Dyer on Libya
March 30th, 2011 at 12:00 pm by David FarrarGwynne Dyer writes:
So why is this “coalition of the willing” (which has yet to find a proper name for itself) doing this? Don’t say “it’s all about oil”. That’s just lazy thinking: all the Western oil majors are already back in Libya.
I remember nutters insisting the Iraq war was about oil. The cost of the war has been many many times more expensive than any oil pumped from Iraq – and regardless the US is paying the same price as everyone else for Iraqi oil.
Maybe it’s just about local political advantage, then. French President Nicolas Sarkozy was the driving force behind this intervention, and he faces a re-election battle next year. Is he seeking credit with French voters for this “humanitarian” intervention?
Implausible, since it’s the right-wing vote he must capture to win, and saving the lives of Arab foreigners does not rank high in the priorities of the French right.
True. Having said that Sarkozy’s opularity has increased due to his leadership on this issue. but I don’t think that was the motivation.
British Prime Minister David Cameron was the other prime mover in the Libyan intervention. Unless the coalition Government he leads collapses (which is quite unlikely) he won’t even have to face the electorate again until 2014.
And this will be long forgotten, unless the conflict is still ongoing in which case it will be very unpopular.
As for United States President Barack Obama, he spent weeks trying to avoid a US military commitment in Libya and his Secretary of Defence, Robert Gates, was outspoken in denouncing the idea. Yet there they all are, intervening: France, Britain, the US and half a dozen other Western countries, strikingly unaccompanied by Arab military forces, or indeed by anybody else’s.
There is no profit in this for the West, and there is a high probability (of which the interveners are well aware) that it will all end in tears.
So why are they doing it?
So why have the Western countries embarked on this quixotic venture? Indians feel no need to intervene, nor do Chinese or Japanese.
Russians and South Africans and Brazilians can watch the killing in Libya on their televisions and deplore Gaddafi’s behaviour without wanting to do something about it.
Even Egyptians, who are fellow Arabs, Libya’s next-door neighbours, and the beneficiaries of a similar but successful democratic revolution just last month, haven’t lifted a finger to help the Libyan revolutionaries.
They don’t lack the means – only a small fraction of their army could put an end to Gaddafi’s regime in days – but they lack the will.
Indeed, they lack any sense of responsibility for what happens to people beyond their own borders. That’s normal.
What is abnormal is a domestic politics in which the failure to intervene in Rwanda to stop the genocide is still remembered and debated 15 years later.
African countries don’t hold that debate; only Western countries do. Western countries also feel guilty about their slow and timorous response to the slaughter in former Yugoslavia in the 1990s. Nobody else does.
Sad, but largely true.
Why is it only Western countries which believe they have a duty to intervene militarily, even in places where they have no interests at stake, merely to save lives?
My guess is that it’s a heritage of the great wars they fought in the 20th century, and particularly of the war against Hitler, in which they told themselves (with some justification) that they were fighting pure evil – and eventually discovered that they were also fighting a terrible genocide.
Of course not all in the West have this view. Keith Locke said in Parliament:
Five important Security Council members—Germany, Brazil, India, China, and Russia—did not support the UN resolution. They were reluctant to support military intervention in Libya, and the Greens share their concerns. Although we fully identify with the democratic forces in Libya and do not wish to see them crushed, we see a lot of problems with the military intervention as it is evolving right now.
They identify with the democratic forces, but won’t vote to use force to protect them from being slaughtered by Gaddafi.
Generally military force is the last resort. But it is a resort. With the Greens, they seem unable to support military action, no matter how noble the cause.
March 30th, 2011 at 12:05 pm
Apprently this war is about giving Al Quada air support http://hotair.com/archives/2011/03/29/nato-commander-hey-lets-take-a-closer-look-at-the-rebels/
Slick move Obama.
Vote:March 30th, 2011 at 12:06 pm
I have some real concerns about the Libya situation.
It seems a new situation that has suddenly involved NATO and a UN resolution that allows force.
International law has always been very restrictive on “humanitarian intervention of force,” in the past.
Now it seems it is game on.
Can’t be good.
OK so if Chinese protestors start being shot by the Chinese govt a similar situation would arise?
Not likely.
And that is wrong.
Vote:March 30th, 2011 at 12:12 pm
Oh, utter bullsh!t. Grandiloquent, utter, laughable bullsh!t. How can people say stuff like this with a straight face?
If it’s about saving innocent people from evil, where were the airstrikes just down the road in Darfur, while the nasty fuckers of the Sudan slaughtered tens of thousands more people than Gaddafi has even dreamed of doing?
Where were the airstrikes in Rwanda while millions were killed there?
The ONLY difference is the amount of special ingredient ‘O’ in the ground.
[DPF: They can't get China not to veto UN action in Sudan. And please explain to us how the gain from their action - Gaddafi was selling them all his oil anyway. And also explain why NATO protected the Kosovo muslims from the Serbs as they had no oil]
Vote:March 30th, 2011 at 12:19 pm
At the same time protesters are being killed in Syria, Yemen and Bahrain. Yet no support to the people there.
In Bahrain they even have foreign troops to eliminate the protesters.
I do not claim the Libyan regime should not be ended. However I see no reason why one dictatorship is bombed into submissions while many more are ignored
Vote:March 30th, 2011 at 12:20 pm
Yeah Hitler was a victim and just a sweet guy with some good idea eh RRM.
You really need to read your shit before you hit enter.
Vote:March 30th, 2011 at 12:24 pm
@Inky
“I do not claim the Libyan regime should not be ended. However I see no reason why one dictatorship is bombed into submissions while many more are ignored.”
That’s the problem I have too.
Selective.
Not a good look.
Vote:March 30th, 2011 at 12:25 pm
WordPress needs a FACEPALM symbol for comments like this…
Vote:March 30th, 2011 at 12:26 pm
Also Libya is conveniently close to Europe.
So nice simple logistics for air strikes; bomb the blighter’s and back in time for tea.
Rwanda was tediously too far away, needing refueling over dodgy nations etc. Not impossible but if there was little desire to start with then why go to that much trouble for yet more people to hate you?
Vote:Look at the huge round of applause the US got for helping food get to starving people in Somalia when warlords were stealing it all to fund their endless shooting war.
March 30th, 2011 at 12:32 pm
This is looking a bad war.
All the nato forces have done is to slow down the pace of this war. There will be many more casualties now, and it is undetermined whether gaddafi will be toppled.
Whats the ultimate outcome? Having the rebels win and install their own leader? How many potential Gaddafis are leading the rebels?
It just looks nasty, whatever happens.
Ideally, you’d want the United Nations to go in full force, get rid of Gaddafi, and, hold elections .
But, in reality, we have a half hearted attempt , many more will die in the long term, and who can guarantee Libya will not end up with another corrupt leader?
Most middle Eastern/african nations appear innately corrupt to me. I wonder if there is a ‘corrupt’ gene of the citizens? Or, maybe it is cultural where people believe they still live tribally and you must protect your tribe to the death.
Who knows, but, it is ugly.
Vote:March 30th, 2011 at 12:39 pm
Murry’s man crush on RRM is reaching epic proportions
Vote:March 30th, 2011 at 12:44 pm
OK so if Chinese protestors start being shot by the Chinese govt a similar situation would arise?
Oh FFS! For that reasoning – should we just have left the Eastern Libyans to die then?
Nice of you to say that from the safety of your home in a peaceful democratic and free country.
Vote:March 30th, 2011 at 12:45 pm
At the same time protesters are being killed in Syria, Yemen and Bahrain. Yet no support to the people there.
In Bahrain they even have foreign troops to eliminate the protesters.
Then I suppose you would support NZ massively re-arming to help the US/UK & France then? They can’t do it all on their own, not while they are still engaged in Iraq & Afghanistan – or do you just expect them to?
Vote:March 30th, 2011 at 12:55 pm
‘The Jews’ used their mindbeams to trick the weak-willed Americans through their own homosexual Rock and Roll & Bipbop music & their earthquakes are merely a distraction while they drink the blood of arab childrens. Least that’s what it said on the latest Iranian Press Release. Or was it Minto?
America isn’t required to do a damn thing except protect their own interests. But they do it anyway, at massive cost. It’s great to see the others do something also & they should capitalise on fair oil/reconstruction deals. China will be waiting to, when others suffer for it.
Vote:March 30th, 2011 at 1:12 pm
Iraq was about oil, and Kaiser Georg II’s grand plan, aided by his incompetent Generalfeldmarshall von Rumsfeld and their other Reichskomissars, was to secure its supply for America’s future.
That renowned Zionist supporter, Robert Fisk, wrote a very interesting story some years ago about a group called The New American Century, who had called for ‘regime change’ in Iraq as early as 1993 to ensure security of oil for the US. The US Department of Energy had estimated that there were 526 years of oil under Iraqi sands.
Clinton pissed them off because he wouldn’t do it.
That the cost of the war has been so high was never expected. The Americans went in like colonists, they ignored advice from the British, and they expected that the Iraqis would fall down on their knees in endless hallelujahs.
The hallelujahs soon stopped.
Iraq wasn’t about ending tyranny. Saddam had always been a tyrant. Nor was it about human rights of Iraqis. The West had never cared about Iraqis’ human rights for all the years of his rule. Indeed, Generalfeldmarschall von Rumsfeld, when he was a mere oberst satrap in the Reagan government, visited Saddam in Bagdad and was shown shaking Saddam’s bloody paw three weeks or so after he had gassed several thousand of his own people. He was deemed to be a useful bulwark against the mullahs in Iran.
Incidentally, the American group dropped from their website some of their more incendiary remarks after stories such as Fisk’s referred to it.
Big countries don’t care about the human rights records of those little countries that have resources they need or which sit in strategic places.
As long as Saddam was useful no-one cared.
The same with Muammar Gadaffi. For 40 or more years the West has known what he was like. But as long as the oil came out of the ground and went where it was meant to at a reasonable cost no-one cared.
So who gains from this little crusade into Libya?
David Farrar posed this question to someone else: ["And also explain why NATO protected the Kosovo muslims from the Serbs as they had no oil"]
Simple. Western TV coverage. It looked bad, those nasty, brutish, bullying Serbs. They were already led by the odious Slobbering Frothylips and they had blood on their hands from years back.
So foreign policy was dictated by howls of Something Must Be Done by TV audiences who’d watched it all on the tube.
The same when the US Marines were sent in to Somalia. The killings and the chaos looked terrible on TV. If it hadn’t been on TV no-one would have cared. Somalia was just another little country with black people … where?
Vote:March 30th, 2011 at 1:12 pm
I can’t see France’s angle, Obama obeyed the UN he has sold his country to but the UK have the best reason of all to crush Gaddafi……revenge for Lockerbie.
Vote:March 30th, 2011 at 1:14 pm
What is the justification for interfering in another country’s civil war?
Vote:March 30th, 2011 at 1:24 pm
Iraq was about oil, and Kaiser Georg II’s grand plan,…..
OMG, have you been reading ‘Uncensored’ per chance? Rant rant! The american group rant rant, essay that is no lonegr there rant rant… you sound like nothing more a deluded conspiracy theorist!
Your arguement is completely shot down by one little point, if security of oil supply was the object of the US leadership – it would have been cheaper to invade Canada.
What is the justification for interfering in another country’s civil war?
Target practise.
Vote:March 30th, 2011 at 1:38 pm
Bevan:
No, I don’t read Uncensored.
It might have been cheaper to invade Canada, just as an invasion of Iraq was intended to be cheap — or on the cheap.
But Canada is a white, civilised, democratic country with people who look just like Americans, and whose economy in entwines with the US’s anyway.
I might well be wrong. Your reply makes it clear that you don’t understand why Iraq was invaded, either.
Practise (with the s) is the verb form. Practice (with the c) is the noun.
Vote:March 30th, 2011 at 1:40 pm
Hmm, suspect in part it’s because intervention here is feasible.
As noted already, the airbases are established in close proximity to Libya.
The nature of the conflict in Libya also demarcated the two sides (rebels vs Govt) that wasn’t achieved in Rwanda or Sudan (where populations/sides were intermingled). Rather than the technically challenging part of surgically bombing machete wielding Rwandans a few feet away from their victims, it’s a matter of shooting down aircraft and blowing up tanks before they get close.
The Pan-Am bombing over Lockerbie may not be entirely forgotten and forgiven either.
Vote:March 30th, 2011 at 1:49 pm
There is no question Gadaffi was about to absolutely slaughter his eastern citizens indiscriminately to rub out opposition to his totalitarian regime. This freaked the French and English. Nobel Obama felt he had to lead (with China on his super power coattail). Several commentators here criticize this across a global theatre as inconsistent. But foreign policy is tricky; you can’t have black/white rules. Its about context, collateral harm, interconnected relationships, greater evils, etc.
The West knows it failed in Rwanda. Kosovo was messy. Several NATO partners acted swiftly and decisively to prevent an immediate threat. That’s it. Its about real politik, not oil. America has huge oil reserves of its own.
This is about stability in MEast and curbing dominoes. It also sent a strong message to other dictators nearing retirement age.
I personally see this as a genuine humanitarian response. It’s warfare, of course it’ll get messy.
Vote:March 30th, 2011 at 1:53 pm
I do think that part of the reasoning is to save lives. I think that is part of Obama’s reasoning and part of the French and British reasoning. I actually think they are motivated by noble aims and high ideals, which is characteristic of Western Christian civilisation. That other nations such as China or the Arab world or India would never do such a thing is because they are not and have never been Christian nations. The idea that “I am my brother’s keeper” is part of the highest ideal of the civilisation that we are part of, which until recently was recently Christian.
Having said that, I am a Christian, and I do not agree that intervening militarily in Libya makes much sense. Happy to send humanitarian aid such as food parcels and medical supplies. But cannot seem much sense for the West to get involved in another war. I’m not sure firing 100 Tomahawk cruise missiles at Gadaffi and his government forces is any way to promote peace in our time!?
Vote:March 30th, 2011 at 1:54 pm
Something churchill said once, is relevant:
“Virtuous motives trammelled by inertia and timidity are no match for armed resolute wickedness.”
Vote:March 30th, 2011 at 2:43 pm
***They identify with the democratic forces, but won’t vote to use force to protect them from being slaughtered by Gaddafi.
Generally military force is the last resort. But it is a resort. With the Greens, they seem unable to support military action, no matter how noble the cause.***
It IS NOT a noble cause. In Libya, the West is fighting for her enemies.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8407047/Libyan-rebel-commander-admits-his-fighters-have-al-Qaeda-links.html
Vote:March 30th, 2011 at 2:49 pm
DPF
“The cost of the war has been many many times more expensive than any oil pumped from Iraq ”
That’s an overly reductionist analysis. That war was about the oil producing area, not any one country.
“But Iraq is just a stepping stone. Iran is next — indeed, Cheney, Rumsfeld and the PNAC team say that Iran is “perhaps a far greater threat” to U.S. oil”
Sorry DPF, but you deserved to get pinged for that rubbish statement.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article1221.htm
Vote:March 30th, 2011 at 2:54 pm
When it’s all over the Muslim Brotherhood, or something like it will probably step in and pick up the pieces. Don’t expect anything like a Westminster style democracy, and you won’t be disappointed.
cheers
David Prosser
Vote:March 30th, 2011 at 2:57 pm
btw. after Bill Clinton bombed Serbia in 1999 the Kosovo Liberation Army ethnically cleansed Serbian-speaking Gypsies. I wonder what the liberal interventionists will say once the rebels win and do the same to the sub-saharan black immigrants.
“For a month, gangs of young gunmen have roamed the city, rousting Libyan blacks and immigrants from sub-Saharan Africa from their homes and holding them for interrogation as suspected mercenaries or government spies.
Over the last several days, the opposition has begun rounding up men accused of fighting as mercenaries for Kadafi’s militias as government forces pushed toward Benghazi. It has launched nightly manhunts for about 8,000 people named as government operatives in secret police files seized after internal security operatives fled in the face of the rebellion that ended Kadafi’s control of eastern Libya last month…
Asked whether some of the accused might indeed be foreign construction workers, Bani replied: “We are not in paradise here. Do you think they’re going to admit they are mercenaries? We know they are, of course.”
Bani said nightly raids to detain men named in the internal security files had intensified in recent days and would continue “until we get them all.”
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-libya-prisoners-20110324,0,5389027,full.story
Vote:March 30th, 2011 at 3:18 pm
The US’s unconstitutional invasion of Libya is part of a push by George Soros and other marxists and muslims to break down nationalism and help bring in a New World Order. The UN was having trouble getting there on it’s own.
Vote:http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=280653
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=281065
March 30th, 2011 at 3:19 pm
But Canada is a white, civilised, democratic country with people who look just like Americans, and whose economy in entwines with the US’s anyway.
Way to shoot down your own arguement genius!
Question: If the US can purchase abundant oil from their northern neighbour at market rates, then why would they need to sail half way around the world to remove Saddam from power just to get his oil?
I might well be wrong. Your reply makes it clear that you don’t understand why Iraq was invaded, either.
Where is the roll eyes emote…. IMO, the yanks invaded and removed Saddam for a few reasons, some they they have stated and another they haven’t:
1. They really thought Saddam had WMD.
Fact: Iraqi opposition leaders played up this point, one has even admitted to lieing about Iraqi WMD to spark the US & UK into action.
Fact: Saddam hardly made an effort to prove to the world he was WMD free, he restricted access to certain areas, hid documentation. Unaccounted Sarin & Mustard Gas stockpiles. Hell he buried fighter jets in the desert, drums of sarin would be far easier to hide.
2. Disengagement. The yanks and brits had been engaged with Saddam Hussien enforcing the no fly zones for over a decade, they couldn’t disengage and free up the forces there without both handing Hussien an propogande victory and their friends in the area were hardly enthusiastic thinking about a unrestrained Saddam!
But both points aren’t as simpla a slogan as ‘blood for oil’ are they…
Practise (with the s) is the verb form. Practice (with the c) is the noun.
Highlighting grammatical mistakes does not validate your point.
Vote:March 30th, 2011 at 3:28 pm
“help bring in a New World Order.”
A commonly held misconception is that the NWO plan is a communist plot. Bush senior went on about it. It’s even written in Latin on the US $1 bill, which was brought in by FDR. The NWO is being perused by international banking interests through American-dominated UN institutions, the IMF and World Bank. First there will be regional currencies, then regional, federal blocks. Don’t know if there’s much we can do to stop it now.
Vote:March 30th, 2011 at 3:35 pm
But is Libya a war or is it a squirmish?.
Vote:March 30th, 2011 at 3:41 pm
Oh – and i forgot to list WTO with IMF and world bank.
Vote:March 30th, 2011 at 3:47 pm
magic bullet, do you wear a tin foil hat all the time? By the way, are you Dutch?
Vote:March 30th, 2011 at 3:49 pm
And that the WND is a reputable sauce and…..
Vote:March 30th, 2011 at 3:49 pm
- Jimmy Kimmel
Vote:March 30th, 2011 at 3:54 pm
Manolo – i’m not overly paranoid – just well-read in the area. Not Dutch. The New world order is an idea that has been around for centuries. Research it yourself, there’s too much evidence to deny that it’s happening. Just because it’s never reported on the MSM, doesn’t mean it isn’t real.
i.e Most people don’t even know that the following group exists etc …
http://www.businesswire.com/portal/site/google/?ndmViewId=news_view&newsId=20080605006246&newsLang=en
Vote:March 30th, 2011 at 4:05 pm
What Keith Locke has said is this
“The Green Party is consistent in its support for all democratic struggles in the Middle East. We support the sanctions the international community has imposed on Gaddafi’s regime, and we are not against giving arms to the Libyan rebels. But it is much better if the process of change is owned by the people themselves, as is happening neighbouring Tunisia and Egypt. This is a better and more effective path to democracy than one brought about by planes or invading forces from Western nations.”
Now that the lack of arms and training of the “rebels” is leaving them vulnerable whenever fighting Gaddafi forces France is proposing the rebels be armed and Obama is prepared to consider it, saying that it would not be difficult to do.
Vote:March 30th, 2011 at 4:07 pm
Bevan: “Highlighting grammatical mistakes does not validate your point.”
Neither do your attempts at sarcasm. But thanks for the ‘genius’.
The Americans knew Saddam didn’t have WMD. They knew that the original lie had come via the German BND intelligence service. WMD was an excuse, just as Saddam’s tyranny was an excuse.
Vote:March 30th, 2011 at 4:08 pm
Manolo – i’m not overly paranoid – just well-read in the area.
Maybe you should stop well reading crap written by moonbats.
Vote:March 30th, 2011 at 4:15 pm
Meanwhile, the Russians are predicting ground operations to begin in April.
Vote:March 30th, 2011 at 4:18 pm
Neither do your attempts at sarcasm. But thanks for the ‘genius’.
The genius was an insult.
The Americans knew Saddam didn’t have WMD. They knew that the original lie had come via the German BND intelligence service.
And you ‘know’ this how? If Bush/Cheney set out to knowingly decieve the American congress with the objective of declaring war, they would both be in jail right now. You can’t tell me that the likes of Obama, Pelosi etc wouldnt have done that IF they could.
WMD was an excuse, just as Saddam’s tyranny was an excuse
And only you know the real reasons right?
Vote:March 30th, 2011 at 4:29 pm
Bevan: “The genius was an insult.”
Oh, no, surely not?
“And only you know the real reasons right?”
Umm, no. But I’m surprised that you don’t.
Vote:March 30th, 2011 at 4:49 pm
Oh, no, surely not?
What were you saying about sarcasm again?
Umm, no. But I’m surprised that you don’t.
But the ‘reasons’ you state are nothing more than conspiracy theories put forth by moonbats.
When you need to resort to quoting the extremely biased Robert Fisk – a well known blinkered opponent of all things US and please don’t get him started on Israel – you arguement is already on shaky ground.
Vote:March 30th, 2011 at 4:57 pm
This argument the pacifists keep spewing out is totally ridiculous.
Each situation needs to be judged seperately.
The situation in Syria is still developing and may become another yet still become another Libya and Yemen in the endgame.
The international commuinity was mistaken not to intervene in Rwanda and Darfur.
But Bahrain seriously? Are you peaceniks really saying we can’t intervene to stop genocide or wholesale slaughter of thousands of people unless we attack a country where seven civilians and four policemen have died?
Seriously, do you people even stop to think about what you are saying before parroting such idiotic propaganda?
Vote:March 30th, 2011 at 5:14 pm
***Are you peaceniks really saying we can’t intervene to stop genocide or wholesale slaughter of thousands of people unless we attack a country where seven civilians and four policemen have died?***
@ emmess
I’m saying that getting involved in a Civil War on the side of Islamists is stupid.
Vote:March 30th, 2011 at 5:27 pm
Oh, Bevan, Bevan … all right, I’ll be nice. But I expect you to be, too.
I referred to Fisk because in that article he quoted the US Department of Energy’s own report about the 526 and because he quoted from The Project for the New American Century’s own website.
I went to the website before they managed to remove some of the more contentious stuff on it. The members of this group were people like Cheney, Kristof, Wolfowitz, Perl.
You might like to look at Fisk’s story here: http://www.bintjbeil.com/articles/2003/en/0118_fisk.html
Fisk is one of the few Western reporters who has a feel for the Middle East. The Zionists hate him because he doesn’t subscribe to the ‘party line’. He is honest about that, which is more than can be said for The New York Times and the rest of the US news media, which have been cheerleaders for Israel for decades.
As I understand it, you’ve used this story: http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/iraqi-defector-admits-to-lying-about-saddams-wmd-program/
to back your case. This appears similar to stories that were in Der Spiegel and The New York Times in (I think) 2007. Der Spiegel’s, from memory, was exhaustive.
Bringing down Saddam might well have been the man’s motivation. But Western Intelligence would have had to have been exceptionally poor if he had been the only source for the WMD lie.
Hope that helps.
Vote:March 30th, 2011 at 5:31 pm
Bevan:
You might be interested in this, from Der Spiegel, in 2008 (sorry, I thought it had been 2007).
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,542888,00.html
It’s a story of an interview with this man:
David Kay, 68, was the head of the Iraq Survey Group, which was charged by the CIA and the Pentagon with finding weapons of mass destruction in Iraq after the US invasion in the spring of 2003. At the beginning of 2004, he resigned his post after admitting that he was unable to find any WMDs in Iraq. Kay is from Texas and received his Ph.D. from Columbia University’s School of International and Public Affairs in New York. As well as being a weapons inspector in Iraq in the early 1990s, Kay has also worked for UNESCO in Paris and for the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna.
Vote:March 30th, 2011 at 5:51 pm
Has the Honourable Member for Cambodia still not realised he has no credibility?
Vote:March 30th, 2011 at 6:00 pm
And the trouble is, it should be Iran that is being invaded. Iran is more of a danger than Libya. Bush convinced Gaddafi to abandon his nukes, as Ron Futrel points out on Big Journalism –
Meanwhile Iran is still developing nuclear weapons and is the bigger threat.
An article in Rolling Stone points out the history of Libya, and that the US is actually helping Jihadists –
MORE
Vote:March 30th, 2011 at 6:23 pm
Chthoniid –
Vote:I recall a quote from a RNZAF venom pilot who served in Malaya. I forget his precise words, but the effect of it is that no other tool yet invented by man scatters little fuckers with guns quite as effectively as the noise of a jet fighter-bomber coming over on high throttle at low level…
March 30th, 2011 at 6:29 pm
Tripewryter:
You might be interested in this, from Der Spiegel, in 2008 (sorry, I thought it had been 2007).
Nothing there discredits the notion that the Yanks thought there were WMD’s in Iraq. Your post also contradicts your contention – ask yourself: why would the US government send Kay and the Survey Group to look for WMD if they (according to you) knew they weren’t there?
Vote:March 30th, 2011 at 6:32 pm
Oh, Bevan, Bevan … all right, I’ll be nice. But I expect you to be, too.
Fuck off dickhead – you drew the first insult, don’t cry home to mommy if you cant take them back.
I referred to Fisk because….
blah blah blah – doesn’t detract from the fact that Fisk is one of the most biased reporters in the business.
As I understand it, you’ve used this story:
No, I was going off memory – but thanks for backing up my ascertion.
Hope that helps.
Buddy, if your listening to Fisk, then your the one that needs all the help.
Vote:March 30th, 2011 at 7:11 pm
I just got home from work.
I remember the quote from A Few Good Men:
“I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it.”
The Greens live in a fantasy world where their freedom is provided by means they have very little idea of. They are humored by a populace that has not experienced war, but if we did, then Keith Locke would be laughed out of Parliament. Probably not actually, we wouldn’t even notice him leaving.
Vote:March 30th, 2011 at 7:15 pm
I think if you want to be taken seriously quoting Fisk on the wests relations with the middle east is close to asking the head of AMBLA his feelings on lowering the age of consent.
Interesting to see the old Rwanda chestnut resurfacing again, after seeing the result of killing US soldiers in Smoalia the Hutus deliberately targeted the Belgian troops there knowing a similar thing would happen ie “why are we sacrificing our boys for that shithole?Bring them home”.The Belgians left and the UN failed to do a thing to help.Which is weird because the greens and other leftie fruitcakes tell us all the time how important it is to get their permission to intervene first.
Most govts these days prefer to take whatever resources Africa has to offer and let them slaughter each other as they are prone to doing from time to time.
Anyway ,so what if Libya is about oil?You drive a car don’t you?I’m more worried about the brand of cretin that will move in after Gaddafi has gone.
Vote:Do you reckon he regrets going to Michael Jacksons plastic surgeon?
March 30th, 2011 at 7:17 pm
“The US’s unconstitutional invasion of Libya is part of a push by George Soros and other marxists and muslims to break down nationalism and help bring in a New World Order. The UN was having trouble getting there on it’s own.”
wanker
So what have we got: The Rand Corporation, in conjunction with the saucer people, under the supervision of the reverse vampires, are forcing our parents to go to bed early, in a fiendish plot to eliminate the meal of dinner. We’re through the looking glass here, people.
Vote:March 30th, 2011 at 8:00 pm
Queef Locke made me laugh on this issue. He had a cry about military force being used against Gadaffi’s forces, even though without this force his beloved democratic forces would have been slaughtered, the buildings it stood on razed and the earth salted.
As regards Gadaffi, I couldn’t care less about the old tosser’s sensibilities and the sooner he is taken out, the better. And if it makes the leftard conspiracy theorists scream about oil, so be it.
It’s funny how him and Sue Bradford look similar, actually.
Vote:March 30th, 2011 at 8:22 pm
Shit beaven – take you shit out somewhere else won’t you? Buy a punching bag or something. Miserable little man.
Vote:March 30th, 2011 at 9:32 pm
turd murf – you dick, think that the global elite don’t have any future plans? Any future agenda? They’re all meeting in private to talk about golf. yup
Vote:March 30th, 2011 at 9:54 pm
Bevan:
You not only are ignorant, but you’re also a liar. You threw the first insults. You complained when I gently pointed out your inability to spell as a result of that.
You have substituted invective for argument. I’ll know to avoid you in future. Cheers …
Vote:March 30th, 2011 at 9:54 pm
Nee nee noo noo nee nee noo noo
The truth is out there.
Vote:March 30th, 2011 at 10:00 pm
It’s better than being repressed rightist who thinks of tom cruise when he’s getting down with his wife.
Vote:March 30th, 2011 at 10:08 pm
If the Libyan intervention was just about the oil would not the best strategy for western jewes RWDB banker illumanti be to economically isolate Libya with sanctions, maintain a military containment cordon around the country with air & sea power and sell weapons (light arms only natch) to both sides in return for future oil contracts, surely? Thus the more each side fights and the more desparate they become the higher the price, smart western countries could play both sides and keep the civil war profitable for at least five years I would have thought. Plus there is the addtional bonus for both the west and the islamists that many will gain their heavenly 72 virgins, win-win!
Vote:March 30th, 2011 at 10:19 pm
You not only are ignorant, but you’re also a liar. You threw the first insults. You complained when I gently pointed out your inability to spell as a result of that.
Gently my arse. You were trying to be a smart prick!
Look at your post at 1:38 moron. You were clearly making out my intelligence was wanting – considering your fallen like a gullible fool for conspiracy theories I can only ask if your calling the kettle black.
And seriously, if you think any of my posts prior to 6:32pm was offensive, then you seriously need to harden the fuck up.
I’ll know to avoid you in future. Cheers …
No worries, but I’ll continue to highlight your cospiracy theories.
Vote:March 30th, 2011 at 10:20 pm
Shit beaven – take you shit out somewhere else won’t you? Buy a punching bag or something. Miserable little man.
Coming from a deluded moonbat, I’ll take that as a compliment.
Vote:March 31st, 2011 at 1:10 am
@Bevan – you seem to take this issue to heart. Must be a reason for that.
But consider this, yes I am in a modern country, a democracy, all safe.
But if the people of this country allowed a dictator to rule for decades unquestioned then I am sure that would change. As it did in the past of course.
People should vote out a bad leader, a criminal.
And yes, he will probably end up hanging from a rope for his crimes in a small room just like Hussein did.
But the people should do the action in their own countries.
Countries should manage their own messes as best they can. The people. They should have done something years ago but now they go, oh if we all protest (at this time), not only will he go but Nato and the UN help us oust him – and there is something wrong with that attitude.
Nato and UN in my opinion are getting too involved in domestic affairs and it is far too selective, US led of course.
And that is what is bad as it is also open to abuse.
And history has shown us that the “assisted NEW fairer regimes” end up worse than the overthrown ones.
See Iraq for a clear example.
Vote:March 31st, 2011 at 3:02 am
Gaddafi said the world had gone crazy.
This thread has gone crazy.
P.S. Charlie Sheen – “Winning”
Vote:March 31st, 2011 at 3:10 am
So, Bevan is a Libyan opposition leader supporter?
A bit like a Phil Goff supporter?
I see, so much wisdom that I missed.
Haha!
Vote:March 31st, 2011 at 3:36 am
Bevan says on March 30th, 2011 at 3:19 pm :
Right here
Vote:March 31st, 2011 at 8:56 am
Trypewriter
Vote:Your posts are a morass of left wing pacifist talking points I’m afraid. To cite Robert Fisk as a neutral authority on the Middle East is like expecting Noam Chomsky to be a neutral observer of capitalism. So egregiously biased is Fisk’s material (and so easy to rebut) that rebutting it has led to his name spawning a whole new verb “to fisk” that is to dismantle an argument with ease.
You claim the US knew that Hussein had no WMD but invaded anyway – essentially “Bush lied and people died” – the simple mantra of the anti-war left the world over.
So what the US and its allies faced in it post 9/11 deliberations about what to do about SH are the following FACTS:
1 – He’d had wars with/invaded/brutally put down insurrections in: Iran, Kuwait, Kurdistan, Marsh Arabs lands – millions of lives lost and many billions wasted. He fired missiles into Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Qatar killing 3 injuring over 200.
2 – He’d actually used WMD before: mustard gas in Iran war (killing 20,000 maiming 90,000), he was developing a weaponisable nuclear programme at Osirak until the Israelis bombed it in June 1981, he used mustard, sarin, tabu and VX gases on the Kurds killing 5,000 and maiming 10,000
3 – He ignored SIXTEEN UNSC resolutions two of which established weapons inspections programmes (UNSCOM under Res 715 in Oct91 and UNMOVIC under Res 1284 in Dec99). In each case he failed to co-operate with inspectors, could not account for tonnes of sarin and VX gas and played cat and mouse with inspectors – hardly the acts of someone with nothing to hide.
4 – Six of the world’s top spy agencies independently concluded that SH had WMD (US – CIA/UK – SIS/Germany – BND/France – DGSE/Russia – SVK/Israel – Mossad) they can’t all be lying. Faulty intelligence has dogged wars since the beginning of time. Faulty intelligence is very different from lying.
5 – Prior to the war there was a strong bi-partisan consensus in Congress and in both the Bush AND Clinton Administrations that SH had WMD. The Iraq Liberation Act to fund regime change was passed in Oct 98: 360 – 38 in the House and by unanimous voice vote in the Senate. Clinton said “One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line.”Feb. 4, 1998 and “If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.”Feb. 17, 1998
*Albright – his Sec State said: “Iraq is a long way from here, but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face.” Feb 18, 1998
*Berger – his National Security Advisor said: “He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.” Feb, 18, 1998
*3 prominent Democrat Senators (Levin, Dasche and Kerry) wrote Clinton in Oct 98 and said: “We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.”
6 – The Iraq Survey Group actually found: clandestine labs, prison labs for testing biological weapons, research on new BW agents, documents useful in resuming uranium enrichment, UAV undeclared far beyond the UN’s allowable range plus rocket fuel propellant used in prohibited longer range missiles, camel pox research leading them to conclude that SH was retaining the intellectual capital and developmental capability for a variety of WMD programme that would be restarted once sanctions were lifted.
7 – SH used the Oil for Food programme to circumvent the sanctions regime and used funds to bribe Russian, French and Chinese officials to speed the lifting of sanctions.
THESE are the reasons – logical, compelling and sinister that compelled the US and its allies to act. Congressional Democrats changed their tune when it became politically opportune for them so as to damage Bush and the GOP – they can’t hide their views that were on the public record that they thought SH had WMD and that regime change was desirable. This was far from a neocon war prompted by a Darth Veda like Dick Chaney – the prevalent view of the anti-war left. Saddam had retained the personnel and facilities for the task AND retained the intention to reinvigorate his programmes – the existence of PROGRAMMES is more important than stockpiles. The post-war search was unable to unearth any substantial STOCKPILES but the Iraq biological, chemical and nuclear weapons PROGRAMMES remained active and were easy to reactivate.
March 31st, 2011 at 10:07 am
KIA has just employed his usual tactic of derailing a discussion by swamping it with a collection of selective so-called facts that, even if all were true, which it is not, no more justifies the gratuitous killing of over a million MORE Iraqis just cause Saddam did.
He begins with the example of a young British journalist send to the ME beat at a young age and who to this day lives in his Beirut apartment. He goes to frontlines. He talks to the people of the streets who dictators and western rulers are intent on killing. He dodges bombs and bullets. I think he is the one with credibility, here.
KIA mentions SH used mustard and other gases: he doesn’t mention who lined up obsequiously to supply him _the US and Britain and probably France. No wonder they wanted him dead!
SH ignored 16 UNSC resolutions, says KIA. Let’s forget about these targeting Israel: http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2010/01/27/rogue-state-israeli-violations-of-u-n-security-council-resolutions/
I would need more proof that other intelligence agencies were of the informed opinion that SH possessed WMDs. More like susceptible to ex-pats lies.
Programmes are more important than stockpiles, screams KIA.
Except for one thing, KIA, they cannot be presented as a clear and imminent danger justifying lethal force. A programme is not always necessarily pursued. A programme could be documents of what once was, now decaying in an abandoned office bottom drawer.
But KIA has his orders from Tel Aviv and will carry them out regardless of facts, folks.
Or is KIA really KII?
Vote:March 31st, 2011 at 10:55 am
Kiwi in America:
Well, where to start?
Your portrayal of me as left wing and even anti-war would surprise those who know me, but never mind. I have no idea who Noam Chomsky is. Robert Fisk has always been open about his attitude to Israel, and the Zionists and their friends have spent several decades trying to shut him up.
You don’t appear to rebut anything Fisk had to say about the oil, and the report by the Department of Energy, or the comments by the men of The Project for the New American Century. It might well be conspiracy theory, but it provides a better case than anything I’ve seen, including what you have detailed.
Saddam Hussein was a bastard. But he had always been that. He was no threat to anyone outside his own borders. He was a bastard when the West was arming him and giving him the means of waging war against Iran. He was still their pet bastard when he was gassing his own people.
But he had been pretty much neutered after the first Gulf war (1991), as the kingdoms and emirates around the Gulf had wanted. The coalition of the willing could have got him in 1991. Kaiser Georg II’s papa, Kaiser Georg I, encouraged the Shi’ites in the south and the Kurds in the north to revolt against Saddam’s rule.
But pressure from Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf states wanted him kept in his place, but not a danger to them. They feared the instability in Iraq that would follow. So Kaiser Georg I and his friends abandoned the Shi’ites and the Kurds to their fate.
Are you old enough to remember the film footage of Kurds and Shi’ites being attacked by Saddam’s helicopter gunships that General ‘Stormin’ Norman’ Schwartzkopf had thoughtfully allowed him to keep?
He was always a tyrant. There was never a time he wasn’t, and there was never a time when the West didn’t know that.
You express indignation that he broke all those United Nations resolutions, so Something Had To Be Done. Tell me, how many UN resolutions does Israel ignore, and why does it always get away with it?
Vote:March 31st, 2011 at 11:17 am
KIA has just employed his usual tactic of derailing a discussion by swamping it with a collection of selective so-called facts that, even if all were true, which it is not, no more justifies the gratuitous killing of over a million MORE Iraqis just cause Saddam did. </i?
Evidence of the million civilian Iraqi's caused by the Coalition forces thanks.
Vote:March 31st, 2011 at 11:49 am
Looks like my attempt at italicization failed spectacularly….
Vote:March 31st, 2011 at 12:03 pm
But if the people of this country allowed a dictator to rule for decades unquestioned then I am sure that would change. As it did in the past of course.
People should vote out a bad leader, a criminal.
I am stunned you cannot see the difference. In NZ we get to vote out leaders we do not like, when have the Libyans had that opportunity under Gaddafi? Never.
And yes, he will probably end up hanging from a rope for his crimes in a small room just like Hussein did.
But the people should do the action in their own countries.
What action is that you suggest? Die like they were doing? Gaddafi was using disproportionate force against civilians in his own country, setting aside the UN obligations regarding responsibility to protect – how can you stand by and watch when civilians are being murdered by their own leader and not feel the slightest anger, or want for that leader to see justice?
And history has shown us that the “assisted NEW fairer regimes” end up worse than the overthrown ones.
And if the commit an act of violence against the west, then the west will go back and spank them. Your are arguing that we shouldn’t support democratic revolution in a country cause we don’t know what regime will surface. That attitude just plain sucks! Yes Gaza elected Hamas, there are fear of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt – but look at other countries, East Timor for example – by your reasoning should we have left them under the Indonesian boot?
We cannot deny the democratic aspirations of Egypt, Syria, Libya etc – but that does not also mean that we are forced to support the regime that ultimately comes to power if we disagree with their actions.
See Iraq for a clear example.
Really? They still have a few issues, but could hardly be compared to the previous regime – hell they are far better than most of their neighbors (Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria) quite frankly.
Vote:March 31st, 2011 at 12:57 pm
Luc
When challenging any aspect of a post as being factually incorrect it might help to advise which facts you dispute. The CIA’s findings and conclusions re WMD are easily found. The SIS’ findings were subjected to two House of Commons inquiries and one Royal Commission of Inquiry about the very subject of faulty intelligence and none found any impropriety – David limits links as you know so Google MP Intelligence and Security Committee of the House of Common Iraqi Weapons of Mass Destruction – Intelligence and Assessments September 2003, Hutton Inquiry, House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee – Iraq War inquiry. For the BND Google “Security The German Federal Intelligence Service Assesses Iraq’s Likely Nuclear Weapons Program (December 2009)”. Nothing Mossad says you’d believe so I’m not even going to bother citing any Israeli source. Comments made by Russian and French diplomats refer to their conclusions drawn from assessments of their respective spy agencie. I note you attempt no rebuttal of any other statements but merely added polemic of his own. Fisk is only neutral to those who believe his world view – like Pilger who I’m sure you also believe. Fisking Fisk and his biased anti-Israeli stance is so very easy that its become a verb.
Why must everything be seen through a Palestinian Israel conflict lens for you? What has that conflict got to do with my the US invaded Iraq?
Vote:March 31st, 2011 at 1:58 pm
KIA – ever head of the term “stove piping”?
Vote:March 31st, 2011 at 2:12 pm
KIA mentions SH used mustard and other gases: he doesn’t mention who lined up obsequiously to supply him _the US and Britain and probably France. No wonder they wanted him dead!
Please detail all facts and figures regarding US contribution to Iraqi WMD programs.
And please, hold off those sent by the Centers for Disease Control – I wouldnt want you to embarass yourself too much.
Vote:March 31st, 2011 at 2:18 pm
Like the Libyans are trying to tell the west – Just leave them alone. It’s their civil war, they don’t want or need outsider help.
Vote:March 31st, 2011 at 2:36 pm
magic bullet
Yes – are you telling me that Clinton, his Sec State, his National Security Advisor, Nancy Pelosi, Sens Kerry/Dashle/Levin, the entire George W Bush Administration, the CIA, SIS, BND, SVK, DGSE and Mossad and majority of GOP and Democrat Congressmen were convinced that SH had WMD solely on basis of faulty intelligence? Did you even read my post? The case for the war was not built solely on the faulty intelligence – there were a raft of reasons why SH was an especially heinous, evil and regionally threatening dictator on a level with Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot aside from his pursuit (and prior use) of WMD. Have you actually read through the Iraq Survey Report or Hans Blix complete report to the UN SC on January 27 2003? This excerpt might jog your memory “During the period 1991-1998, Iraq submitted many declarations called full, final and complete. Regrettably, much in these declarations proved inaccurate or incomplete or was unsupported or contradicted by evidence. In such cases, no confidence can arise that proscribed programmes or items have been eliminated….Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance — not even today — of the disarmament, which was demanded of it and which it needs to carry out to win the confidence of the world and to live in peace….the Iraqi regime had allegedly misplaced 1,000 tonnes of VX nerve agent—one of the most toxic ever developed”
The intelligence was faulty as to the stockpiles of WMD. Nothing short of a room full of sarin gas pellets or a partially assembled nuclear tipped missile was going to suffice and disposing of that in advance of a well signalled invasion was a very simple task. SH retained the staffing capability, some of the infrastructure, the desire AND had a track record of using WMDs in the past. Examination of his conduct with respect to OFF tells us he was working hard to remove the sanctions through the systematic bribing of key UN Officials so he could obtain the last missing link of a functioning WMD programme – that of sufficient stockpiles.
Vote:March 31st, 2011 at 5:12 pm
Like the Libyans are trying to tell the west – Just leave them alone. It’s their civil war, they don’t want or need outsider help.
Really? So should we not be listening to the ones screaming out for help then?
Vote: