Odyssey Dawn: a military operations in Libya thread.

given what was going on before NATO jumped in I really dunno how you could draw that conclusion. if NATO hadn't propped up the rebels, Q would have wiped them out in a massively lopsided military operation, crushed dissent, arrested whoever he pleased, and cemented his hold on power for the rest of his life (which would be what, another 15 or 20 years maybe?)

I mean yr whole argument rests on the idea that Qaddaffi wouldn't have killed that many people, would have shown some restraint, that the general populace would not have continued a hopeless resistance etc which, frankly, is not borne out by any of Qwudawfee's actual actions either before or after this whole conflict sprang up. dude has demonstrated himself more than happy to kill civilians, bomb urban centers, terrorize the general populace into submission, ad nauseam

I think even now he's 'disappeared' a not unsubstantial number of ppl in areas he controls.

He actually has more ample justification for this kind of brutality than he had before NATO intervened. Our presence escalated the level of violent opposition to his rule overnight, both directly through the violence of our bombing and indirectly through our encouragement of the opposition to armed insurrection; he has responded by escalating the level of his violent response. These are complements of one another and entirely predictable.

the bombing will continue until peace is achieved!

Col Gaddafi on Friday night threatened to send hundreds of Libyans to launch attacks in Europe in revenge for the NATO-led military campaign against him.

“Hundreds of Libyans will martyr in Europe. I told you it is eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth. But we will give them a chance to come back to their senses,” the Libyan leader said in a televised speech.

:/

this is sort of obvious, no?

i'm sure the reals would love an opportunity to kill more people, go retro gaddafi!

The weakness of a bombing campaign against an army, in support of what is not an army, is manifest here. If there really were an army to support, our air campaign could be decisive, and peace would become possible through military victory. Instead we've got this morass and no end in sight. Meat grinder war.

He actually has more ample justification for this kind of brutality than he had before NATO intervened.

O RLY

cuz before NATO he was playing nice

reading comprehension, mo. The actions do not need to change for the justification to change.

Republican Representative Tom Cole narrowly won a ban on military spending to train or equip rebels fighting to topple Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi.

...

One of the most successful budget-cutting efforts was led by Representative Betty McCollum, a Democrat who doggedly pressed her drive to slash more than $120 million for military bands.

:(

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/08/usa-budget-defense-idUSN1E7670UA20110708

reading comprehension, mo. The actions do not need to change for the justification to change.

if the justifications don't matter why did you bring them up

i mean come on, out of the entire military budget she's sticking it to BANDS for a 120 mil

seriously it's always "LOOK! OVER THERE!" *runs away* with you

xp

if the justifications don't matter why did you bring them up

If, by our actions, we are supplying Q with greater justification in the eyes of the world (this requires you to understand that not everyone in the world automatically sees Q as a monster of depravity) then I should think that matters. Who said it didn't?

rmde

Shakey, I realize you think you are providing a constant stream of unanswerable ripostes and you also clearly think I am ducking them and dodging furiously, but from where i sit, you are riposting based on a hasty and superficial reading of whatever I say, leading to unwarranted conclusions, which you then answer brialliantly, except, they are the products of your misunderstanding and not actually answering me so much as the voice in your head that you impose on me.

All that dodging you perceive so clearly is me trying to point out your misunderstanding (aha! wriggling out of what I just said, by your lights, in order to avoid answering your brilliant riposte!) by patiently going back and correcting your misperceptions of my statements.

I've been through this so many times on the internet I've come to recognize it. But, do go on. I love to hear you talk. Don't let me stop you.

are you asking me a question? I asked you a question. Trayce answered it.

er Tracer

You seem to be of the opposite opinion, and that letting Q kill a bunch of people is preferable to taking a chance that said killing can be indefinitely forestalled. You have yet to explain why you think this is so.

― a man is only a guy (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, July 8, 2011 9:42 PM (2 hours ago) Bookmark

First, some clarification.

We are already letting Q kill a bunch of people. He is killing them on a daily basis. This act of "forestalling" that you speak of also entails killing people on a daily basis. Letting this go on indefinitely entails both Q and ourselves killing a bunch of people, indefinitely.

Since many people are already being killed, and maintaining our current level of military activity ensures that this killing will go on and on and on, then it is disingenuous to imply, as your question does, that only one of these choices entails "a bunch of people" being killed. This implication serves a fine rhetorical purpose, but it also carries a large degree of distortion and oversimplification. As such, it is what is called a loaded question.

Answering loaded questions is not a sensible pastime. Perhaps you might like to rephrase your question in such a way that a reasonable person might be able to respond.

France has denied claims that it has changed its policy towards the Libyan conflict and is negotiating directly with the regime of Muammar Gaddafi, but has called for political flexibility over the terms and timing of his departure.

The country's foreign ministry said on Monday that the Libyan leader must go and insisted there were no direct negotiations with him, as claimed by his son.

That is from the Guardian (UK)

Since many people are already being killed, and maintaining our current level of military activity ensures that this killing will go on and on and on, then it is disingenuous to imply, as your question does, that only one of these choices entails "a bunch of people" being killed.

it's a question of scale. I think the number of people killed by pursuing Option A (NATO backing of rebels) is smaller than the number of people that would be killed under Option B (letting Q settle his own internal affairs). This is the issue.

Is Q gonna get to live in the South of France!

TRIPOLI (Reuters) - France said Muammar Gaddafi was ready to leave power, according to emissaries, the latest sign contacts were underway between the Libyan leader and NATO members to find a way out of the crisis.

As far as France as concerned he isn't technically part of the Libyan government anymore iirc

Technicalities.

obviously Q leaving is a net positive. otoh I hate these amnesty-for-dictators deals in principle.

Yeah, but how binding are they? Chile went back on Pinochet's. I guess you just say that the agreement was made under one government, when they left, and will be broken by another afterwards, who aren't restricted by the agreement. Plus the amnesty doesn't trump international law which allows anyone else to punish them if their nation is unable or unwilling. So you need to get them out of the country. Then Thatcher can let them go again.

happy 100th, air power!

http://counterpunch.org/patrick07252011.html

(Reuters) - Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi's camp has vowed to push on with its war against rebels whether or not NATO stops its bombing campaign,

Great.

Then there is this:

The assassination of Gen. Younis is a major challenge to the rebels – and to the strategy of the US and others who recognized the rebels as Libya's government and must stay the course.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Foreign-Policy/2011/0802/Can-US-Libya-strategy-survive-the-assassination-of-rebels-top-general

(Reuters) - Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi's camp has vowed to push on with its war against rebels whether or not NATO stops its bombing campaign,

Great.

lol that's just him pushing the narrative that NATO had something to do with initiating the hostilities in the first place (it did not, btw)

?? has anyone ever thought that?

Q's blamed the whole conflagration on "outside agitators" and "foreign elements" since day one

hmm yeah i don't think he meant NATO

O RLY

7/25: Late on Saturday Gaddafi said in an audio message on state television that the unrest that has swept his country since a popular uprising erupted in mid-February was a "colonial plot."

He did not elaborate.

He also denied accusations by international rights groups of a brutal suppression of dissent and allegations that his regime had killed thousands of protesters.

he blames whoever's handy

TS: bombing Gaddafi's dupes in Libya or bombing Assad's dupes in Syria

I've come to hate Sarkozy & Cameron for forcing this intervention on the rest of NATO. Its pretty clear that Obama wanted no part of it from the beginning.

It's much better when the US are forcing their allies into wars of course. The US has done fairly little so far, too. But yes, of course, we should be supporting the rebels/people in Syria as well.

It's amazing how much that Racky wants no part of, he gets.

Patrick Cockbun on the Younes killing and our 'freedom fighters':

http://counterpunch.org/patrick08012011.html

Syria, as we've discussed before, because of its involvement with Iran and Lebanon (and other issues), seems more complicated than Libya (although Libya has obviously been a more complicated situation than the Brits and the French once apparently thought it would be)

x-post- I am always a bit skeptical of Cockburn's often out there views. Morbs, is anyone else saying this?

The nature of the civil war in Libya has been persistently underplayed by foreign governments and media alike. The enthusiasm in some 30 foreign capitals to recognize the mysterious self-appointed group in Benghazi as the leaders of Libya is at this stage probably motivated primarily by expectations of commercial concessions and a carve-up of oilfields.

yeah, uh... I don't really buy this

is Patrick related to Alexander?

more probably motivated by a desperate need to give an ugly civil/tribal stalemate some degree of legitimacy.

alexander, andrew and patrick cockburn, all brothers

andrew also father of olivia "wilde", importantly.

Both of them go a little too far in an extreme simplistic way for me.

was gonna read that patrick cockburn piece but i was distracted by "The Forced Drugging of America's Children"

first the drugging, then the slavery

The enthusiasm in some 30 foreign capitals to recognize the mysterious self-appointed group in Benghazi as the leaders of Libya is at this stage probably motivated primarily by expectations of commercial concessions and a carve-up of oilfields.

yeah we did all this really, didn't we? the energy companies were doing ok trading with gadaffi / who does cockburn recognizer as the leader(s) of libya? etc.

i think claud would be very disappointed in this though: is junior really complaining about a 'mysterious self-appointed group' running things? is he some kind of liberal democrat now?

but it is pretty clusterfucky over there. do 'get' why the clean-hands feeling of non-intervention / letting someone else intervene appeals.