navwin » Discussion » The Alley » Libya
The Alley
Post A Reply Post New Topic Libya Go to Previous / Newer Topic Back to Topic List Go to Next / Older Topic
Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688
Waukegan

0 posted 2011-03-21 06:52 PM


.

Why are we there?

Who are we killing for?

When the anti-Qaddafi,
(that’s all we really know about them),
guys start killing the pro-Qaddafi people,
what then?


.

© Copyright 2011 John Pawlik - All Rights Reserved
Bob K
Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208

1 posted 2011-03-21 07:12 PM




     I'd say you've got a good set of questions there.

     I've never been fond of the man, myself, but it does bring up the question of what is the basis for a sane policy for the U.S. in the middle East.  There have been periods where we have been in favor of intervention, as when President Reagan bombed them back in — what? — 1987?  Then there have been periods when we've been magnanimous about them, as in the late Bush ear when it appeared that the man was giving up Nuclear ambitions and there was a flurry of nice things said by the administration and the press.

     Yesterday's comments from Denise suggested nto me that it was anti-American to be against Kadafi because his oposition might have Islamist ties.  I seem to recall, though, that Kadafi made a lot of fuss about his own fundamentalist Islamic ties back at the time of the Lockerbie bombing.

     I think what we need is some sort of clarification of U.S. doctrine.  What are we for and what are we against here?  And what's the justification for it all?

     My own vote here is that we should be encouraging democracies in the middle east, and free elections there, and secular, constitutional governments with religious freedom for the populations.  I am not sure at all if that would fly in that part of the world, though.

     If the intervention in Libya heads in that direction and doesn't involve U.S. troops, I tend to be in favor, I guess, but I'd feel a lot better about the whole thing if there was a settled piece of foreign policy to back the decision up.

Bob K
Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208

2 posted 2011-03-22 12:52 PM




     Do you have any thoughts on the matter, John?

Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688
Waukegan
3 posted 2011-03-22 01:54 PM


.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/262694/obama-s-incoherent-case-war-mona-charen


As far as getting into war,
I would say to Mona it's all a matter
of who's doing it


.

Bob K
Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208

4 posted 2011-03-22 07:30 PM




     I disagree, I do believe, unless you mean the Congress.  In that case I would agree.

     By those standards, there hasn't been a legal declaration of war since World War Two.  Any President who has fought one has exceeded their constitutional powers, starting with Truman; and I mean Democrats and Republicans, both.  We are a nation besotted with hubris.

Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688
Waukegan
5 posted 2011-03-23 11:00 PM


.


All it will take
is one Blackhawk down . . .


.

Bob K
Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208

6 posted 2011-03-24 02:38 AM





     And what?

     We've already lost one aircraft, and run an rescue mission for it.  If you were a little less enigmatic and a biut more straightforward, I'd understand what you were saying somewhat more clearly.

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
7 posted 2011-03-24 10:22 AM


By RICHARD LARDNER, Associated Press Richard Lardner, Associated Press – 1 hr 35 mins ago

WASHINGTON – As America's NATO allies shoulder a greater share of the mission in Libya, the Arab countries that urged the U.N. Security Council to impose a no-fly zone are missing from the action.

Except for the small Persian Gulf nation of Qatar, which is expected to start flying air patrols over Libya by this weekend, no other members of the 22-member Arab League so far have publicly committed to taking an active role. The U.S. has sold many of these countries, including Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, billions of dollars in sophisticated military gear over the past decade to help counter Iran's power in the region.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110324/ap_on_re_us/us_us_libya

Oil-rich Arab countries are getting a dozen countries fighting bankruptcy to spend their money and do their work for them. Factions, whose intentions we don't even know, are getting us to oust the dictator so they can take over. I'm becoming a believer that they ARE much smarter than we are.

Obama still hasn't defined either why exactly we are there, what we will do exactly, or how long we will stay.

At least Hillary came up with the solution..

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said order could be resolved quickly — if Libyan leader Gadhafi would just quit.

Thank you, Mrs. Clinton.

moonbeam
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356

8 posted 2011-04-13 10:50 AM


Humm Bob, interesting thread.

I think what Huan is saying is that he thinks that Mona is wayyyy off target, and that it's ok to go to war if you have a moral motive and UN backing.  I agree with him on that.  

The "blackhawk down" snippet, is a reference to the massive losses that Bush suffered in Iraq, contrasted with the more measured response of Obama in Libya where losses have been minimal.  

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

9 posted 2011-04-13 04:35 PM


Where no losses should be suffered because we shouldn't be there.
Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688
Waukegan
10 posted 2011-04-13 06:28 PM


.


"The "blackhawk down" snippet, is a reference to the massive losses that Bush suffered in Iraq, contrasted with the more measured response of Obama in Libya where losses have been minimal. "


wrong

.

Bob K
Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208

11 posted 2011-04-15 02:06 AM




     Come on, John.  Is this 20 questions?  Are you going to get people to keep making people guess and dole one monosyllablic answers?  At what point in the conversation do you do 50% of the work and actually say what you think so we can talk about the subject of the conversation you suggest instead of trying to do our part of the conversation and yours as well?  

     Topic says Libya.  

     Author says, Huan Yi.

     "Wrong" is a meaningless piece of feedback unless it offers some information about the How of the wrongness.  It would be as meaningless as "Right" in the same circumstances.  It is essentially non-responsive.  It is a conversation stopper.

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
12 posted 2011-04-15 06:16 AM


Apparently it's not a conversation stopper, Bob, since it got a response from you

Libya, and our involvement, is a joke. We are conducting air strikes while Hillary is saying Kadhaffi must go as he is riding around Tripoli in a convertible waving to the crowds. The U.S. has turned it over to NATO while still participating in the bombing (while claiming they are not) and drawing criticism from Britain and France that they are not participating enough. The revolutionary forces we are supposedly helping are conducting ethnic cleansing themselves upon Africans, while complaining that the US and NATO are notdoing enough for them. The blossom festival in Washington, DC could have been cancelled for lack of funds while we drop hundreds of millions of dollars in bombs in Libya, which is having little effect on a dictator who we may or may not demand that he step down from power.

MB  calls it Obama's "measured" response. Yes, I can measure it in terms of intelligence.....zero.

John is right...one Blackhawk down. That should do it. Yes, Bob, we lost a plane - due to mechanical failure with everyone safe. What happens if an incident occurs where Americans are killed, such as the downing of a 'copter, assault on a barracks, or whatever? What does Obama do then? Does he say, "Darn, let's get out of there", as he sends letters of regret to the families or does he send in ground forces to avenge the deaths and let them know they can't mess with the big guys? Then we can have three wars going.

You may disagree with Afghanistan or Iraq all you want but at least there was a reason for going in. You may call it a bad reason but at least it was a reason. What is the reason for Libya? To save people from an evil leader? There are evil leaders all over the world. To get Khadaffi out of power? Depends on which day you ask Obama and Hillary. Why, then?? Because it was a knee-jerk reaction from a president who has no idea what he is doing and just does. For past references to similarities, you can check the stimulus package, health care bill, cap and trade and everything else in which he used the reasoning "Do something even if it's wrong." Libya, and Obama's reaction to it, should be his swan song. One can only hope....


Bob K
Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208

13 posted 2011-04-15 01:01 PM




     Take a deep breath and two aspirin, Mike.

     What was it you were trying to talk about here?

     Do I think that President Obama is right to be in Libya?  Not the way he did it.

     Is there enough reason to be there?

     I haven't seen anybody offer a clear case.  In the absence of a clear case, I'd have to say no.  In the absence of clear consultation with congress, probably not.

     Afghanistan was probably unnecessary, given the possibility that we could have gotten Bin Laden tried in a neutral jurisdiction without going to war.  Your contention  that there was a reason for it is no more convincing than President Obama's for Libya, in my opinion until it got so out of hand by 2009 that it was a matter of cleaning up a mess that we were more or less responsible for creating.  Iraq, we were given one made up trash reason after another for going in as the trumped up nature of each became more and more indefensibly clear to the public.  Now we're in the You-broke-it, you-bought-it scenario that was predicted back in the beginning for cleaning up a total muck-up of policy with no exit strategy.  

     The only justification that I can see is that it poured money down the drain to enable Republicans to attack the social support network.  If that's what you want to call a policy with purpose, then I'd have to concede that one to you.  I'd simply have to quarrel about the long term good it's had for the country as opposed to the long term goals of the radical right wing of the Republican Party.

     In fact, that's about the only reason why I can imagine there's the amount of support in the Republican Party for the Obama policy in Libya now.  It tosses away money and gives people more of a reason to sound justified in saying they need to cut the social support network.

     But then that's just my take on the thing.

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
14 posted 2011-04-15 08:33 PM


What I'm talking about is rather obvious, I would think, Bob. If it would help to write it in another language, I know four

Yes, the way Obama went in is a mistake. it showed no thought, no planning, and no intelligence or forethought. The few Republicans who support it are also wrong.
Capisch?

moonbeam
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356

15 posted 2011-04-16 08:09 AM


This looks rather simple.

Bob seems to believe most wars are likely to be in principle "wrong", because they involve killing people.  At the very least there would have to be a VERY strong case to make war, probably involving some element of self defence.

I think that's a principled and logical stance.

Mike appears to think that Republican wars are right and Democrat wars wrong.

I don't get that view at all.

Huan seems to venture that all is meaningless confusion.

Which is a fair enough viewpoint too.

Personally, I'm nearest to Bob, but more bloodthirsty.

Bob K
Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208

16 posted 2011-04-18 04:35 AM




     I'm pretty much the same as Bob, too, only far more principled.

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
17 posted 2011-04-18 07:33 AM


Yes, the way Obama went in is a mistake. it showed no thought, no planning, and no intelligence or forethought.

Which part of that do you disagree with, mb?

You are right about one thing. This is a democratic war....or, better said, an Obama war.

Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688
Waukegan
18 posted 2011-04-18 12:23 PM


.


“There are increasing doubts that the United States can stay out of the airstrikes in Libya as NATO is quickly running out of precision bombs less than a month after the strikes began. It wouldn't be difficult for NATO to call in U.S. reinforcements since strike aircraft have been on "standby" in the area. Indeed, U.S. military officials say they don't think it will be long before the NATO commander requests their deployment. The allied nations have said they want to carry out more strikes but even "the current bombing rate by the participating nations is not sustainable," reports the Washington Post. Although the United States has "significant stockpiles" of laser-guided bombs, its "munitions do not fit on the British- and French-made planes that have flown the bulk of the missions."


http://slatest.slate.com/id/2291465/


.


Bob K
Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208

19 posted 2011-04-19 07:43 PM




     Left wing talk show out of Chicago reported today that there is talk that NATO forces are considering committing ground forces to Libya.  Norman Goldman show.  He was upset.

     So am I.

Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688
Waukegan
20 posted 2011-04-21 07:03 PM


.


I see we're going to use drones . . .


.

Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688
Waukegan
21 posted 2011-04-22 05:43 PM


.



“Armed with Hellfire missiles, the Predator drone is a tool for assassination from 10,000 feet. It has been used by the CIA, with a paper-thin veneer of deniability, to attack al-Qaeda operatives and related targets in the tribal areas of Pakistan, where other weapons do not reach. One would like to think that’s a special case, born of the extreme threat posed on Sept. 11, 2001, and the remoteness of the tribal areas where the attackers are hiding.

But now we have Defense Secretary Robert Gates, accompanied by Gen. James Cartwright, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, stating at a news conference that Obama “has approved the use of armed Predators” over Libya—and, indeed, that the first mission was launched Thursday but aborted because of bad weather.

They did not state what targets the Predator had been assigned to strike. But surely it’s likely that the goal was to kill Libyan leader Moammar Gaddafi or other members of his inner circle.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/post/dr one-attacks-in-libya-a-mistake/2011/03/04/AFtZrRKE_blog.html


I think there’s no choice but to kill Gaddafi which wasn’t true a few weeks
ago.   I hope everyone’s comfortable with that and certainly remembers it
when a Republican is in office.


Oh yes, let's not forget his children . . .

.


Bob K
Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208

22 posted 2011-04-22 08:51 PM




     It is illegal to attempt to assassinate foreign heads of state under United States law, as I understand it.  If the Washington Post is reporting fact as opposed to speculation, then there is something illegal going on, isn't there?  It doesn't matter who's in office, Democrat or Republican.  The illegality would still be there.

     That would remain the case when we attempt the same sort of thing against much disliked Iraqi heads of state, too with preemptive bunker-busting bombing raids.  I objected to those as well, as I recall.  No need to look to the future, where I suspect my views would probably remain unchanged.

     You can negotiate with your friends, but negotiations are frequently just as important with your enemies.  It's important to know who they are and what the alternatives to your enemies may be lest you act foolishly and precipitously.  I am told that this principle also holds in espionage, where it is frequently useful to leave a foreign agent in place and thus have some control over the information he is fed, rather than eliminating him and wondering where the next leak will crop up.

     Of course that's just me.

Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688
Waukegan
23 posted 2011-04-26 03:03 PM


.

I hear the drum being banged
for Syria in the media now, (they bored?).
Meanwhile at the White House?

.

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

24 posted 2011-04-26 07:11 PM


Too bad they have no concern for the christian's being slaughtered in Africa by the muslims. Haven't heard a peep on the news or out of the white house. No Duty to Defend there I guess.

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

25 posted 2011-04-26 07:52 PM


Sorry. I meant Duty to Protect.
Bob K
Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208

26 posted 2011-04-27 09:43 PM




     I'm sorry, Denise, but where did that come from?

     Libya is pretty much a Muslim on Muslim conflict, or was until the west got involved.  It seems that you're comparing apples with Pontiacs.

     I don't like our involvement with Libya for reasons that I've mentioned above.  Is acting badly in one situation justification for acting badly in another?  I thought that we were supposed to be a country that separated religion and politics, at least ideally, even if we tend not to act that way.  Is there some reason why we should act like a theocracy ourselves?  I see that as only harmful in a world in which religion—pragmatically speaking— can be as divisive a force as it is.

Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688
Waukegan
27 posted 2011-04-29 08:37 AM


.



“Obama may be moving toward something resembling a doctrine. One of his advisers described the president’s actions in Libya as “leading from behind.”

— Ryan Lizza, The New Yorker, May 2 issue


Krauthammer was apparently as stunned as I was in reading this:

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/265933/obama-doctrine-leading-behind-cha rles-krauthammer


.

Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688
Waukegan
28 posted 2011-04-30 03:06 AM


.


“If the United States is committed to promoting responsible, accountable, and representative government around the world, it cannot just do so where it is easy. It should do so where it matters. If Gaddafi has forfeited his legitimacy, then Assad has as well, and the world’s most powerful democracy should say so now, when it matters.

Philip J. (P.J.) Crowley is the 2011-2012 Omar Bradley Chair for Strategic Leadership at Dickinson College, Penn State University Dickinson School of Law and School of International Affairs, and the Army War College. He served as the assistant secretary of state for public affairs and spokesman for the State Department from May 2009 until March 2011.”

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2011-04-28/libya-syria-crackdown-responses-reflect-obamas-inconsistency-doctrine/2/


.

Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688
Waukegan
29 posted 2011-04-30 09:33 PM


.


"A NATO missile struck a house in Tripoli where Muammar al-Qaddafi and his wife were staying on Saturday, killing his youngest son and three grandchildren but missing the Libyan leader,"


"How is this helping in the protection of civilians? Mr Saif al-Arab was a civilian, a student... He was playing and talking to his father and mother and his nieces and nephews and other visitors when he was attacked and killed for no crime he committed."


Qaddafi wasn't in a tank, so it sounds like they
were going after him.  Instead, they got
his son and three children.  Now if that
happened to you what would you live to do?


.

Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688
Waukegan
30 posted 2011-05-19 12:29 PM


.


“ Sir David wants Nato warplanes to bomb the perimeter fence around Gaddafi’s compound in Tripoli, a step which is not allowed under the current rules of engagement on the spurious grounds that the fence does not constitute a threat to Libya’s civilian population. But Sir David argues that if it were removed, this would demonstrate the regime’s vulnerability to ordinary Libyans, as well as affording rebels the opportunity to overthrow Gaddafi themselves. “

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/concoughlin/8519679/Britain-used-to-win-the-wars-it-fought-so-what-happened-in-Libya.html


The fence?
Ok, didn’t somebody hit his house and kill his son?


.

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
31 posted 2011-05-19 07:37 AM


Maybe Sir David is the secretary of de fence??  ((groan))
Bob K
Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208

32 posted 2011-05-20 07:06 PM




     In 1986 President Reagan ordered bombing raids conducted on Libya.  I include part of the Wiki article on the topic:

quote:


Libyan
The attacks failed to kill Gaddafi. Forewarned by a telephone call, Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi and his family rushed out of their residence in the Bab al-Azizia compound moments before the bombs dropped.
It was long thought that the call came from Malta's Prime Minister, Karmenu Mifsud Bonnici[citation needed]. However, according to Giulio Andreotti (the 42nd Prime Minister of Italy) and Abdel Rahman Shalgham (Libya's Foreign Minister from 2000 until 2009), Italian politician Bettino Craxi was the person who actually warned Gaddafi.[12]
According to medical staff in the nearby hospital, two dozen people arrived in military uniform and two without uniform.[13] Total Libyan casualties are estimated at 60, including casualties at the bombed airbases. Among the casualties was an infant girl, whose body was shown to American reporters and who was claimed to be Gaddafi's recently adopted daughter; others have raised doubts about this claim, suggesting it was a "posthumous adoption".[13][14]
In July 2008, Gaddafi's son Saif al Islam announced that an agreement was being negotiated with the United States whereby Libya would make any future compensation payments to American victims of terror attacks conditional upon the settlement of claims by victims of the U.S. bombing of Libya in 1986.[15] On August 14, 2008 the resultant U.S.-Libya Comprehensive Claims Settlement Agreement was signed in Tripoli by Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs, David Welch, and by Libya's Secretary for American Affairs, Ahmad Fituri.[16]
In October 2008 Libya paid US$1.5 billion, over three installments of US$300 million on October 9, 2008, US$600 million on October 30, 2008, and a final US$600 million October 31, 2008, into a fund[17] which will be used to compensate relatives of the
Lockerbie bombing victims an additional US$2 million each, after having paid them US$8 million earlier;[17]
American victims of the 1986 Berlin discotheque bombing;[17]
American victims of the 1989 UTA Flight 772 bombing;[17] and,
Libyan victims of the 1986 US bombing of Tripoli and Benghazi.[17]
To pay the settlement, Libya demanded US$1.5 billion from global oil companies operating in Libya's oil fields, under threat of "serious consequences" to their leases. Libya's settlement was at least partially funded by some companies, including some based in the U.S., that chose to cooperate with Libya's demand.[18]
As a result, President George W. Bush signed an executive order restoring the Libyan government's immunity from terror-related lawsuits and dismissing all of the pending compensation cases in the United States.[17]



     I welcome any further accounts.

     I had not been aware until seeing this article that there had been any doubt about the adopting of the baby girl who was killed in the '86 raid.

     The current bombings are, to my mind, wrong.  The raids in "86 were also wrong.  The commonality to my mind, being murder and civilians.  

     Despite being morally wrong, it is indeed possible that both actions accomplished constructive purposes.  Such statements cannot help but get me in trouble on any number of grounds.  I would point out that all events are not squashed onto the same absolute level of  abstraction and leave it at that for now.

     For those who have an interest in this sort of thing, I would like to underline how George Bush blocked the payment of damages to survivors of the Lockerbie bombing and other terrorist activities when it turned out that some disbursement of oil funds might be involved.  Apparently the media didn't publicize that very well.

     I'm interested in all alternative readings, of course, and all reasonably well backed information that might fill out background or provide alternative views.

     I'm also interested in any discussion.

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
33 posted 2011-05-20 08:02 PM


Not sure I understand what any of that has to do with obama's actions concerning Libya. What am I missing?

Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688
Waukegan
34 posted 2011-06-06 01:23 PM


.


“the president and his allies are trying to establish congressional endorsement for the war through a nonbinding Senate resolution approving “the limited use of military force by the United States in Libya.” But this illustration of the president’s go-it-alone attitude would set a dangerous precedent.
These “sense of the Senate” resolutions are most often used to commemorate non-controversial events such as last month’s resolution celebrating National Train Day — not to authorize a war. “

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-obama-administrations-dangerous-course-on-libya/2011/06/03/AGDD3mJH_story.html?hpid=z3
.

Bob K
Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208

35 posted 2011-06-07 01:56 AM




     Mike, both you and John raised the subject of Kadaffi's loss of his son in your 5/19 postings.  You both sounded somewhat upset about it.  You both had reason to be upset about it.  A person's loss of his or her son is significant and sad.

     You were both somewhat quick to insinuate fault attaching to President Obama in this matter, as of course it must.  Neither of you noted that this situation was in fact a replay of the situation I mentioned above, the distinction to my mind being most obviously that the bombing was ordered by President Reagan.  Clearly, though, there were some contextual differences.  

     If I think that President Obama is at fault in this current instance — and, yes, I think he is — then the same could and should be said for President Reagan in that past instance.  And yes, I think President Reagan was culpable in that past incident just as President Obama is guilty in this current incident as well.  And yes, I said so at the time; and, yes, I'm willing to repeat that assertion now.  Guilty and guilty:  Done and done.

     So, where's your evalution about President Reagan now?  Or must we listen to prevarications, and questions about what does that incident have to do with this one?  

     When you ask what you are missing, Mike, I would have to say that I am unsure exactly where you are directing that question.  

     If it is to me, I would rather maintain a respectful silence.  

     If it is to yourself, the answer is none of my affair unless you chose to make it public.  To this point, and it's been a while now, you've been as silent as I have.  And that's fine with me.

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
36 posted 2011-06-07 07:47 AM


So, where's your evalution about President Reagan now?

I didn't realize the thread was about an evaluation of Reagan or why any actions of Reagan whould have anything to do with actions by Obama. If you can connect Reagan to Libya, I'm all ears. Otherwise, if it's just a case of "Well, he did it, too", we can go back through history and come up with all kinds of things, like JFK and Viet-Nam, for example, which would also have nothing to do with Libya.

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
37 posted 2011-06-07 07:54 AM


If I think that President Obama is at fault in this current instance — and, yes, I think he is — then the same could and should be said for President Reagan in that past instance.

It seems to be important to you that someone say a dead president's actions of a quarter of a century ago was wrong. Well, one would have to look at the similarities or differences of the two incidents, wouldn't one? What actions prompted Reagan's actions?  What prompted Obama? Perhaps a different thread comparing the two would be informative.


Bob K
Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208

38 posted 2011-06-07 05:32 PM




     Yet Liberal about President Bush and his actions seemed so frequently to lead back to discussions of, say, President Carter and President Clinton, didn't they?  And conservative insistance that they were absolutely to the point.  Many of those cries were certainly permitted and pursued in thread afeter thread, and I memory doesn't fail me, their source was you.

     Wasn't it?

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
39 posted 2011-06-07 05:55 PM


That's a fact, Bob, and I was chastized for it whenever I went that route. Seems to me that source of chastizement was you...wasn't it?  

At any rate, I can't imagine the connection here. Here's a  little recount of Reagan's actions...

On April 14, 1986, the United States launched air strikes against Libya in retaliation for the Libyan sponsorship of terrorism against American troops and citizens. The raid, which began shortly before 7 p.m. EST (2 a.m., April 15 in Libya), involved more than 100 U.S. Air Force and Navy aircraft, and was over within an hour. Five military targets and "terrorism centers" were hit, including the headquarters of Libyan leader Muammar al-Qaddafi.
http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/us-bombs-libya

After December 1985 Rome and Vienna airport attacks, which killed 19 and wounded around 140, Gaddafi indicated that he would continue to support the Red Army Faction, the Red Brigades, and the Irish Republican Army as long as the European governments supported anti-Gaddafi Libyans.[3] The Foreign Minister of Libya also called the massacres "heroic acts".[4]
After years of occasional skirmishes with Libya over Libyan territorial claims to the Gulf of Sidra, the United States contemplated a military attack to strike targets within the Libyan mainland. In March 1986, the United States, asserting the 12-nautical-mile (22 km; 14 mi) limit to territorial waters according to international law, sent a carrier task force to the region. Libya responded with aggressive counter-maneuvers on March 24 that led to the Gulf of Sidra incident.
On 5 April 1986, Libyan agents bombed "La Belle" nightclub in West Berlin, killing three people and injuring 229 people who were spending the evening there. West Germany and the United States obtained cable transcripts from Libyan agents in East Germany who were involved in the attack.


So Reagan responded to repeated acts and sponsorship of terrorism which took the lives of Americans, among others, and Kadaffi's vow that the acts would continue.

Nw we have Obama. Were there any acts of terrorism by Kaddafi against US citizens or territiories to initiate his action? Nope. Was there any act at all against the US or it's allies to validate his actions? Nope. What then? Ah, it was a civil war within the country that had nothing to do with the US at all. If we were to intervene in all of the civil wars going on now, we would have a very busy military!!!

Your inference seems to be that "Reagan bombed Libya and Obama bombed Libya, no difference. That's like saying ABC Demolition Corporation took down the Sands hotel under contract and Al-Qada took dowm the WTC, no difference. I see no valid parallel that one can draw between the two.

Obama had no valid reason for his actions. it was simply one of his "Do now, think later" moments.

Bob K
Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208

40 posted 2011-06-08 12:42 PM




     Perhaps you saw me defending President Obama's actions in getting involved in Libya.  If you, you missed my frequent criticisms of those actions, especially of his bypassing congress in the process.  I disagree with those actions, and have from the beginning, and have said so straightforwardly in these pages.  Suggesting otherwise is incorrect.

     The incident that both you and John deplored was the bombing that lead to the death of members of Kadaffy's family.  I am no fonder of that action than you are.  To suggest that targeted bombings that killed members of Kadaffi's family without declaration of war was Okay because the provocation was greater under Reagan seems disingenuous to me.  Furthermore, Reagan has a history of interventions such as this without congressional approval, and even specifically against congressional directives, going so far as to deal with national enemies to do so, as in Iran/Contra, where the man sold arms to Iran to fund Congressionally forbidden attacks against the Ortega government in Nicaruagua.  Then lying to congress about it.

     I am against what President is doing now in Libya.  I was against the actions President Reagan was taking then, not just in Libya, but in undermining the constitutional authority of congress to do so to support his military adventures across the globe.  You should be too, in both cases.  That's what I think.

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
41 posted 2011-06-08 07:22 PM


Well, it seems we have gone from "Obama bombed Libya and Reagan bombed Libya" to "Obama bombed Libya and Reagan undermined the constitutional authority of congress to  support his military adventures across the globe." It would appear, Bob. that your main interest is to go after Reagan any way you can, even when it has no connection with Libya or Obama. That's fine but I still don't see where it fits into this thread.

That's what I think.

Correct, Bob, and you have the right to think whatever you like. You will take whatever information you wish to consider important and valid and draw conclusions which you believe in. No one has the right to tell you what you can or cannot think. As a matter of fact, no one has the right to tell you what you "should" think, either, unless they consider themselves omnipotent.

No one has the right to tell me that, either.

Bob K
Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208

42 posted 2011-06-09 12:55 PM




     Of course not, Mike.  About that, you're 100% correct.

Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688
Waukegan
43 posted 2011-06-23 09:03 AM


.


“A new report from two French think tanks concludes that jihadists have played a predominant role in the eastern-Libyan rebellion against the rule of Moammar Qaddafi, and that “true democrats” represent only a minority in the rebellion. The report, furthermore, calls into question the justifications given for Western military intervention in Libya, arguing that they are largely based on media exaggerations and “outright disinformation.””


http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/270293/al-qaeda-and-libyan-rebellion-j ohn-rosenthal?page=1


The article with its quotes is pretty damning.

  
.


Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

44 posted 2011-06-23 12:47 PM


Again, imagine that.
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

45 posted 2011-06-23 12:54 PM


During the three weeks [that the town was controlled by the rebels], all public buildings were pillaged and set on fire. . . . Everywhere, there was destruction and pillaging (of arms, money, archives). There was no trace of combat, which confirms the testimony of the police [who claim to have received orders not to intervene]. . . .

There were also atrocities committed (women who were raped, and some police officers who were killed), as well as civilian victims during these three weeks. . . . The victims were killed in the manner of the Algerian GIA [Armed Islamic Group]: throats cut, eyes gauged out, arms and legs cut off, sometimes the bodies were burned . . .



And this is the side that Obama is supporting, with our resources and without the approval of Congress.


Bob K
Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208

46 posted 2011-06-23 08:15 PM




     I am against the U.S. involvement in Libya, and I don't like us being there for a number of reasons.  I don't like the the the the President got us there, among them.

     That said, I'd like to see some sources for the news report that aren't The National Review.

     This doesn't mean that I suddenly support our presence in Libya; I'm still against it.

     I'd simply like neutral source support of the allegations.

     I'd also like to know why somebody would have to pass a political pureity test to take up arms against Kadaffi any more than they would have had to take up a political pureity test to dislike Stalin or Franco or Hitler.  I simply don't follow the illogic of this.

      I have never followed the logic of this, from the left or the right.

Bob K
Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208

47 posted 2011-06-25 02:33 AM




     It appears that Congress refused to block further funding for our adventures in Libya.  

     I believe that they should have put a limit on the funding and for the amount of time they would have extended that funding to cover.  It seems that neither party is willing to set a limit on how macho they wish to appear internationally, nor to the voters here.  Kadaffi is one of the the people in the world whom I find least attractive for any number of reasons.  I still find it distasteful for my elected leaders to volunteer me to function essentially as a hired assassin.  

     I would like to register my basic disapproval of my President, whom I still basically support in many ways, and of both political parties.  Ladies and Gentlemen, and I mean this with all appropriate respectfulness to those who voted in favor of extending the funding for this kerfuffle, you are all Bozos.  

     To those of you who meant well, I say that you are indeed well meaning bozos, and entitled to all the rights and privileges thereof.  There oughtta be some better way, and youse was elected to find it, and youse did not do so.  Hiss and boo.  Words fail me.  

Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688
Waukegan
48 posted 2011-07-02 11:46 PM


.


“The AU also told members not to execute an arrest warrant for Col Gaddafi from the International Criminal Court (ICC).

The warrant "seriously complicates the efforts aimed at finding a negotiated political settlement to the crisis in Libya, which will also address, in a mutually reinforcing way, issues related to impunity and reconciliation," delegates said in a statement.

The chairman of the AU Commission, Jean Ping, said they were not against the ICC, but felt that the court was "discriminatory" and targeted only officials from the African continent.

A total of 31 states in Africa are signatories to the ICC, representing nearly a third of the nations where the mandate applies.

Libyan government spokesman Moussa Ibrahim welcomed the decision.

"The ICC is a European Guantanamo Bay. It's only against the African leaders. It never deals with the crimes committed by the United States of America... and by the European powers," he told reporters in Tripoli.

Col Gaddafi, along with his son Saif al-Islam and intelligence chief Abdullah al-Sanussi, has been accused of crimes against humanity.”


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-14003786


This we're to take with a straight face . . .


.

Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767
Southern Abstentia
49 posted 2011-10-20 09:46 PM


You guys want ketchup with your crow?
Bob K
Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208

50 posted 2011-10-21 02:27 AM




     I'm happy that Kadaffi is gone.  I am not happy that the President funded a covert war against congressional wishes to achieve that goal.  I may have disagreed with the congress's basic decision, and I did, but I am against the whole notion of the imperial presidency.  Exercised by the right or the left, it is still not what I think we should be doing.  Were we in an actual emergency, such as having to make a decision about a reaction to a first strike with weapons of mass destruction on the US with a clear origin, then I think the situation would be different; we already have policy guidelines worked out for that, and the administration would simply be carrying those out.  But to initiate or help initiate hostilities is a very different thing.

     I think the President was in the wrong, even though I confess I'm pleased with the outcome.  I think that it's the same sort rogue policy that the last President Bush used to push us into a war with Iraq, though some of the finesse points were probably better handled by Bush, who did some really ugly political arm twisting that at least offered the appearance of legality.  The Democrats had the option of losing all grip on power for at least one and possibly more elections or going along, and the went along.

     What the democrats need is a politician with the genius of an LBJ these days who doesn't get so carried away he ends up in his own version of Vietnam, thank you all so very much for asking.

     What about that do you find so disagreeable, LR?

     The President's politics were ineptly done, though the goals might have been good.  

     Skip the crow and simply pass the ketchup.

Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688
Waukegan
51 posted 2011-10-21 04:38 PM


.


Wait 12 months


.

Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767
Southern Abstentia
52 posted 2011-10-21 05:01 PM


For the next election?  

Bob, yuck.  Ketchup without crow?  is just ketchup.  want fries with that?

Bob K
Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208

53 posted 2011-10-21 05:11 PM




     Wooly mammoth and a side of fries, please.

Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767
Southern Abstentia
54 posted 2011-10-21 06:33 PM


Bob,

Shorthand;

UN
Nato
Senate Ratified treaties
Legal
Resolution
NATO command
Objective: protect civilians
Rebellion suceeds
Witch is dead

Took less than half the time it took the Republicans to impeach Bill Clinton.

investment--under 2 billion

Priceless

Bob K
Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208

55 posted 2011-10-21 08:12 PM




     Thank you.  Cogent, to the point, reasonable.  Much appreciated.

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

56 posted 2011-10-21 09:17 PM


A foreign head of state was beaten to a bloody pulp, dragged through the street and then shot in the head, after being captured alive, dazed and with a concussion, not offering resistance, and begging for his life, all captured on video. This followed a U.S. drone attack on his convoy, which was only meant to disable it, because if he was targeted for death by the drone attack itself it would have killed him, that's how accurate they are. Can't technically have that though, since that would be against the law.

I guess we are to believe that NATO forces are so inept that they lost control of the 'situation' and Gadhafi unwittingly fell into the hands of the rebels.

I believe that this was all orchestrated by the 'powers-that-be' behind the original invasion for the desired outcome that was realized. They didn't want him taken alive. They didn't want a trial. They didn't want due process.

Whomever is responsible for this barbaric fiasco has no moral authority to speak against dictators or terrorists.

I don't see any reason for celebration.

After he was dead his body was thrown on top of a vehicle and was driven from town to town on display. His corpse is currently in a restaurant meat locker until it is decided when and where he will be buried.

No word yet from the White House on the importance of observing the Islamic tradition of the ritual of body preparation and immediate burial as there was with Bin Laden.


Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767
Southern Abstentia
57 posted 2011-10-21 10:05 PM


[Edit Comments should be limited to the posts, not the posters. - Ron]

[This message has been edited by Ron (10-22-2011 10:11 AM).]

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

58 posted 2011-10-22 01:36 PM


Now it appears that Yemen is next on the list to receive our 'help'.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/10/21/statement-press-secretary-passage-un-security-council-resolution-2014

Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688
Waukegan
59 posted 2011-10-22 01:37 PM


.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-15412845


There seems to be a certain unease across the pond . . .

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-15392189


It will be intersting what happens in Africa
now that a favorite son is gone.

Meanwhile in Syria . . .


.

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
60 posted 2011-10-22 02:16 PM


Meanwhile, in Egypt.....
Bob K
Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208

61 posted 2011-10-22 04:01 PM




     Uh, guys. . . .

     It sounds as though you have a theory about all this.  It also sounds as though the theory goes back two years.  Perhaps I am wrong about this.  If I wanted to be partisan, my theory would go back to our invasion of Iraq post 9/11.  We might also try our first Gulf War if you wanted.  You can make a Democratic case or a Republican case, I believe, and certainly with the notions of spreading democracy around the Middle east that were circulating in Neo-con circles prior to Gulf War Two, the notion of this being a natural outcome of a planned policy is not unreasonable.

     I think that it may also be somewhat beside the point.  I think that we simply don't unbderstand the region, either the middle east or Africa, and that all oif us are more or less echoing partisan points of view on the subject without much real understanding, and that if we're going to talk about it, it might be worth doing some reading on the middle east and on africa and on what's brought them to the current situation.

     This doesn't mean anybody has to give up their politics; I'm reasonably sure that there are pretty good experts on Africa and the Middle east who try to keep their politics out of their writing, or who build an accurate picture, if from one political vantage point or another.  The point is to get some sort of perspective on what's gone on historically, how it affects what's goingf on now and where we should go in the future.

     Does anybody have any ideas for decent books or articles that I might have a look at, or that anybody else might find of interest?

    

    

Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
62 posted 2011-10-22 04:18 PM


I am very glad for the victory in Libya.   They had every right to end Qadhafi's life since he had committed it only to continued cruelty, threats, and the destruction of others' lives.  He chose not to end violence until violence ended him and now it has. His death means the freedom from his cruelty and the hope for a better life for Libya because it is, and that is a victory that everyone in the world should celebrate.

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
63 posted 2011-10-22 04:52 PM


I agree, Ess. I shed no tears for Qadaffi being out of power, Like Denise, I do not share in the joy and celebration of his torture and murder to get it done, but what's done is done.

Hopefully, Libya will find a better path and not turn into Egypt. There we supported rebels we knew little about and things there have gotten even worse, according to many. A segment on 60 Minutes showed how horrible the conditions are now, with the intimidation, murders, rapes and other atrocities that continue under the new rule.

Let's see what happens....

Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767
Southern Abstentia
64 posted 2011-10-22 05:12 PM


I think we have to be cognizant to the possibility that the door has been opened in Lybia for a crazy, despotic, brutal dictator to come to power who may perpetrate acts of terrorism against the west.
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767
Southern Abstentia
65 posted 2011-10-22 05:13 PM


Oh, wait....
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

66 posted 2011-10-22 07:46 PM


I think what they had a 'right' to do, Ess, since he had been taken alive, was to facilitate his being taken into custody to have him held over for trial.
Bob K
Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208

67 posted 2011-10-22 08:13 PM




     I don't feel happy about the man's death, I feel diminished by it.  I'm glad he's not running things; I don't feel that he seemed to be helpful for the country, and I know he wasn't great for us.  What was started in Egypt seemed to come to a crashing halt in Egypt, at least for now, and I wonder what it will take to get it moving again.  I wonder, now that Kadaffi's out of power, what will replace him, and whether we will be happier with it than we were with Kadaffi.

     Mike mentioned something that I didn't agree with in another thread about having a plan when you offer a criticism.  I still don't agree in general, but I can see how there's a piece of that that might apply here.  I wonder what thought we gave to who might replace Kadaffi — we in the sense of the western alliance and the muslim states that asked for support here.  I wonder how this will shake out.

     I understand that to some extent it's all a throw of the dice, or "As God Wills it" as the devout would suggest in one faith or another.  I still wonder if somebody someplace war-gamed this out and what the results were.

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

68 posted 2011-10-22 11:47 PM


I imagine France, Great Britain and the U.S. each had their own motives for invading Libya and taking out Gadhafi. Each probably has their own idea of the perfect replacement.

If they can't come to some sort of gentlemen's (choke) agreement maybe they can each take turns invading each other to see who is the last one standing and the one who gets to make that decision.....after they finish invading the rest of the Middle East and the rest of the Continent of Africa, of course.

Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688
Waukegan
69 posted 2011-10-23 01:47 AM


.


Qadaffi was no longer a threat
to us thanks to what's his name.


.

Bob K
Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208

70 posted 2011-10-23 03:07 AM




     I was asking a set of serious questions.  I understand that it's difficult to think about them seriously because I am as partisan as anybody.  I'm not particularly fond of the US actions in Libya, although I think LR does offer a solid rationale.  The fact that I don't like it doesn't mean it isn't accurate; and the fact that it's accurate doesn't mean that I have to accept it.  Bah!

     Be that as it may, I don't understand enough about the Middle East and Africa.  I can fake it as well as anybody, but I don't feel I'm on solid ground with good information at my fingertips.  I can do a fair job of picking holes in discussions on the basis of logic and basic information, but what I'd like to know is if anybody has any suggestions for reading that might open up some sort of new understanding for me in terms of basic history and information.  John was able to reccommend some books like that on Stalin at one point.

     I know there are books on the Iranian coup that brought in the Shah in 1954 and on the Sykes-Picot treaty and on what happened in 1948 from a broader perspective than the one that we usually get here.  Does anybody know any titles?  

     I'm hoping we can get this off the level of Right Wing versus Left Wing and talk about what the actual history is and what we think possible solutions may be and what the possible blocks are to those solutions.

Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767
Southern Abstentia
71 posted 2011-10-23 05:28 AM


quote:

The Libyan government employed snipers, artillery, helicopter gunships, warplanes, anti-aircraft weaponry, and warships against demonstrations and funeral processions.[138] Security forces and foreign mercenaries repeatedly used firearms, including assault rifles and machine guns, as well as knives against protesters.


Rebel fighter in hospital in Tripoli.
Amnesty International reported that writers, intellectuals and other prominent opposition sympathizers disappeared during the early days of the conflict in Gaddafi-controlled cities, and that they may have been subjected to torture or execution.[139]
Amnesty International also reported that security forces targeted paramedics helping injured protesters.[140] In multiple incidents, Gaddafi's forces were documented using ambulances in their attacks.[141][142] Injured demonstrators were sometimes denied access to hospitals and ambulance transport. The government also banned giving blood transfusions to people who had taken part in the demonstrations.[143] Security forces, including members of Gaddafi's Revolutionary Committees, stormed hospitals and removed the dead. Injured protesters were either summarily executed or had their oxygen masks, IV drips, and wires connected to the monitors removed. The dead and injured were piled into vehicles and taken away, possibly for cremation.[144][145] Doctors were prevented from documenting the numbers of dead and wounded, but an orderly in a Tripoli hospital morgue estimated to the BBC that 600–700 protesters were killed in Green Square in Tripoli on 20 February. The orderly claimed that ambulances brought in three or four corpses at a time, and that after the ice lockers were filled to capacity, bodies were placed on stretchers or the floor, and that "it was in the same at the other hospitals".[144]
International Criminal Court chief prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo estimated that 500–700 people were killed by security forces in February 2011, before the rebels took up arms. According to Moreno-Ocampo, "shooting at protesters was systematic".[146]
Gaddafi suppressed protests in Tripoli by distributing automobiles, money and weapons for hired followers to drive around Tripoli and attack people showing signs of dissent.[147][148] In Tripoli, "death squads" of mercenaries and Revolutionary Committees members patrolled the streets, and shot people who tried to take the dead off the streets or gather in groups.[149]
The International Federation for Human Rights concluded that Gaddafi is implementing a strategy of scorched earth. The organization stated that "It is reasonable to fear that he has, in fact, decided to largely eliminate, wherever he still can, Libyan citizens who stood up against his regime and furthermore, to systematically and indiscriminately repress civilians. These acts can be characterized as crimes against humanity, as defined in Article 7 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court."[150]
Gaddafi continued these tactics when the protests escalated into an armed conflict. During the siege of Misrata, Amnesty International reported "horrifying" tactics such as "indiscriminate attacks that have led to massive civilian casualties, including use of heavy artillery, rockets and cluster bombs in civilian areas and sniper fire against residents."[151]
Executions of own soldiers
Gaddafi's military commanders summarily executed soldiers who refused to fire on protesters.[152] The International Federation for Human Rights reported a case where 130 soldiers were executed.[153] Some of the soldiers executed by their commanders were burned alive.[154]
Prison sites and torture
Gaddafi imprisoned thousands or tens of thousands residents in Tripoli. Red Cross was denied access to these hidden prisons. One of the most notorious is a prison which was setup in a tobacco factory in Tripoli where inmates are reported to have been fed just half a loaf of bread and a bottle of water a day.[155]
In late April, United States Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice alleged that soldiers loyal to Gaddafi were given Viagra and encouraged to commit rapes in rebel-held or disputed areas. The allegations surfaced in an Al Jazeera report the previous month from Libya-based doctors, who claimed to have found Viagra in the pockets of government soldiers.[156] Human rights groups and aid workers had previously documented rapes by loyalist fighters during the war. The British aid agency "Save the children" said it got reports that children were raped by unknown perpetrators, although the charity warns that these reports could not be confirmed.[157][158]
In Misrata, a rebel spokesman claimed that government soldiers had committed a string of sexual assaults in Benghazi Street before being pushed out by rebels. A doctor claimed that two young sisters were raped by five Black African mercenaries after their brothers joined the rebels. According to aid workers, four young girls were abducted and held for four days, and were possibly sexually assaulted.[159] In a questionnaire 259 refugee women reported that they had been raped by Gaddafi's soldiers, however the accounts of these women could not be independently verified as the psychologist who conducted the questionnaire claimed that "she had lost contact with them".[160] The validity of the rape allegations is questioned by Amnesty International, which has not found evidence to back up the claims and notes that there are indications that on several occasions the rebels in Benghazi appeared to have knowingly made false claims or manufactured evidence.[160]
Mercenaries
Soon after Gaddafi's government started to use force against demonstrators, it became apparent that some Libyan military units refused to shoot protesters, and Gaddafi had hired foreign mercenaries to do the job. Gaddafi's ambassador to India Ali al-Essawi confirmed that the defections of military units had indeed led to such a decision.[161] Video footage of this started to leak out of the country.[161] Gaddafi's former Chief of Protocol Nouri Al Misrahi stated in an interview with the Al Jazeera that Nigerien, Malian, Chadian and Kenyan mercenaries are among foreign soldiers helping fight the uprising on behalf of Gaddafi.[162] Defecting Libyan Deputy Ambassador Ibrahim Dabbashi called on African nations to stop sending mercenaries to defend the Gaddafi regime.[161]
In Mali, members of the Tuareg tribe confirmed that a large number of men, about 5,000, from the tribe went to Libya in late February.[163][164][165][166] Locals in Mali said they were promised €7,500 ($10,000) upfront payment and compensation up to €750 ($1,000) per day.[15][16] Gaddafi has used Malian Tuaregs in his political projects before, sending them to fight in places like Chad, Sudan and Lebanon and recently they have fought against Niger government, a war which Gaddafi has reportedly sponsored. Malian government officials told BBC that it's hard to stop the flow of fighters from Mali to Libya.[15] A recruitment center for Malian soldiers leaving to Libya was found in a Bamako hotel.[18]
Reports from Ghana state that the men who went to Libya were offered as much as €1950 ($2,500) per day.[161] Advertisements seeking mercenaries were seen in Nigeria[161] with at least one female Nigerian pro-Gaddafi sniper being caught in late August outside of Tripoli.[167] One group of mercenaries from Niger, who had been allegedly recruited from the streets with promises of money, included a soldier of just 13 years of age.[168] The Daily Telegraph studied the case of a sixteen-year-old captured Chadian child soldier in Bayda. The boy, who had previously been a shepherd in Chad, told that a Libyan man had offered him a job and a free flight to Tripoli, but in the end he had been airlifted to shoot opposition members in Eastern Libya.[169]
Reports by EU experts stated that Gaddafi's government hired between 300 and 500 European soldiers, including some from EU countries, at high wages. According to Michel Koutouzis, who does research on security issues for the EU institutions, the UN and the French government, "In Libyan society, there is a taboo against killing people from your own tribal group. This is one reason why Gaddafi needs foreign fighters,"[170] The Serbian newspaper Alo! stated that Serbs were hired to help Gaddafi in the early days of the conflict.[171] Rumors of Serbian pilots participating on the side of Gaddafi appeared early in the conflict.[172][173][174] A Belarusian told the Russian newspaper Komsomolskaya Pravda that he and several hundred others from Belarus had been recruited to advise Gaddafi's forces before the civil war and most of them left since then, but some preferred to stay. According to the newspaper report, published in early April, the Belarusian advisers were paid about €2,450 ($3,000) per month, did not participate in combat, but crafted strategies to help Gaddafi's brigades.[175] Time magazine interviewed mercenaries from ex-Yugoslavia who fled Gaddafi's forces in August.[176]
On 7 April, Reuters reported that soldiers loyal to Gaddafi were sent into refugee camps to intimidate and bribe black African migrant workers into fighting for the Libyan state during the war. Some of these "mercenaries" were compelled to fight against their wishes, according to a source inside one of the refugee camps.[177]
According to numerous eyewitness accounts, mercenaries were more willing to kill demonstrators than Libyan forces were, and earned a reputation as among the most brutal forces employed by the government. A doctor in Benghazi said of the mercenaries that "they know one thing: to kill whose in front of them. Nothing else. They're killing people in cold blood".[178]

On 19 March 2011 a multi-state coalition began a military intervention in Libya to implement United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973, which was taken in response to events during the 2011 Libyan civil war. That same day, military operations began, with US and British forces firing cruise missiles,[206] the French Air Force and British Royal Air Force[207] undertaking sorties across Libya and a naval blockade by the Royal Navy.[208][209][210]
Since the beginning of the intervention, the initial coalition of Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Italy, Norway, Qatar, Spain, UK and US[211][212][213][214][215] has expanded to seventeen states, with newer states mostly enforcing the no-fly zone and naval blockade or providing military logistical assistance. The effort was initially largely led by France and the United Kingdom, with command shared with the United States. NATO took control of the arms embargo on 23 March, named Operation Unified Protector. An attempt to unify the military command of the air campaign (whilst keeping political and strategic control with a small group), first failed over objections by the French, German, and Turkish governments.[216][217] On 24 March, NATO agreed to take control of the no-fly zone, while command of targeting ground units remains with coalition forces.[218] The handover occurred on 31 March 2011 at 0600 GMT.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libya_Conflict




Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
72 posted 2011-10-23 06:23 AM


I feel fairly confident that, if one were to look, the same type  of report could be found about Saddam Hussein and his government.
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767
Southern Abstentia
73 posted 2011-10-23 06:54 AM


SAddam Hussein was in a box.  

Defanged.

We had already done to him what we were doing to Gaddafi.  No fly zone, embargo.

Whatever the rebels did, or failed to do in the case of Iraq, was up to them.

I find it the right wing sour grapes pretty pathetic, that the political right HATES Obama so thoroughly it wont even give him a win on Lybia... the guy Reagan bombed.  

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

74 posted 2011-10-23 09:28 AM


The problem with the actions of Obama is that he acts without the authority of Congress and against the constraints of the Constitution effectively abolishing our system of checks and balances. If Congress had authorized our involvement in Libya then the 'blame' or 'credit', depending on one's perspective, would be shared. As it stands it rests solely with Obama.

When Reagan bombed Libya it was in direct response to a murderous act against American citizens. That wasn't the case here in this invasion.

It wouldn't be difficult for the U.N. to prepare a list of grievances against most countries in the Middle East and Africa. Should we invade all of them to depose their leaders?

Another problem I have with Obama is that he exerted his influence in the overthrow of Mubarek in Egypt which was a secular muslim country. Because of that it is now well on its way to becoming another Islamic state, if it isn't already. Christians are being slaughtered there by the Islamists. What is Obama's response to that outrage of crimes against humanity? Does he exert his considerable influence against the Islamist perpetrators of the violence, as he did against Mubarek? No, all he does is urge the Christians to practice restraint in responding to the persecution.

One man was just imprisoned for stating a secularist point of view on facebook, thus being charged with 'insulting Islam'. How's that 'democracy' working out?

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
75 posted 2011-10-23 10:23 AM


What I find pathetic is that the same people who claim Qaddafi needed to be taken out see no reason why Hussein, with a record just as  bad, should have been left alone. He was defanged? In a box? That's the best you can do? Sell that one to the Kurds.

Won't give him a win on Libya?

On 19 March 2011 a multi-state coalition began a military intervention in Libya to implement United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973, which was taken in response to events during the 2011 Libyan civil war. That same day, military operations began, with US and British forces firing cruise missiles,[206] the French Air Force and British Royal Air Force[207] undertaking sorties across Libya and a naval blockade by the Royal Navy.[208][209][210]
Since the beginning of the intervention, the initial coalition of Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Italy, Norway, Qatar, Spain, UK and US[211][212][213][214][215] has expanded to seventeen states, with newer states mostly enforcing the no-fly zone and naval blockade or providing military logistical assistance. The effort was initially largely led by France and the United Kingdom, with command shared with the United States. NATO took control of the arms embargo on 23 March, named Operation Unified Protector. An attempt to unify the military command of the air campaign (whilst keeping political and strategic control with a small group), first failed over objections by the French, German, and Turkish governments.[216][217] On 24 March, NATO agreed to take control of the no-fly zone, while command of targeting ground units remains with coalition forces.[218] The handover occurred on 31 March 2011 at 0600 GMT.


I didn't see Obama's name there at all. He's spent these months talking about how we were just there in a supportive role with no boots on the ground and now your complaint is that he doesn't get credit for the win? Nice..Sell that one to the other countries listed above or the rebel forces that actually took him out.

Obama takes out a dictator.....good.
Bush takes out a dictator......bad.

Nice to be a liberal


Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767
Southern Abstentia
76 posted 2011-10-23 10:26 AM


quote:


Now many of our Christians have what I call the goo-goo syndrome — good government. They want everybody to vote. I don't want everybody to vote. Elections are not won by a majority of people, they never have been from the beginning of our country and they are not now. As a matter of fact, our leverage in the elections quite candidly goes up as the voting populace goes down.
--Paul Weyrich co-founder Heritage Foundation
http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?desktop_uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3D8GBAsFwPglw&v=8GBAsFwPglw&gl=US



I know the conservative movement isn't really big on democracy (when they dont like the outcome of elections and need to co-opt the Supreme Court to win) but that has always been the argument against it -- the rabble get to vote...eh?  

Did we invade Lybia?  Egypt?  I must have missed that.  Can you post a link?

Did I also miss the part where the Senate un-ratified our membership in Nato?  The UN?

Most liberals would agree with your appeal to the War Powers Act,  and Conservatives do when a Democrat is in the Whitehouse.

And I really cant believe the 'Christian' persecution argument I'm getting here.  God needs brutal dictators to protect the Christians?


Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767
Southern Abstentia
77 posted 2011-10-23 10:36 AM


Mike,

We didn't take out Gaddafi.  We didn't spend a trillion dollars, didn't rack up 4000 US casualties, didn't invent weapons of mass destruction Where there were none.

But, lets remember who you're talking to here?  Me.  Was I supportive of going after Saddam?  Up until it became clearer and clearer that we'd been lied into war.

There's virtually no difference between the conditions we created in Lybia over the last six months, and the state Saddam found himself in post Desert Storm.

Your not talking to a liberal.  You always try to make me one, but I'm not.  You want a liberal, talk to Bob, and his position is consistent regardless who is in the White House.  So's mine.  There are some obviously variable ones though.

Denise has it right though...this was Obama's foreign policy.  

Bush unilaterally takes out Dictator -- bad.
Obama does some world- scale community organizing to protect civilians -- good.

Its nice to be an American

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
78 posted 2011-10-23 10:45 AM


I see, We didn't take out Qaddafi but you find it pathetic that we don't give Obama the win...uh, ok, I guess.

No doubt Hillary endeared us to all of the countries who participated with her "We came - we saw - he died" comment. They must find it refreshing to know that Americans just need to show up and it's a done deal. Nice going..

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

79 posted 2011-10-23 12:23 PM


U.N. and NATO treaties do not trump our Constitution and Congress.

Mubarek kept the radical Muslim Brotherhood in check, LR, so yes, in that regard he protected the Christian population and the sectarian population from Islamist barbarism.

Yes, we invaded Libya, what would you call it? We did that as soon as we started bombing and putting Special-Ops on the ground to help the rebels. No, I didn't say we invaded Egypt, but Obama used his influence to topple Mubarek, which he declines to use now to help the non-Islamist groups there.

Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767
Southern Abstentia
80 posted 2011-10-23 01:07 PM


no fly zone
naval blockade
not invasion...

we lob drones into Pakistan... have we invaded Pakistan

Ratified Treaties are the law of the land... that's the Constitution.  When we ratified those membership treaties we also gave the President the authority to act within the terms of those charters... doesn't mean he has to....he can even reccomend we withdraw from either or both... but that would require Senate action..and we both know the Senate cant agree on the chemical composition of water.

When the Constitution was written men believed that other men told them they were coming at them with an army in a written declaration of war.

This took weeks, or months to implement.  Once the armies finally faced each other they stood in front of each other to let the other guy take a fair shot.  Arms were't very accurate, so a gentleman soldier stood a fair chance of survival.

Weapns changed.  Tactics changed.  Transportation changed.

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

81 posted 2011-10-23 02:41 PM


Special-Ops were also on the ground in Libya.

The Constitution and U.S. laws trump any treaties. Treaties are not the Constitution and they aren't interchangeable. If we have a law stating that only Congress can authorize the use of troops, outside of a direct attack or an imminent threat on our country, then that autorization must be gotten before committing troops, and absent prior authorization, as in defense of a direct attack or imminent threat, where hostilities are expected to last longer than a specified amount of time, then by the timeframe set forth in the War Powers Act. Obama observed none of it and did not have the Constitutional authority for anything that he did. And he couldn't care less.

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
82 posted 2011-10-23 07:33 PM


You won't get any argument there, Denise.
Bob K
Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208

83 posted 2011-10-23 07:50 PM




     Special Ops were also on the ground in Pakistan, Denise.  Once you try to justify the conflict in Iraq and its sequelae, you have a very difficult time drawing a clear line anyplace else.  I think they were all bad decisions, and I think we were suckered into holding Afghanistan responsible for al Qaeda.  It was an escalation where no escalation was necessary.

      It's easier to say so in retrospect, of course.

     The non authorization for action in Libya may be a matter of principle on the part of the Congress, it may be a matter of political petulance.  It's very difficult to tell with the way this particular Congress is behaving, at least for me.  They did seem to vote the money for supplies for the forces in the area, which seems a form of authorization.  With few troops if any involved in ground operations there, they might well have chosen to do otherwise without putting lives in danger.  Or at least it seems so to me.

     Principle or political posture are difficult to distinguish from each other.

     Because the formal approval was not given, I think the President was wrong.  Because the principle and the posture were so entangled, I must confess a great deal of upset with the congress, whose actions seem to make weasels appear straightforward.

     I think attempting to salvage statesmanlike behavior out of this whole thing  is like trying to carve the stripes out of toothpaste, conceptually interesting but practically improbable at best.

Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767
Southern Abstentia
84 posted 2011-10-23 08:18 PM


Depends on who you ask Mike.  Dennis Kucinich would be in complete agreement with Denise.  

The Constitution, Denise, says ratified treaties ARE the law of the land.  

The Constitution also says that the President has the power to MAKE war, a distinction that has led to only 5 formal declarations of war in US history.  Obama's (the president, not candidate) interpretation and application of the War Powers Act is the same as every president since it was enacted.

Do you really think if the Republicans in Congress thought they had any legal standing they'd be wasting their time on Solyndra?

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
85 posted 2011-10-23 08:31 PM


Britain's defense secretary, Philip Hammond, said the Libyan revolutionaries' image had been "a little bit stained" by Gadhafi's violent death. Both he and U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said a full investigation is necessary.

Sounds like maybe Hillary is backing off from her Caesar impersonation???

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

86 posted 2011-10-23 10:14 PM


Bob, I think comparing politicians with weasles is a really bum rap for the weasles!

They are the law of the land ONLY when they don't conflict with the Constitution in any way in implementing them, LR. If there is a conflict then the Constitution takes precedence.

A President's powers to declate war are extremely limited by the Constitution, and intentionally so.

Bob K
Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208

87 posted 2011-10-24 01:42 AM




     Mike, you're begging the question.  It's a matter of opinion about the imitation.  Also, Hilary hasn't been dead over 2000 years, isn't Italian, and while she, too, was a Senator, it was a different country.  Perhaps if you actually spent some time defining what you meant, the analogy might seem like it wasn't an impossible stretch.  Could you clarify the logic that you were expecting people to follow?

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
88 posted 2011-10-24 07:57 AM


My apologies, Bob. I wasn't aware that you were not familiar with Roman history.

Caesar, not only erased the blemish of the earlier Roman loss on this very site, he erected a monument to commemorate just that event. He set about reorganizing parts of the eastern provinces and set up Mithridates of Pergamum as King of Pontus in recognition for his loyalty and service in Egypt. Caesar then crossed from Asia to Thracia, and set sail for Italy. In the meantime, in recognition of his overwhelming victory, he sent a simple, but powerful message back to Rome and the Senate: "VENI VIDI VICI", I came, I saw, I conquered.

Hillary, giggle in full force, made a weak attempt to mimic Caesar with her, "We came..we saw...he died" comment.

I'll try to make my references clearer in the future.

Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688
Waukegan
89 posted 2011-10-24 01:12 PM


.


"We came..we saw...he died"


Hearts and minds Mike
hearts and minds . . .

“The bodies of 53 Gaddafi loyalists have been found at a hotel in the Libyan city of Sirte after apparently being executed, a human rights group says”

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-15428360


Have no illusions . . .
.

[This message has been edited by Huan Yi (10-24-2011 02:58 PM).]

Bob K
Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208

90 posted 2011-10-24 04:57 PM




     Thank you for the info, Mike.

Bob K
Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208

91 posted 2011-10-24 05:41 PM




     It's good to see that the Human Rights folks are doing a good job.  Whoever's responsible for  the extra-judicial executions needs to be held responsible, no matter which side of which conflict they are on.  I know that you're an occasional listener to NPR, and I wondered if you'd heard the report from there this morning?  

     Sirte, being Kadaffi's home town, was apparently a showplace  as far as Kadaffi was concerned.  He turned it into a town of big villas, tall palm trees and wide streets with no industry at all.  Those who lived there had to work elsewhere.  It was one of the places where at the end the fighting, according to that NPR report as I remember it, was heaviest.  There are also a large number of body dumps being found there.  The ones NPR was reporting on were from ProKadaffi forces, and from simply natural deaths, which happen during fighting anyway.

     Nobody usually wants to get killed in the process of burying somebody the love, so it's a matter of safety and necessity and — in some cases — religious law.  I'm not surprised to see graves with folks executed by the rebels in them, though.  When you memoirs of war, it becomes reasonably clear reasonably quickly that there are some troops you should know better than to entrust with prisoner transport; they've lost too many friends, they're too stressed or combat has given them an adaptive psychosis for the duration.  And then there are psychopaths in any organization.

     Sometimes it becomes a matter of policy, even, in some wars and in some organizations.

     I agree with your outrage, John, but I think you may be defining it too narrowly.

     I also wanted to say that I've noticed you bringing more of yourself, your thoughts and insights to the conversation in addition to your reading, and I wanted to say that the discussion feels much richer for me because of it.  It's a great addition.  Thanks.

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

92 posted 2011-10-24 06:01 PM


quote:
The president also unveiled a new attack line certain to be repeated often in the coming days: "We just can't wait for Congress to act." The new White House mantra goes along with a planned series of announcements to demonstrate that the president is ready to use executive actions wherever he can to make up for congressional inaction. "I'm here to say that we can't wait for an increasingly dysfunctional Congress to do its job," he said. "Where they won't act, I will."

http://www.nationaljournal.com/whitehouse/obama-says-housing-help-can-t-wait-for-congress-20111024

This is one scary, out-of-control, dude.

Off topic, I know, but it validates my earlier comment that he violates the Constitution and couldn't care less.

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
93 posted 2011-10-24 06:37 PM


You previewed my new topic, Denise
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767
Southern Abstentia
94 posted 2011-10-24 06:48 PM


quote:

The new help only applies to mortgages through either Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac, which FHFA oversees. But that offers no help to the millions of homeowners whose mortgages are through private lenders – something the White House contends cannot be done without congressional authorization. “Any mortgage is a contract, and the government can’t simply come in and force refinancing of contracts,” Housing and Urban Development Secretary Shaun Donovan told reporters on Monday. “What we can do is take steps today for the portfolio of loans backed by FHFA.”

--Denise's article



Afraid your article doesn't bear out your contention at all.

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

95 posted 2011-10-24 11:17 PM


It doesn't bear out my contention, LR, or Obama's own words?

I'm sure the Chrysler shareholders and investors thought they had protection under the law too. They did...until Obama happened.

Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767
Southern Abstentia
96 posted 2011-10-24 11:42 PM


Are those the same Chrysler shareholders who begged Reagan for a bailout back in the 80's?
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767
Southern Abstentia
97 posted 2011-10-25 02:58 AM


Ah, my mistake.  Carter was still barely in office when the deal went through, January 7 1980.  I guess we've been living in a communust country for the last 31 years.
Post A Reply Post New Topic ⇧ top of page ⇧ Go to Previous / Newer Topic Back to Topic List Go to Next / Older Topic
All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format.
navwin » Discussion » The Alley » Libya

Passions in Poetry | pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums | 100 Best Poems

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary