There had been no reports of large-scale massacres in Libya up to that point, and Libyan society (unlike Rwanda, to cite the obvious influential precedent) is not divided along a single or defining fault line. Gaddafi saw the rebels as enemies for political reasons, not for their ethnic or tribal associations. To be sure, civilians would have been killed in an assault on the city civil wars are by their nature violent and destructive but there is no evidence of which I am aware that civilians per se would have been targeted on a large scale. Muammar Gaddafis threat to show no mercy to the rebels might well have been just that: a threat within the context of a civil war to those who opposed him with arms or were considering doing so.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-14-11 10:10 PM
Response to Reply #22
28. Your own quote shows that his testimony was not exclusively about Benghazi. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-14-11 10:17 PM
Response to Reply #18
29. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
David__77 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-15-11 02:10 AM
Response to Reply #18
41. "Bomb Iran, screw Darfur?" "Bomb Darfur, screw Iran?"
There is an alternative, beyond these bleak scenarios. Start from today, diplomacy between states based on sovereignty and mutual benefit. It is other, belligerent policies that spawn so many problems.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pokerfan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-14-11 08:05 PM
Response to Original message
23. War is a racket
"I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested. Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Is_a_Racket
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-14-11 08:25 PM
Response to Reply #23
24. + 1 Constitution
Maj. Gen. Butler was correct.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sad sally Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-14-11 10:52 PM
Response to Original message
30. President Obama has ruled out use of US ground troops and spoken of an operation
Edited on Thu Apr-14-11 10:53 PM by sad sally
that lasts days, not weeks. Let's see, started on March 18 - today is April 14...hmmm

Remember the questions asked last month? What happens if Qaddafi survives the next few weeks and the Libyan conflict hardens into a prolonged civil war? Will the US participate in a no-fly zone that stretches for years, as it did over Iraq in the wake of the 1990-91 Gulf War?

WASHINGTON, April 13 (Reuters) - U.S. fighter jets are still attacking Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi's air defenses even after NATO took over full command of Libya operations earlier this month, the Pentagon said on Wednesday.

The disclosure came as Libyan rebels struggle to gain ground from Gaddafi's forces and NATO allies squabble publicly over stepping up air strikes to help topple him.

The Pentagon said previously it would not conduct strike sorties after April 4 without a specific request from the Brussels-based NATO alliance. But it clarified on Wednesday that this did not apply to attacks on Gaddafi's air defenses, which have continued.

Pentagon officials said the attacks on Libyan air defenses did not mean the United States had reconsidered its decision to take a limited support role in the Libya conflict.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
deaniac21 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-14-11 11:01 PM
Response to Original message
33. Just ask Farrakhan about that one. He has all the facts!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
David__77 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-15-11 02:30 AM
Response to Reply #33
43. We don't need to ask Farrakhan.
But he has made some good points.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KittyWampus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-15-11 08:34 AM
Response to Original message
45. A DU'er saying that Kuperman is a must-read. You certainly have been suckered.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Distant Observer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-15-11 11:12 AM
Response to Original message
46. The Scam is exposed by the persistent resistance against any talk of ELECTIONS as a basis
for political reform. It is clear that neither the rebels nor the coalition believes that any
of the leaders they are offering would win free nationwide elections. There seems to be
a determination to bomb their way into power.
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 Oct 24th 2014, 10:20 PM
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