# Arab Spring: Myths about Libya



## science

We're probably going to be fed a lot of lies over the next week as people angle to make sure that various other parties do not get any credit or that their own party gets credit. So here's a good article about that.

From the unequaled Juan Cole:

http://www.juancole.com/2011/08/top-ten-myths-about-the-libya-war.html



> The Libyan Revolution has largely succeeded, and this is a moment of celebration, not only for Libyans but for a youth generation in the Arab world that has pursued a political opening across the region. The secret of the uprising's final days of success lay in a popular revolt in the working-class districts of the capital, which did most of the hard work of throwing off the rule of secret police and military cliques. It succeeded so well that when revolutionary brigades entered the city from the west, many encountered little or no resistance, and they walked right into the center of the capital. Muammar Qaddafi was in hiding as I went to press, and three of his sons were in custody. Saif al-Islam Qaddafi had apparently been the de facto ruler of the country in recent years, so his capture signaled a checkmate. (Checkmate is a corruption of the Persian "shah maat," the "king is confounded," since chess came west from India via Iran). Checkmate.
> 
> The end game, wherein the people of Tripoli overthrew the Qaddafis and joined the opposition Transitional National Council, is the best case scenario that I had suggested was the most likely denouement for the revolution. I have been making this argument for some time, and it evoked a certain amount of incredulity when I said it in a lecture in the Netherlands in mid-June, but it has all along been my best guess that things would end the way they have. I got it right where others did not because my premises turned out to be sounder, i.e., that Qaddafi had lost popular support across the board and was in power only through main force. Once enough of his heavy weapons capability was disrupted, and his fuel and ammunition supplies blocked, the underlying hostility of the common people to the regime could again manifest itself, as it had in February. I was moreover convinced that the generality of Libyans were attracted by the revolution and by the idea of a political opening, and that there was no great danger to national unity here.
> 
> I do not mean to underestimate the challenges that still lie ahead- mopping up operations against regime loyalists, reestablishing law and order in cities that have seen popular revolutions, reconstituting police and the national army, moving the Transitional National Council to Tripoli, founding political parties, and building a new, parliamentary regime. Even in much more institutionalized and less clan-based societies such as Tunisia and Egypt, these tasks have proved anything but easy. But it would be wrong, in this moment of triumph for the Libyan Second Republic, to dwell on the difficulties to come. Libyans deserve a moment of exultation.
> 
> I have taken a lot of heat for my support of the revolution and of the United Nations-authorized intervention by the Arab League and NATO that kept it from being crushed. I haven't taken nearly as much heat as the youth of Misrata who fought off Qaddafi's tank barrages, though, so it is OK. I hate war, having actually lived through one in Lebanon, and I hate the idea of people being killed. My critics who imagined me thrilling at NATO bombing raids were just being cruel. But here I agree with President Obama and his citation of Reinhold Niebuhr. You can't protect all victims of mass murder everywhere all the time. But where you can do some good, you should do it, even if you cannot do all good. I mourn the deaths of all the people who died in this revolution, especially since many of the Qaddafi brigades were clearly coerced (they deserted in large numbers as soon as they felt it safe). But it was clear to me that Qaddafi was not a man to compromise, and that his military machine would mow down the revolutionaries if it were allowed to.
> 
> Moreover, those who question whether there were US interests in Libya seem to me a little blind. The US has an interest in there not being massacres of people for merely exercising their right to free assembly. The US has an interest in a lawful world order, and therefore in the United Nations Security Council resolution demanding that Libyans be protected from their murderous government. The US has an interest in its NATO alliance, and NATO allies France and Britain felt strongly about this intervention. The US has a deep interest in the fate of Egypt, and what happened in Libya would have affected Egypt (Qaddafi allegedly had high Egyptian officials on his payroll).
> 
> Given the controversies about the revolution, it is worthwhile reviewing the myths about the Libyan Revolution that led so many observers to make so many fantastic or just mistaken assertions about it.
> 
> 1. Qaddafi was a progressive in his domestic policies. While back in the 1970s, Qaddafi was probably more generous in sharing around the oil wealth with the population, buying tractors for farmers, etc., in the past couple of decades that policy changed. He became vindictive against tribes in the east and in the southwest that had crossed him politically, depriving them of their fair share in the country's resources. And in the past decade and a half, extreme corruption and the rise of post-Soviet-style oligarchs, including Qaddafi and his sons, have discouraged investment and blighted the economy. Workers were strictly controlled and unable to collectively bargain for improvements in their conditions. There was much more poverty and poor infrastructure in Libya than there should have been in an oil state.
> 
> 2. Qaddafi was a progressive in his foreign policy. Again, he traded for decades on positions, or postures, he took in the 1970s. In contrast, in recent years he played a sinister role in Africa, bankrolling brutal dictators and helping foment ruinous wars. In 1996 the supposed champion of the Palestinian cause expelled 30,000 stateless Palestinians from the country. After he came in from the cold, ending European and US sanctions, he began buddying around with George W. Bush, Silvio Berlusconi and other right wing figures. Berlusconi has even said that he considered resigning as Italian prime minister once NATO began its intervention, given his close personal relationship to Qaddafi. Such a progressive.
> 
> 3. It was only natural that Qaddafi sent his military against the protesters and revolutionaries; any country would have done the same. No, it wouldn't, and this is the argument of a moral cretin. In fact, the Tunisian officer corps refused to fire on Tunisian crowds for dictator Zine El Abidine Ben Ali, and the Egyptian officer corps refused to fire on Egyptian crowds for Hosni Mubarak. The willingness of the Libyan officer corps to visit macabre violence on protesting crowds derived from the centrality of the Qaddafi sons and cronies at the top of the military hierarchy and from the lack of connection between the people and the professional soldiers and mercenaries. Deploying the military against non-combatants was a war crime, and doing so in a widespread and systematic way was a crime against humanity. Qaddafi and his sons will be tried for this crime, which is not "perfectly natural."
> 
> 4. There was a long stalemate in the fighting between the revolutionaries and the Qaddafi military. There was not. This idea was fostered by the vantage point of many Western observers, in Benghazi. It is true that there was a long stalemate at Brega, which ended yesterday when the pro-Qaddafi troops there surrendered. But the two most active fronts in the war were Misrata and its environs, and the Western Mountain region. Misrata fought an epic, Stalingrad-style, struggle of self-defense against attacking Qaddafi armor and troops, finally proving victorious with NATO help, and then they gradually fought to the west toward Tripoli. The most dramatic battles and advances were in the largely Berber Western Mountain region, where, again, Qaddafi armored units relentlessly shelled small towns and villages but were fought off (with less help from NATO initially, which I think did not recognize the importance of this theater). It was the revolutionary volunteers from this region who eventually took Zawiya, with the help of the people of Zawiya, last Friday and who thereby cut Tripoli off from fuel and ammunition coming from Tunisia and made the fall of the capital possible. Any close observer of the war since April has seen constant movement, first at Misrata and then in the Western Mountains, and there was never an over-all stalemate.
> 
> 5. The Libyan Revolution was a civil war. It was not, if by that is meant a fight between two big groups within the body politic. There was nothing like the vicious sectarian civilian-on-civilian fighting in Baghdad in 2006. The revolution began as peaceful public protests, and only when the urban crowds were subjected to artillery, tank, mortar and cluster bomb barrages did the revolutionaries begin arming themselves. When fighting began, it was volunteer combatants representing their city quarters taking on trained regular army troops and mercenaries. That is a revolution, not a civil war. Only in a few small pockets of territory, such as Sirte and its environs, did pro-Qaddafi civilians oppose the revolutionaries, but it would be wrong to magnify a handful of skirmishes of that sort into a civil war. Qaddafi's support was too limited, too thin, and too centered in the professional military, to allow us to speak of a civil war.
> 
> 6. Libya is not a real country and could have been partitioned between east and west.
> Alexander Cockburn wrote,
> 
> "It requites no great prescience to see that this will all end up badly. Qaddafi's failure to collapse on schedule is prompting increasing pressure to start a ground war, since the NATO operation is, in terms of prestige, like the banks Obama has bailed out, Too Big to Fail. Libya will probably be balkanized."
> 
> I don't understand the propensity of Western analysts to keep pronouncing nations in the global south "artificial" and on the verge of splitting up. It is a kind of Orientalism. All nations are artificial. Benedict Anderson dates the nation-state to the late 1700s, and even if it were a bit earlier, it is a new thing in history. Moreover, most nation-states are multi-ethnic, and many long-established ones have sub-nationalisms that threaten their unity. Thus, the Catalans and Basque are uneasy inside Spain, the Scottish may bolt Britain any moment, etc., etc. In contrast, Libya does not have any well-organized, popular separatist movements. It does have tribal divisions, but these are not the basis for nationalist separatism, and tribal alliances and fissures are more fluid than ethnicity (which is itself less fixed than people assume). Everyone speaks Arabic, though for Berbers it is the public language; Berbers were among the central Libyan heroes of the revolution, and will be rewarded with a more pluralist Libya. This generation of young Libyans, who waged the revolution, have mostly been through state schools and have a strong allegiance to the idea of Libya. Throughout the revolution, the people of Benghazi insisted that Tripoli was and would remain the capital. Westerners looking for break-ups after dictatorships are fixated on the Balkan events after 1989, but there most often isn't an exact analogue to those in the contemporary Arab world.
> 
> 7. There had to be NATO infantry brigades on the ground for the revolution to succeed. Everyone from Cockburn to Max Boot (scary when those two agree) put forward this idea. But there are not any foreign infantry brigades in Libya, and there are unlikely to be any. Libyans are very nationalistic and they made this clear from the beginning. Likewise the Arab League. NATO had some intelligence assets on the ground, but they were small in number, were requested behind the scenes for liaison and spotting by the revolutionaries, and did not amount to an invasion force. The Libyan people never needed foreign ground brigades to succeed in their revolution.
> 
> 8. The United States led the charge to war. There is no evidence for this allegation whatsoever. When I asked Glenn Greenwald whether a US refusal to join France and Britain in a NATO united front might not have destroyed NATO, he replied that NATO would never have gone forward unless the US had plumped for the intervention in the first place. I fear that answer was less fact-based and more doctrinaire than we are accustomed to hearing from Mr. Greenwald, whose research and analysis on domestic issues is generally first-rate. As someone not a stranger to diplomatic history, and who has actually heard briefings in Europe from foreign ministries and officers of NATO members, I'm offended at the glibness of an answer given with no more substantiation than an idee fixe. The excellent McClatchy wire service reported on the reasons for which then Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, the Pentagon, and Obama himself were extremely reluctant to become involved in yet another war in the Muslim world. It is obvious that the French and the British led the charge on this intervention, likely because they believed that a protracted struggle over years between the opposition and Qaddafi in Libya would radicalize it and give an opening to al-Qaeda and so pose various threats to Europe. French President Nicolas Sarkozy had been politically mauled, as well, by the offer of his defense minister, Michèle Alliot-Marie, to send French troops to assist Ben Ali in Tunisia (Alliot-Marie had been Ben Ali's guest on fancy vacations), and may have wanted to restore traditional French cachet in the Arab world as well as to look decisive to his electorate. Whatever Western Europe's motivations, they were the decisive ones, and the Obama administration clearly came along as a junior partner (something Sen. John McCain is complaining bitterly about).
> 
> 9. Qaddafi would not have killed or imprisoned large numbers of dissidents in Benghazi, Derna, al-Bayda and Tobruk if he had been allowed to pursue his March Blitzkrieg toward the eastern cities that had defied him. But we have real-world examples of how he would have behaved, in Zawiya, Tawargha, Misrata and elsewhere. His indiscriminate shelling of Misrata had already killed between 1000 and 2000 by last April,, and it continued all summer. At least one Qaddafi mass grave with 150 bodies in it has been discovered. And the full story of the horrors in Zawiya and elsewhere in the west has yet to emerge, but it will not be pretty. The opposition claims Qaddafi's forces killed tens of thousands. Public health studies may eventually settle this issue, but we know definitively what Qaddafi was capable of.
> 
> 10. This was a war for Libya's oil. That is daft. Libya was already integrated into the international oil markets, and had done billions of deals with BP, ENI, etc., etc. None of those companies would have wanted to endanger their contracts by getting rid of the ruler who had signed them. They had often already had the trauma of having to compete for post-war Iraqi contracts, a process in which many did less well than they would have liked. ENI's profits were hurt by the Libyan revolution, as were those of Total SA. and Repsol. Moreover, taking Libyan oil off the market through a NATO military intervention could have been foreseen to put up oil prices, which no Western elected leader would have wanted to see, especially Barack Obama, with the danger that a spike in energy prices could prolong the economic doldrums. An economic argument for imperialism is fine if it makes sense, but this one does not, and there is no good evidence for it (that Qaddafi was erratic is not enough), and is therefore just a conspiracy theory.


----------



## Guest

> But here I agree with President Obama and his citation of Reinhold Niebuhr. You can't protect all victims of mass murder everywhere all the time. But where you can do some good, you should do it, even if you cannot do all good. I mourn the deaths of all the people who died in this revolution, especially since many of the Qaddafi brigades were clearly coerced (they deserted in large numbers as soon as they felt it safe). But it was clear to me that Qaddafi was not a man to compromise, and that his military machine would mow down the revolutionaries if it were allowed to.
> 
> Moreover, those who question whether there were US interests in Libya seem to me a little blind. The US has an interest in there not being massacres of people for merely exercising their right to free assembly. The US has an interest in a lawful world order,


Ah, if only the left felt the same way about the mass murders, the violations of basic rights, and the violation of a lawful world order by Saddam Hussein, then maybe they would have been as on board with the war in Iraq. Surely gassing Kurds, feeding political opponents into wood chippers, funding terrorists (paying families of suicide bombers), and violating UN treaties should count for something.


----------



## science

DrMike said:


> Ah, if only the left felt the same way about the mass murders, the violations of basic rights, and the violation of a lawful world order by Saddam Hussein, then maybe they would have been as on board with the war in Iraq. Surely gassing Kurds, feeding political opponents into wood chippers, funding terrorists (paying families of suicide bombers), and violating UN treaties should count for something.


Yup, I personally don't care about any of those things.


----------



## Lenfer

A Line in the Sand: Britain, France and the Struggle That Shaped the Middle East by *James Barr*

Dear *Science* if you are interested in the politics and history of the middle east as things stand, I recommend this book. It's not the best book in the world but it does have a lot of detail I had not read before.


----------



## science

Lenfer said:


> A Line in the Sand: Britain, France and the Struggle That Shaped the Middle East by *James Barr*
> 
> Dear *Science* if you are interested in the politics and history of the middle east as things stand, I recommend this book. It's not the best book in the world but it does have a lot of detail I had not read before.


Thank you. I will look into that book.


----------



## starthrower

DrMike said:


> Ah, if only the left felt the same way about the mass murders, the violations of basic rights, and the violation of a lawful world order by Saddam Hussein, then maybe they would have been as on board with the war in Iraq. Surely gassing Kurds, feeding political opponents into wood chippers, funding terrorists (paying families of suicide bombers), and violating UN treaties should count for something.


Enough with the finger pointing charade. Governments look out for their own interests, not people suffering on the ground. You want to tell me how Bush's war brought relief to the Iraqi people? If you believe the invasion of Iraq was a humanitarian mission, I've got some swamp land to sell you.

You conveniently don't mention Reagan's and daddy Bush's support for Saddam. They armed him to the teeth (including chemical weapons) all the while knowing very well what a ruthless tyrant he was. You can read all about it in Alan Friedman's book, Spider's Web:The Secret History Of How The White House Illegally Armed Iraq.


----------



## graaf

DrMike said:


> Ah, if only the left felt the same way about the mass murders, the violations of basic rights, and the violation of a lawful world order by Saddam Hussein, then maybe they would have been as on board with the war in Iraq. Surely gassing Kurds, feeding political opponents into wood chippers, funding terrorists (paying families of suicide bombers), and violating UN treaties should count for something.


Off the top of my head, lets see how many of those can refer to US, shall we?
funding terrorists - check (all kinds of paramilitary forces and terrorists around the world, also know as freedom fighters on FOX/CNN)
violating UN treaties - check (invading X and Y without UN approval)
violation of basic rights - check (habeas corpus anyone?)
gassing Kurds - will AgentOrange-ing Vietnamese help?
mass murder - see above

By the way - anyone noticed how Saddam was trialled for gassing Kurds - a thing that he had done _while he had US support_?


----------



## Ukko

The American people have been lied to by their government approximately as much as the Serbian people have by theirs.


----------



## Guest

starthrower said:


> Enough with the finger pointing charade. Governments look out for their own interests, not people suffering on the ground. You want to tell me how Bush's war brought relief to the Iraqi people? If you believe the invasion of Iraq was a humanitarian mission, I've got some swamp land to sell you.
> 
> You conveniently don't mention Reagan's and daddy Bush's support for Saddam. They armed him to the teeth (including chemical weapons) all the while knowing very well what a ruthless tyrant he was. You can read all about it in Alan Friedman's book, Spider's Web:The Secret History Of How The White House Illegally Armed Iraq.


Yup. And FDR and Churchill propped up Stalin. And prior to going to war with Hitler, the UK was helping him carve the Sudetenland away from Czechoslovakia.

Wasn't the phony UN Oil-for-Food program also propping up Saddam and providing him with money to fund his actions when he otherwise would have been floundering?

So what is the point?

My point was that Juan Cole was not making these same arguments when he was criticizing the Bush administration. A lot of the arguments that he makes for justifying intervention in Libya could apply equally to Iraq. So why is he applauding what happened in Libya and not in Iraq?


----------



## Chi_townPhilly

science said:


> From the unequaled Juan Cole: The Libyan Revolution has largely succeeded, and this is a moment of celebration...


I think I'll wait and see what form Libya's next indigenous national authority takes before giving myself over to celebration.


----------



## Ukko

Chi_townPhilly said:


> I think I'll wait and see what form Libya's next indigenous national authority takes before giving myself over to celebration.


This may be completely irrelevant to your expectations, but... the possibility exists that a thoroughly democratic republic in Libya can be thoroughly anti-US.


----------



## mmsbls

DrMike said:


> My point was that Juan Cole was not making these same arguments when he was criticizing the Bush administration. A lot of the arguments that he makes for justifying intervention in Libya could apply equally to Iraq. So why is he applauding what happened in Libya and not in Iraq?


I'm unfamiliar with Cole's arguments on Iraq. Did he distinguish between the reason for intervention and the end result? If he criticized Bush for the negative consequences of the Iraq war, I would agree with Cole. I would agree with you that there are many similar reasons to justify intervention. Perhaps the main difference being the likelihood of success without significant damage to the countries, but I believe the Bush administration truly believed they would have a much, much, much easier time.


----------



## Guest

Hilltroll72 said:


> This may be completely irrelevant to your expectations, but... the possibility exists that a thoroughly democratic republic in Libya can be thoroughly anti-US.


Absolutely - that is why a liberal democracy is preferred. And by that, I mean liberal in the sense of granting greater liberty to its citizens. Citizens with more freedom tend to have less interest in imposing control over others. They have more time to see to their own needs and the needs of their families.

As a general rule, I think that it is better if brutal dictators are deposed. However, the question here is whether we have replaced one (or possibly a few) brutal dictators with a large group of dictators. That all remains to be seen.


----------



## Guest

mmsbls said:


> I'm unfamiliar with Cole's arguments on Iraq. Did he distinguish between the reason for intervention and the end result? If he criticized Bush for the negative consequences of the Iraq war, I would agree with Cole. I would agree with you that there are many similar reasons to justify intervention. Perhaps the main difference being the likelihood of success without significant damage to the countries, but I believe the Bush administration truly believed they would have a much, much, much easier time.


My mistake - I dug deeper, and apparently Cole did support the invasion of Iraq:


> for all the concerns one might have about the aftermath, the removal of Saddam Hussein and the murderous Baath regime from power will be worth the sacrifices that are about to be made on all sides


I guess my criticism is more towards the numerous proponents of the Obama administration that have been hypocritical on this issue. Under Bush, so many Democrats were stridently opposed to the invasion of Iraq, making many of the arguments that Cole here shoots down, and then remained eerily quiet about Libya, where many of the arguments Cole makes could just as easily be made for Iraq. But it does appear that Cole has been consistent, so I retract what I said about him.


----------



## science

Chi_townPhilly said:


> I think I'll wait and see what form Libya's next indigenous national authority takes before giving myself over to celebration.


He makes a similar point.


----------



## Almaviva

I have agreed from the beginning with Dr. Mike (and now CTP says the same thing) about the intervention in Libya being uncertain at best because we don't know these people we've helped. So I'm also not celebrating yet.

As for Iraq, one of my main objections to Bush's war is how he took his eyes off Afghanistan, and I also blame Rumsfeld for the miscalculations and for being cheap - if you invade, then do it right, dammit!

But I do grant to Dr. Mike that the points made by Cole could have been applied to Saddam Hussein as well. But it just wasn't our problem at the time. We were involved in another front. We squandered thousands of lives and billions of dollars by taking our eyes off the ball and stretching our military thin. We also may have created more enemies by losing the hearts and minds game.

At least, our support of Egypt and Libya may help with the hearts and minds game. I was surprised today with some interviews on BBC, with Arabs on the streets thanking the United States! Oh wow! We don't really get much of that in Iraq and Afghanistan.


----------



## mmsbls

Almaviva said:


> We squandered thousands of lives and billions of dollars by taking our eyes off the ball and stretching our military thin. We also may have created more enemies by losing the hearts and minds game.


Several studies suggest the deaths due to war are in the millions, dislocations in the several millions, and the dollar toll in the trillions. People often make the case for war without fully including all the negatives that come along. Hussein was awful, terrible, maybe even the worst human alive with capability to harm others, but I still can't justify all the negatives from the war. They say, "War is hell." Personally, I wish people actually believed something even remotely close to that.


----------



## science

Some of the major differences are that the Libyan people were already in revolt against Qaddafi, that they asked for outside help, ousting Qaddafi was a much smaller task, with a much smaller risk to American lives, and a much smaller death toll within Libya, and as Almaviva said, it wasn't a massive distraction away from a war that we actually should have been fighting. It was generally popular throughout the Arab world, our justification wasn't based on faulty intelligence, we didn't have to pressure any intelligence organizations to deliver faulty intelligence, we didn't have to betray any of our spies in the field for disagreeing with our faulty intelligence, we didn't have to pardon anyone in order to protect the Executive Branch from prosecution for betraying spies in the field for disagreeing with our faulty intelligence. 

I could probably go on. 

Another major difference that explains at least part of the resistance to helping the Libyan rebels and at least part of the enthusiasm for attacking Iraq is that Qaddafi had become less of a threat to Israel, while Hussein continued to scare them. This is also one of the main reasons the right was generally unenthusiastic about the revolution in Egypt. Another reason, though the majority of the right's ground troops are probably unaware of it, that the right was unsupportive of the revolutions is that labor movements played a major role in both of them.


----------



## Sid James

Thanks to science for posting the link to this article, I've printed it out in full & will read it when I get the chance. Good to get a more or less "independent" view on these kinds of important current events...


----------



## science

Thanks man. Juan Cole is great. He's one of those guys that I hesitate to disagree with. Not that he's never wrong, but he knows more than I do and he's wrong less often than I am.


----------



## science

Here's a recent and relevant blog post from Glenn Greenwald, who I do not find quite as reliable as Juan Cole (it's not even close on Middle East issues, Cole's expertise), but GG is always interesting, provocative, insightful, and often right.

As with many blogs, GG uses a ton of links, so you want to go to the original site if you suspect you'll want to follow any of them.

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/08/21/mideast/index.html



> SUNDAY, AUG 21, 2011 07:22 ET
> U.S. Mideast policy in a single phrase
> 
> BY GLENN GREENWALD
> 
> The CIA's spokesman at The Washington Post, columnist David Ignatius, recently announced that the glorifying term "Arab Spring" is no longer being used by senior intelligence officials to describe democratic revolutions in the Middle East. It has been replaced by the more "neutral" term "Arab transition," which, as Ignatius put it, "conveys the essential truth that nobody can predict just where this upheaval is heading." Note that what was until very recently celebrated in American media circles as a joyous, inspirational awakening of "democratic birth and freedom" has now been downgraded to an "upheaval" whose outcome may be odious and threatening.
> 
> That's not surprising. As I've written about several times, public opinion in those nations is so strongly opposed to the policies the U.S. has long demanded -- and is quite hostile (more so than ever) to the U.S. itself and especially Israel -- that allowing any form of democracy would necessarily be adverse to American and Israeli interests in that region (at least as those two nations have long perceived of their "interests"). That's precisely why the U.S. worked so hard and expended so many resources for decades to ensure that brutal dictators ruled those nations and suppressed public opinion to the point of complete irrelevance (behavior which, predictably and understandably, exacerbated anti-American sentiments among the populace).
> 
> An illustrative example of this process has emerged this week in Egypt, where authorities have bitterly denounced Israel for killing three of its police officers in a cross-border air attack on suspected Gaza-based militants, and to make matters worse, thereafter blaming Egypt for failing to control "terrorists" in the area. Massive, angry protests outside the Israeli Embassy in Cairo led to Egypt's recalling of its Ambassador to Israel and the Israeli Ambassador's being forced to flee Cairo. That, in turn, led to what The New York Times called a "rare statement of regret" from Israel in order to placate growing Egyptian anger: "rare" because, under the U.S.-backed Mubarak, Egyptian public opinion was rendered inconsequential and the Egyptian regime's allegiance was to Israel, meaning Israel never had to account for such acts, let alone apologize for them. In that regard, consider this superbly (if unintentionally) revealing phrase from the NYT about this incident:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By removing Mr. Mubarak's authoritarian but dependably loyal government, the revolution has stripped away a bulwark of Israel's position in the region, unleashing the Egyptian public's pent-up anger at Israel over its treatment of the Palestinians at a time when a transitional government is scrambling to maintain its own legitimacy in the streets.
> 
> 
> 
> That word "loyal" makes the phrase remarkable: to whom was Mubarak "loyal"? Not to the Egyptian people whom he was governing or even to Egypt itself, but rather to Israel and the United States. Thus, in the past, Egypt's own government would have sided with a foreign nation to which it was "loyal" even when that foreign nation killed its own citizens and refused to apologize (exactly as the U.S. did when Israel killed one of its own citizens on the Mavi Marmara and then again over the prospect that Israel would do the same with the new flotilla: in contrast to Turkey which, acting like a normal government, was bitterly furious with Israel --- and still is -- over the wanton killing of its citizens; in that sense, the U.S. is just as "dependably loyal" as the Mubarak regime was).
> 
> But as remarkable as it is, that phrase -- "authoritarian but dependably loyal" -- captures the essence of (ongoing) American behavior in that region for decades: propping up the most heinous, tyrannical rulers who disregard and crush the views of their own people while remaining supremely "loyal" to foreign powers: the U.S. and Israel. Consider this equally revealing passage from The Guardian:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Israel fears that the post-Mubarak regime will be more sympathetic to Hamas and could even revoke the 1979 peace treaty with Israel. "They feel the need to respond to the [Arab] street," said an Israeli government official. "Instead of calming things down, they are being dragged." The Egyptian statement was "a very dismal development", he said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Arab street": the derogatory term long used to degrade public opinion in those nations as some wild animal that needs to be suppressed and silenced rather than heeded. That's why this Israeli official talks about "the need to respond" to Egyptian public opinion -- also known as "democracy" -- as though it's some sort of bizarre, dangerous state of affairs: because nothing has been as important to the U.S. and Israel than ensuring the suppression of democracy in that region, ensuring that millions upon millions of people are consigned to brutal tyranny so that their interests are trampled upon in favor of "loyalty" to the interests of those two foreign nations.
> 
> This is why American media coverage of the Arab Spring produced one of the most severe cases of cognitive dissonance one can recall. The packaged morality narrative was that despots like Mubarak -- and those in Tunisia, Bahrain and elsewhere -- are unambiguous, cruel villains whom we're all supposed to hate, while the democracy protesters are noble and to be cheered. But whitewashed from that storyline was that it was the Freedom-loving United States that played such a vital role in empowering those despots and crushing the very democracy we are now supposed to cheer. Throughout all the media hate sessions spewed toward the former Egyptian dictator -- including as he's tried for crimes against his own people -- how often was it mentioned that Hillary Clinton, as recently as two years ago, was saying things such as: "I really consider President and Mrs. Mubarak to be friends of my family" (or that John McCain, around the same time, was tweeting: "Late evening with Col. Qadhafi at his 'ranch' in Libya - interesting meeting with an interesting man.")? Almost never: because the central U.S. role played in that mass oppression was simply ignored once the oppression could no longer be sustained.
> 
> And, of course, it wasn't the case that the U.S. Government decided to cease its democracy-crushing, or that the American media one day decided to denounce the U.S.-backed Arab tyrants and celebrate democracy. They had no choice. These events happened against the will of the U.S., and only once their inevitability became clear did the American government and media pretend to suddenly side with "democracy and freedom." Even as they indulge that pretense, they continued -- and continue -- to try to render the "democratic revolutions" illusory and to prop up the tyrannies that are still salvageable. In sum, American discourse was forced by events to denounce the very despots the U.S. Government protected and to praise the very democratic values the U.S. long destroyed.
> 
> This is what Ignatius means when he decrees that the U.S. should not try to be on "the right side of history" but rather, "what should guide U.S. policy in this time of transition is to be on the right side of America's own interests and values" and, most critically, that "sometimes those two will conflict." The U.S. has always subordinated its ostensible "values" (democracy, freedom) to its own "interests" in that region, which is why it has crushed the former in order to promote the latter. As we prepare to celebrate the reportedly imminent fall of Gadaffi just as we once celebrated the fall of Saddam -- Juan Cole is already declaring large parts of Libya "liberated" -- that behavior should be kept firmly in mind; whether a country is truly "liberated" by the removal of a despot depends on who replaces it and what their "loyalties" are: to foreign powers or to the democratic will of that nation's citizens.
> 
> For Americans in such consensus to celebrate the fall of evil Arab tyrants without accounting for the role the U.S. played in their decades-long rule was bizarre (though typical) indeed. That "senior intelligence officials" are regarding these fledgling, potential democracies with such suspicion and longing for the days of the "dependably loyal" dictatorial regimes tells one all there is to know about what we have actually been doing in that part of the world, and have been doing for as long as that part of the world was a concern to American officials.
Click to expand...


----------



## Guest

science said:


> Some of the major differences are that the Libyan people were already in revolt against Qaddafi, that they asked for outside help, ousting Qaddafi was a much smaller task, with a much smaller risk to American lives, and a much smaller death toll within Libya, and as Almaviva said, it wasn't a massive distraction away from a war that we actually should have been fighting. It was generally popular throughout the Arab world, our justification wasn't based on faulty intelligence, we didn't have to pressure any intelligence organizations to deliver faulty intelligence, we didn't have to betray any of our spies in the field for disagreeing with our faulty intelligence, we didn't have to pardon anyone in order to protect the Executive Branch from prosecution for betraying spies in the field for disagreeing with our faulty intelligence.
> 
> I could probably go on.
> 
> Another major difference that explains at least part of the resistance to helping the Libyan rebels and at least part of the enthusiasm for attacking Iraq is that Qaddafi had become less of a threat to Israel, while Hussein continued to scare them. This is also one of the main reasons the right was generally unenthusiastic about the revolution in Egypt. Another reason, though the majority of the right's ground troops are probably unaware of it, that the right was unsupportive of the revolutions is that labor movements played a major role in both of them.


But the Arab Spring has destroyed our recovery - or so Pres. Obama would have us believe. That and the tsunami in Japan. So it has had far more ramifications.

Much of what you say, at best, is Monday morning quarterbacking. And the storyline you present of Valerie Plame has been discredited on many fronts. Unless you simply believe the Sean Penn/Naomi Watts version of the story. As I recall, the only person found guilty of anything was Scooter Libby, whose crime was lying to prosecutors about when a certain communication with a newsperson took place. He wasn't even the person who supposedly leaked any names - that was Armitage. And Joe Wilson never proved the intelligence was faulty. In fact, he admitted in his actual report that the Iraqis had looked into obtaining yellow cake from Niger. It was only in his Vanity Fair interview that he changed his tune - you know, the one with all the glossy pics of him and his wife, the same wife that sent her husband, a low-level diplomat, to go sip tea in Niger and poke around.


----------



## science

It takes some work to get "MMQB" out of whether the people were in revolt or not, whether they asked for outside help, etc....


----------



## Guest

So have the revelries been a bit premature? I have just read that Qaddafi's son - the one that was supposed to have been captured, gave an interview after his apparent "capture" within his father's compound, and then took reporters on a tour of the portions of Tripoli still under government control. So what is going on here?


----------



## graaf

DrMike said:


> So have the revelries been a bit premature? I have just read that Qaddafi's son - the one that was supposed to have been captured, gave an interview after his apparent "capture" within his father's compound, and then took reporters on a tour of the portions of Tripoli still under government control. So what is going on here?


Hey, you asked for blonde anchors, you've got it! Now, the facts are a different story...


----------



## Ukko

The blonde anchor is not a 'reporter', she is a 'presenter'. The reality of her _reporterness_, is often equal to the reality of her _blondness_.


----------



## Guest

graaf said:


> Hey, you asked for blonde anchors, you've got it! Now, the facts are a different story...


Yeah, well, the old male "reporters" seem to also have problems getting their facts straight (e.g. Dan Rather).

And I could look at that picture all day long.


----------



## starthrower

mmsbls said:


> Several studies suggest the deaths due to war are in the millions, dislocations in the several millions, and the dollar toll in the trillions. People often make the case for war without fully including all the negatives that come along. Hussein was awful, terrible, maybe even the worst human alive with capability to harm others, but I still can't justify all the negatives from the war. They say, "War is hell." Personally, I wish people actually believed something even remotely close to that.


Like hell, war is an abstraction for those of us not directly affected. The fact that Hussein was a horrible tyrant is irrelevant. Pinochet was a murderous tyrant and the US put him in power after they killed the elected president of Chile.


----------



## Guest

starthrower said:


> Like hell, war is an abstraction for those of us not directly affected. The fact that Hussein was a horrible tyrant is irrelevant. Pinochet was a murderous tyrant and the US put him in power after they killed the elected president of Chile.


Hussein was worse than a horrible tyrant. He was a murderous tyrant. He worked to destabilize the region. He supported terrorism. So what if the US supported Pinochet? What does that have to do with anything? What, if we ever make a mistake, we are not allowed to do anything else and must return to our pre-WWII isolationist shell? We also helped keep the Soviet Union afloat against Hitler. We have done lots of things in our long history that were, at the time, expedient for us, and then later had some unintended consequences. Nobody can predict the future - you play the hand you are dealt, and hope for the best. I hate to tell you this, but just about every nation on this planet that is worth considering has some actions in their past that they would probably rather not air in public.


----------



## elgar's ghost

Any country will overlook the obvious human failings of another country's leader if it's in the greater interest of that country. The UK virtually wooed General Pinochet during the Falklands War as Chile were - if memory serves - the only South American nation to endorse the UK's stance (nothing to do with Chile's dispute with Argentina over rather more minor territorial claims, I'm sure...). Thatcher wanted him onside, and factors like his abysmal human rights record were probably overlooked as being par for the course in Latin American politics anyway. Elsewhere, In 1979/80 it was common knowledge that Hussein was a *******, but it was more important that he was a ******* that could be relied on through armaments and funding to de-stabilise Iran without the West having to apparently lift a finger (not that it worked...). Same in the first Gulf War when Syria were part of the coalition - who'd have thought that a couple of years before?


----------



## Almaviva

If the argument is that Iraq was ruled by a murderous tyrant who supported terrorism (sometimes people start to believe in the lies spread by the Bush administration about Hussein having something to do with 9/11 and Al Qaeda, while terrorism in Iraq was largely a post-invasion phenomenon), who more than Gaddafi supported terrorism except maybe for bin Laden and Omar? I'm not implying that Hussein wasn't as bad as they come, I'm just saying that Gaddafi is just as bad.


----------



## Guest

Almaviva said:


> If the argument is that Iraq was ruled by a murderous tyrant who supported terrorism (sometimes people start to believe in the lies spread by the Bush administration about Hussein having something to do with 9/11 and Al Qaeda, while terrorism in Iraq was largely a post-invasion phenomenon), who more than Gaddafi supported terrorism except maybe for bin Laden and Omar? I'm not implying that Hussein wasn't as bad as they come, I'm just saying that Gaddafi is just as bad.


Hussein was subsidizing suicide bombers in Israel. I said nothing of 9/11 and al Qaeda. He was cutting checks to the families of Palestinians who would go blow themselves up on Israeli buses and in Israeli discos. Checks, more than likely, funded by the UN Oil-for-Food program/scandal.


----------



## graaf

Almaviva said:


> I'm just saying that Gaddafi is just as bad.


They all are. World is filled with monstrous tyrants. The only question US gov is interested in is: how obedient are they? As Jeremy Scahill (investigative journalist ) said about Libya situation:
_We are backing any ruthless thug, anti-democratic dictatorship in that region (Middle East), selling them weapons, silent at the face that Yemeni dictator is murdering his own people with sniper shots to the head. So I think that we are also sending a message to the world that we, once again, are the great, grand hypocrites._

US populace repeatedly forgets (if they ever knew to begin with) that US is as bad to non-US population as their own tyrants are. Sometimes US is far worse, because not every tyrant has Agent Orange, for example. The moment they do (like Saddam Hussein) they do the same thing US Arny did in Vietnam. OK, to be completely fair, Saddam's gas might not leave consequences for the affected area for decades to come, but if Saddam could technically accomplish it, he would hardly be shy about it.

So, when Dr Mike says _So what if the US supported Pinochet? What does that have to do with anything? What, if we ever make a mistake, we are not allowed to do anything else and must return to our pre-WWII isolationist shell?_ I think he is not realizing that *support for Pinochet was NOT a mistake from the perspective of US gov* - US gov couldn't care less what Pinochet does as long as he obeys. But, due to freedom of speech, some of the info might leak, some investigative journalist might make a shocking headline (and even more disturbing images) and then US gov has a few answers to give and a whole lot of propaganda to unleash. Mind you, the shocking headline is far from surprise for US gov, they just thought cover up will not be blown, but there always someone who just couldn't mind his own business...

It's all a game of chess for people in power, and chess players are hardly emotional about each and every pawn...


----------



## science

DrMike said:


> Hussein was worse than a horrible tyrant. He was a murderous tyrant. He worked to destabilize the region. He supported terrorism. So what if the US supported Pinochet? What does that have to do with anything? What, if we ever make a mistake, we are not allowed to do anything else and must return to our pre-WWII isolationist shell? We also helped keep the Soviet Union afloat against Hitler. We have done lots of things in our long history that were, at the time, expedient for us, and then later had some unintended consequences. Nobody can predict the future - you play the hand you are dealt, and hope for the best. I hate to tell you this, but just about every nation on this planet that is worth considering has some actions in their past that they would probably rather not air in public.


Pinochet wasn't a mistake, he was a policy. So was Saddam - both when we were supporting him, and later when we changed our mind about him. So was the Shah. These guys didn't ruthlessly suppress their people in some kind of surprise to us - "unintended consequences" - we valued them for what they did. And that's why we value the Sauds. Hey, it's great when you can extract resources from poor countries and sell them manufactured goods without violence, letting them have a voice in their own affairs and all that sweet justice stuff, but when ethics and profits collide, we know who runs the world.

It doesn't matter if other people are as bad as we are. It doesn't matter if they would be as bad or worse if we got the chance. That doesn't justify anything - as I'm sure you realize when the story involves some other group using "everybody else was doing it" as an excuse. If we've been better than anyone else, when all the self-congratulation is over, hopefully in the future we'll be better than we've been.


----------



## science

To be fair, the "innocent mistake" narrative might have more validity in, say, the Vietnam War. Also, in our support for jihadists.


----------



## graaf

science said:


> To be fair, the "innocent mistake" narrative might have more validity in, say, the Vietnam War. Also, in our support for jihadists.


I wouldn't buy it for Vietnam, but would for jihadists - and that only because they backfired.


----------



## Delicious Manager

Hilltroll72 said:


> The American people have been lied to by their government approximately as much as the Serbian people have by theirs.


Oh, I would say MUCH longer. There is nothing on this planet as hypocritical as the American political 'system'.


----------



## Guest

Delicious Manager said:


> Oh, I would say MUCH longer. There is nothing on this planet as hypocritical as the American political 'system'.


Oh, I don't know - the British empire had quite the headstart on us. For all the problems the U.S. has created out there, let us not forget that no small number of them had some origin in the colonial practices of European nations. I believe that Vietnam was a French colonial problem before it was an American problem. I believe the modern day makeup of the Middle East is, in large part, a construct of British "meddling" in the Middle East. And don't even get me started about Africa, where so many of these screwed up states exist as they do because European countries came and carved up a whole continent for their own pleasure and profit.

And for how long did the U.S. welcome, with open arms, all of the people run out of Europe? Whether they were trying to escape religious persecution, or famine and starvation, catastrophic war, genocide, or just hoping for a better life.

I think when we start criticizing countries for their policies, we need to check first just how much of our own house is made of glass.


----------



## science

Well, there's North Korea.

Got to keep things in perspective.


----------



## Delicious Manager

DrMike said:


> Oh, I don't know - the British empire had quite the headstart on us. For all the problems the U.S. has created out there, let us not forget that no small number of them had some origin in the colonial practices of European nations. I believe that Vietnam was a French colonial problem before it was an American problem. I believe the modern day makeup of the Middle East is, in large part, a construct of British "meddling" in the Middle East. And don't even get me started about Africa, where so many of these screwed up states exist as they do because European countries came and carved up a whole continent for their own pleasure and profit.
> 
> And for how long did the U.S. welcome, with open arms, all of the people run out of Europe? Whether they were trying to escape religious persecution, or famine and starvation, catastrophic war, genocide, or just hoping for a better life.
> 
> I think when we start criticizing countries for their policies, we need to check first just how much of our own house is made of glass.


I am no apologist for Britain's past, nor for any type colonialism; there are parts of it I am ashamed of. However, as a country, I think we have tried to face-up to our wrong-doings and make amends where we can (look how many former colonies have chosen to remain part of the British Commonwealth). The thing that irritates me about the USA (which would have no 'European' population at all were it not for the 'welcome with open arms' that the USA needed to populate itself - and let's not forget the original inhabitants of the North American continent, shall we?) is the 'my country, right or wrong. We'll police the world' attitude towards other governments. There is no atrocity perpetrated throughout the world which is not ALSO perpetrated within the USA.


----------



## science

Delicious Manager said:


> There is no atrocity perpetrated throughout the world which is not ALSO perpetrated within the USA.


I can't go there with you.


----------



## Delicious Manager

science said:


> I can't go there with you.


Too uncomfortable to contemplate? That's what the CIA banks on!


----------



## Guest

Delicious Manager said:


> I am no apologist for Britain's past, nor for any type colonialism; there are parts of it I am ashamed of. However, as a country, I think we have tried to face-up to our wrong-doings and make amends where we can (look how many former colonies have chosen to remain part of the British Commonwealth). The thing that irritates me about the USA (which would have no 'European' population at all were it not for the 'welcome with open arms' that the USA needed to populate itself - and let's not forget the original inhabitants of the North American continent, shall we?) is the 'my country, right or wrong. We'll police the world' attitude towards other governments. There is no atrocity perpetrated throughout the world which is not ALSO perpetrated within the USA.


Yes, perhaps we have been too engaged in "policing" the world. But then I recall that Europeans were only too eager for the U.S. to engage in WWI and WWII. And perhaps we were tired of waiting to intervene until some massive, global conflagration had erupted, as had been the European practices that drew much of the planet into two World Wars.

And then when we don't initially get involved, the international community wants us to: think of Bosnia, think of Rwanda, or, most recently, think of Libya. We are the biggest kid on the block, and we have been relegated to doing those things that either the other countries don't want to do, or, as more often is the case, simply do not have the capabilities to do. It is safe to criticize the U.S. - we'll still throw money at you and support you militarily when you need us. We helped dig Europe out of two world wars, and, as Colin Powell so elegantly pointed out, all we asked in return was enough ground to bury our dead. Western Europe has the right to criticize us thanks to our protecting them twice in one century from German domination, and then providing the lion's share of their protection from the Soviet Union. And all the while, we endured the criticisms of jealous countries whose zeniths were behind them. The French, who once were the culture that all emulated. The British, who once controlled an empire upon which the sun never set.


----------



## Guest

Delicious Manager said:


> I am no apologist for Britain's past, nor for any type colonialism; there are parts of it I am ashamed of. However, as a country, I think we have tried to face-up to our wrong-doings and make amends where we can (*look how many former colonies have chosen to remain part of the British Commonwealth*). The thing that irritates me about the USA (which would have no 'European' population at all were it not for the 'welcome with open arms' that the USA needed to populate itself - and let's not forget the original inhabitants of the North American continent, shall we?) is the 'my country, right or wrong. We'll police the world' attitude towards other governments. There is no atrocity perpetrated throughout the world which is not ALSO perpetrated within the USA.


I think the former colonies that chose to remain part of the British Commonwealth are primarily the ones in which the native population was largely surplanted by British colonists. Can you think of any former colonies that remain predominantly populated by the natives that chose to remain part of the Commonwealth? If Australia were majority aboriginal population, do you think they would want to remain part of the Commonwealth? Or if Canada were dominated by Native American people?


----------



## Very Senior Member

DrMike said:


> I think the former colonies that chose to remain part of the British Commonwealth are primarily the ones in which the native population was largely surplanted by British colonists. Can you think of any former colonies that remain predominantly populated by the natives that chose to remain part of the Commonwealth? If Australia were majority aboriginal population, do you think they would want to remain part of the Commonwealth? Or if Canada were dominated by Native American people?


 What about India, Pakistan, South Africa, Zambia, Uganda, Botswana, Namibia, Malawi, Malaysia, Dominica, Nigeria, Sri Lanka,Kenya, Rwanda .....


----------



## starthrower

DrMike said:


> Hussein was worse than a horrible tyrant. He was a murderous tyrant. He worked to destabilize the region. He supported terrorism. So what if the US supported Pinochet? What does that have to do with anything? What, if we ever make a mistake, we are not allowed to do anything else and must return to our pre-WWII isolationist shell? We also helped keep the Soviet Union afloat against Hitler. We have done lots of things in our long history that were, at the time, expedient for us, and then later had some unintended consequences. Nobody can predict the future - you play the hand you are dealt, and hope for the best. I hate to tell you this, but just about every nation on this planet that is worth considering has some actions in their past that they would probably rather not air in public.


Yes, but for the US it's a steady pattern that's been established for well over a century, resulting from so called "mistakes" in foreign policy. You call it mistakes, I see it as expansionism. That is our history. It's a history of exploitation and mass murder, and the overthrow of democratic governments in favor of dictators. Washington should shut up about democracy and human rights because it's a sham.


----------



## Ralfy

From March:

"Libyan rebel commander admits his fighters have al-Qaeda links"

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...-admits-his-fighters-have-al-Qaeda-links.html


----------



## Ukko

starthrower said:


> Yes, but for the US it's a steady pattern that's been established for well over a century, resulting from so called "mistakes" in foreign policy. You call it mistakes, I see it as expansionism. That is our history. It's a history of exploitation and mass murder, and the overthrow of democratic governments in favor of dictators. Washington should shut up about democracy and human rights because it's a sham.


I think the 'expansionism' ended about a century ago, with the Philippines. The interference with democratic governments, both military and otherwise, has been going on for _way_ longer than a century. For most of our country's history, most citizens have had no college education. Their knowledge of US history has come from elementary and secondary school textbooks. There is damn little truth in any of those books, so how could we be expected to know better?


----------



## samurai

@ Hilltroll72, I understand and am basically sympathetic to the points you raise. However--to play a little game of devil's advocate here--from whose perspective is the word *truth *defined?
As I grow steadily older--and not necessarily wiser--I more and more am coming to the belief that every country and people have their own definition of this concept. Of course, in the most cynical reading of history, one might well conclude that it is only the victorious and strong whose definition most holds sway and really "counts" in the world. Alas, that unfortunately might prove to be the truest as well.


----------



## science

Our expansion continued at least through WWII, when we occupied the Pacific Ocean.


----------



## Ukko

samurai said:


> @ Hilltroll72, I understand and am basically sympathetic to the points you raise. However--to play a little game of devil's advocate here--from whose perspective is the word *truth *defined?
> [...]


The perspective of actual historians. US high school American history books are not (and apparently haven't been since before the Civil War) written by historians. The subject as such isn't usually taught in college, but political science courses usually use legitimate data. Historians can certainly be biased, especially about personalities, but their books don't have to be approved by Texas state boards.


----------



## Ukko

science said:


> Our expansion continued at least through WWII, when we occupied the Pacific Ocean.


The islands 'occupied' by the US in -and after - WW2 were kept under US control for strategic reasons, not 'expansionist' reasons.


----------



## science

As far as I can tell, it's a distinction without a difference.


----------



## Almaviva

Delicious Manager said:


> I am no apologist for Britain's past, nor for any type colonialism; there are parts of it I am ashamed of. However, as a country, I think we have tried to face-up to our wrong-doings and make amends where we can (look how many former colonies have chosen to remain part of the British Commonwealth). The thing that irritates me about the USA (which would have no 'European' population at all were it not for the 'welcome with open arms' that the USA needed to populate itself - and let's not forget the original inhabitants of the North American continent, shall we?) is the 'my country, right or wrong. We'll police the world' attitude towards other governments. There is no atrocity perpetrated throughout the world which is not ALSO perpetrated within the USA.


Sincerely, I think that the Brits complaining of the Yanks is a case of the pot calling the kettle black. We've both had our share of atrocities.


----------



## Almaviva

graaf said:


> They all are. World is filled with monstrous tyrants. The only question US gov is interested in is: how obedient are they? As Jeremy Scahill (investigative journalist ) said about Libya situation:
> _We are backing any ruthless thug, anti-democratic dictatorship in that region (Middle East), selling them weapons, silent at the face that Yemeni dictator is murdering his own people with sniper shots to the head. So I think that we are also sending a message to the world that we, once again, are the great, grand hypocrites._
> 
> US populace repeatedly forgets (if they ever knew to begin with) that US is as bad to non-US population as their own tyrants are. Sometimes US is far worse, because not every tyrant has Agent Orange, for example. The moment they do (like Saddam Hussein) they do the same thing US Arny did in Vietnam. OK, to be completely fair, Saddam's gas might not leave consequences for the affected area for decades to come, but if Saddam could technically accomplish it, he would hardly be shy about it.
> 
> So, when Dr Mike says _So what if the US supported Pinochet? What does that have to do with anything? What, if we ever make a mistake, we are not allowed to do anything else and must return to our pre-WWII isolationist shell?_ I think he is not realizing that *support for Pinochet was NOT a mistake from the perspective of US gov* - US gov couldn't care less what Pinochet does as long as he obeys. But, due to freedom of speech, some of the info might leak, some investigative journalist might make a shocking headline (and even more disturbing images) and then US gov has a few answers to give and a whole lot of propaganda to unleash. Mind you, the shocking headline is far from surprise for US gov, they just thought cover up will not be blown, but there always someone who just couldn't mind his own business...
> 
> It's all a game of chess for people in power, and chess players are hardly emotional about each and every pawn...


What about Kosovo? What was our vested interest there?


----------



## Ukko

science said:


> As far as I can tell, it's a distinction without a difference.


You may have a perception problem.


----------



## science

Hilltroll72 said:


> You may have a perception problem.


I should've expected a response like that.


----------



## Ukko

science said:


> I should've expected a response like that.


Of course you should have. I have determined that you are smart enough to know better. Your perception problem is due to lack of effort, or prejudice, not mental acuity.


----------



## science

You are not in any kind of position to make judgments regarding my intelligence, efforts to educate myself, prejudices, etc.... You offer insults without insights. If you could've made the distinction meaningful, you would have, but you couldn't so you turned to personal attacks. 

Again.


----------



## Almaviva

Gee guys, again???

You're both valuable and smart members. Definitely not the kind of people we'd want banned because the board would be less good without you.

I just can't believe that two highly intelligent users like you Hilltroll72 and you science can't treat each other with civility.


----------



## graaf

Almaviva said:


> What about Kosovo? What was our vested interest there?


Compared with Afghanistan and Iraq, interest was minor and so was the intervention (few months of war and few thousand deaths, compared to decade of war and countless dead). But there are a few, so I might name them too:

There's an ongoing effort to bring missile defence shield closer and closer to Russia - involved countries that were most mentioned are Poland, Romania, Czech republic, and having Kosovo can't hurt (in a recent visit Putin said that if Serbia joins NATO, their "military strategy will reflect that change"). There is also drug trafficking route going from Asia to Europe over Albania and Kosovo that supplies Europe with 80% of its heroin, and someone has to control it - either to break the chain, or earn on it. There was rogue regime in Europe (Milosevic's) that wouldn't let foreign investments nor do something useful for his own people, in all honesty. As I said, not much interest and not as harsh bombing as Iraq/Afghanistan.

I do readily admit that Serbian government at the time couldn't manage ethnic unrest in Kosovo, let alone the criminal activities. Some kind of foreign intervention was needed (even more so than in Bosnia), but it was represented in western media as Serbian ethnic cleansing of Kosovo's Albanians, without reporting that body count after the bombing (done by EU experts themselves after gaining control over Kosovo) showed that real atrocities were done by NATO and not Serbs. Nor that 220.000 Serbs left Kosovo since that. But Albanians obviously didn't mention a thing - why should they, they've got themselves a brand new state. The state that is destined to become European narco-state (like Colombia is for Americas), but let the next administration think about that.

Italian reporter did a documentary on Kosovo, called endless war, that covers affairs since 1999. It was aired on Italian national TV - they have interest in that since crime from Albania and Kosovo often goes directly to Italy. Here is the link: 




best regards,
graaf


----------



## Almaviva

graaf said:


> Compared with Afghanistan and Iraq, interest was minor and so was the intervention (few months of war and few thousand deaths, compared to decade of war and countless dead). But there are a few, so I might name them too:
> 
> There's an ongoing effort to bring missile defence shield closer and closer to Russia - involved countries that were most mentioned are Poland, Romania, Czech republic, and having Kosovo can't hurt (in a recent visit Putin said that if Serbia joins NATO, their "military strategy will reflect that change"). There is also drug trafficking route going from Asia to Europe over Albania and Kosovo that supplies Europe with 80% of its heroin, and someone has to control it - either to break the chain, or earn on it. There was rogue regime in Europe (Milosevic's) that wouldn't let foreign investments nor do something useful for his own people, in all honesty. As I said, not much interest and not as harsh bombing as Iraq/Afghanistan.
> 
> I do readily admit that Serbian government at the time couldn't manage ethnic unrest in Kosovo, let alone the criminal activities. Some kind of foreign intervention was needed (even more so than in Bosnia), but it was represented in western media as Serbian ethnic cleansing of Kosovo's Albanians, without reporting that body count after the bombing (done by EU experts themselves after gaining control over Kosovo) showed that real atrocities were done by NATO and not Serbs. Nor that 220.000 Serbs left Kosovo since that. But Albanians obviously didn't mention a thing - why should they, they've got themselves a brand new state. The state that is destined to become European narco-state (like Colombia is for Americas), but let the next administration think about that.
> 
> Italian reporter did a documentary on Kosovo, called endless war, that covers affairs since 1999. It was aired on Italian national TV - they have interest in that since crime from Albania and Kosovo often goes directly to Italy. Here is the link:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> best regards,
> graaf


I find it hard to believe that the motivation for the intervention was the fringe aspects that you've mentioned. It was rather for humanitarian reasons. And the campaign was short because the Serbs folded rapidly. About atrocities, I'd like to hear what Kosovo Albanians would have to say about it. There are always two sides to these things.


----------



## Ukko

Almaviva said:


> Gee guys, again???
> 
> You're both valuable and smart members. Definitely not the kind of people we'd want banned because the board would be less good without you.
> 
> I just can't believe that two highly intelligent users like you Hilltroll72 and you science can't treat each other with civility.


I realized around bedtime last night that I would have to put _science_ on my 'ignore' list. I have a low tolerance for _whining _ex-pats.


----------



## Guest

graaf said:


> Compared with Afghanistan and Iraq, interest was minor and so was the intervention (few months of war and few thousand deaths, compared to decade of war and countless dead). But there are a few, so I might name them too:
> 
> There's an ongoing effort to bring missile defence shield closer and closer to Russia - involved countries that were most mentioned are Poland, Romania, Czech republic, and having Kosovo can't hurt (in a recent visit Putin said that if Serbia joins NATO, their "military strategy will reflect that change"). There is also drug trafficking route going from Asia to Europe over Albania and Kosovo that supplies Europe with 80% of its heroin, and someone has to control it - either to break the chain, or earn on it. There was rogue regime in Europe (Milosevic's) that wouldn't let foreign investments nor do something useful for his own people, in all honesty. As I said, not much interest and not as harsh bombing as Iraq/Afghanistan.
> 
> I do readily admit that Serbian government at the time couldn't manage ethnic unrest in Kosovo, let alone the criminal activities. Some kind of foreign intervention was needed (even more so than in Bosnia), but it was represented in western media as Serbian ethnic cleansing of Kosovo's Albanians, without reporting that body count after the bombing (done by EU experts themselves after gaining control over Kosovo) showed that real atrocities were done by NATO and not Serbs. Nor that 220.000 Serbs left Kosovo since that. But Albanians obviously didn't mention a thing - why should they, they've got themselves a brand new state. The state that is destined to become European narco-state (like Colombia is for Americas), but let the next administration think about that.
> 
> Italian reporter did a documentary on Kosovo, called endless war, that covers affairs since 1999. It was aired on Italian national TV - they have interest in that since crime from Albania and Kosovo often goes directly to Italy. Here is the link:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> best regards,
> graaf


Given that we have allies like Poland who are more than willing to let us put missile shield platforms in their country, and that we have yet to go on the attack in Colombia on the scale that we saw in the Balkans, I'm going to say that it these motivations/interests you list here are probably even more minor than you state, if they played any role at all in our intervention.

The words change, but the song remains the same. The rest of the industrialized world chides and rebukes the U.S. for not involving itself more in their regional brouhahas right up until the point that we get involved, and then they begin their criticism of how we have handled the situation, and start to imagine conspiracies and ulterior motives. We get charge with the "imperialism" criticism a lot - we have to be the most ineffectual empire this world has ever seen. Despite our overwhelming military might, the last thing anybody could even closely refer to as a colony (other than the 13 original colonies) is the Phillipines. Yeah, we stuck our noses into Colombian/Panamanian affairs about 100 years ago to get a canal built, but then turned around and gave it back. I'm not sure there are a lot of people anymore who think the Panama canal was a bad idea.

Basically, the U.S. is faced with the standard "damned if you do, damned if you don't" scenario no matter what situation in which we find ourselves. The funny thing is that so much of this criticism comes from countries that have done their part in bringing the planet to global conflagrations not once, but twice in one century. We are criticized for our international interventions by countries who once viewed the entire planet as theirs for the divvying up. How much of the problems in the Middle East today, or in Africa, are a result of the expansionist, imperialist actions of Western Europe? Do you think the people of Cote d'Ivoire naturally speak French? Or that English sprung up naturally in other African nations? Portuguese and Spanish in South America? All of these bear the marks of a Europe obsessed with subjugating the rest of the world for their own expansionist dreams and profits. Yeah, its all fine and good that you can now say that you have learned your lesson and have forsaken your past - now that the damage is done. No small number of global problems these days can have their origins traced back to the artificial and unnatural subdividing of continents and subcontinents along the lines of the imperialistic usurpers. And now you want to criticize anybody else, and ascribe any number of nasty motives.


----------



## Ukko

DrMike said:


> [...]
> Basically, the U.S. is faced with the standard "damned if you do, damned if you don't" scenario no matter what situation in which we find ourselves. The funny thing is that so much of this criticism comes from countries that have done their part in bringing the planet to global conflagrations not once, but twice in one century. We are criticized for our international interventions by countries who once viewed the entire planet as theirs for the divvying up. How much of the problems in the Middle East today, or in Africa, are a result of the expansionist, imperialist actions of Western Europe? Do you think the people of Cote d'Ivoire naturally speak French? Or that English sprung up naturally in other African nations? Portuguese and Spanish in South America? All of these bear the marks of a Europe obsessed with subjugating the rest of the world for their own expansionist dreams and profits. Yeah, its all fine and good that you can now say that you have learned your lesson and have forsaken your past - now that the damage is done. No small number of global problems these days can have their origins traced back to the artificial and unnatural subdividing of continents and subcontinents along the lines of the imperialistic usurpers. And now you want to criticize anybody else, and ascribe any number of nasty motives.


Basically, you are pointing out that The US is the _current_ Big Bad Dog of the West, that other entities ask help from. I agree. But I also believe that the US has been a self-proclaimed Big Bad Dog ever since the issuance of the Monroe Doctrine (when the bark was actually bigger than the bite). It is historically obvious that the US took no significant part in the Big Wave of Imperialism in Africa (and India) that occupied various European governments for a time. Our government did go in for 'interventions' in a pretty big way though, notably during Woodrow Wilson's tenure, but other times too, several of them in the Middle-East.

Realpolitik is not altruistic. No national government is a 'nice-guy'. It would make my job as a humanist easier if everybody accepted that, and also accepted that _*we are all in this together.*_ The two understandings are not mutually exclusive.


----------



## Fsharpmajor

Well, the USA, Canada, and most of Europe are in NATO, so we're all on the same side now, even if we don't always agree on things. The USA just happens to be, by far, the largest component in terms of military strength.


----------



## graaf

Almaviva said:


> And the campaign was short because the Serbs folded rapidly.


true


Almaviva said:


> About atrocities, I'd like to hear what Kosovo Albanians would have to say about it.


Albanians would have said: thank you for the independence. Quite frankly, even I expected to find more atrocities done by Serbs, but EU experts said otherwise. And Albanians are not crazy to raise the issue.


Almaviva said:


> I find it hard to believe that the motivation for the intervention was the fringe aspects that you've mentioned.


Basically this one is only one important here. And it is the way two of us view politics. I basically say that for the people in power (in any country), profit > people, with all its cynical consequences.

best regards,
graaf


----------



## mmsbls

graaf said:


> Basically this one is only one important here. And it is the way two of us view politics. I basically say that for the people in power (in any country), profit > people, with all its cynical consequences.


I would generally agree except that I would slightly modify your equation.

Profit/power > people

I think for some, power is more important than money, but money almost always matters.

My wife just finished a book about sociopaths (I can't remember the title), and the author believes that although sociopaths make up around 1% of society, a much higher percentage are represented in government and running companies. I don't know to what extent that's true, but it often seems that way.


----------



## Couchie

@mmsbls: Indeed, whether by tyranny or representative democracy, all of the world's political systems are designed to put overambitious power-hungry sociopathic elites in power, and then ask them to act in the best interest of the common people. 

Clearly the solution to all the world's problems is the adoption of Athenian sortition.


----------



## Ukko

Couchie said:


> @mmsbls: Indeed, whether by tyranny or representative democracy, all of the world's political systems are designed to put overambitious power-hungry sociopathic elites in power, and then ask them to act in the best interest of the common people.
> 
> Clearly the solution to all the world's problems is the adoption of Athenian sortition.


 Clearly!


----------



## Almaviva

graaf said:


> true
> 
> Albanians would have said: thank you for the independence. Quite frankly, even I expected to find more atrocities done by Serbs, but EU experts said otherwise. And Albanians are not crazy to raise the issue.
> 
> Basically this one is only one important here. And it is the way two of us view politics. I basically say that for the people in power (in any country), profit > people, with all its cynical consequences.
> 
> best regards,
> graaf


I couldn't have said it better than Dr.Mike so I'll quote him:



> Given that we have allies like Poland who are more than willing to let us put missile shield platforms in their country, and that we have yet to go on the attack in Colombia on the scale that we saw in the Balkans, I'm going to say that it these motivations/interests you list here are probably even more minor than you state, if they played any role at all in our intervention.


I don't think your explanation holds water, graaf.


----------



## graaf

@Poland, Colombia thing - not all issues are dealt the same way, but there's no point in writing wall of text to someone who doesn't want to educate himself about geopolitics.


Almaviva said:


> I don't think your explanation holds water, graaf.


Because you don't like to think that way. It is called wishful thinking and it can make power-hungry politicians into humanitarians. I mean, have you ever hear Nixon tapes? Not heard of them, but heard them? Very humanitarian, yup, even towards their own nation. I guess Theory of Nixon the Humanitarian holds water... And you're not the only one - it is easy to notice that when Dr Mike speaks about US gov policy, he says "we" (_we_ have yet to go on the attack in Colombia, etc). I don't speak that way about Serbian gov, so I have no problem saying that they lied to us and the rest of the world and that they couldn't manage Kosovo anyway (it's decades old problem, and it's not being properly managed by the new Albanian gov, as the documentary you ignored says), and I definitely don't think they're humanitarian or whatever...

Anyway, no point of writing much, informations and even real educational material is out there, who wants to get it will get it, we're not saying anything new anyway.


----------



## Ralfy

"The case of Professor Juan Cole"

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2011/apr2011/pers-a01.shtml

"An open letter to Professor Juan Cole: A reply to a slander"

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2011/aug2011/cole-a10.shtml

"Professor Cole 'answers' WSWS on Libya: An admission of intellectual and political bankruptcy"

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2011/aug2011/cole-a16.shtml

"Letters on Juan Cole"

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2011/aug2011/lett-a18.shtml


----------



## Ukko

People with polarized viewpoints do get huffy, eh?


----------



## Ralfy

One more:

"Juan Cole's Conveniently Partisan Intervention Issues"

http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2011/08/23/juan-coles-conveniently-partisan-intervention-issues/

One should also note the result of various forms of intervention, including what happened in Afghanistan and Iraq, and that, ultimately, the financial elite and various businesses profit, the military gets their weapons and funding, and the sheeple foot the bill.


----------



## Ralfy

Missed this one:

"WikiLeaks cables expose Washington's close ties to Gaddafi"

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2011/aug2011/wiki-a27.shtml

How....shocking.


----------



## Sid James

These things always get bogged down in American politics, and frankly, I don't give a damn. If I want to discuss America, I'd rather discuss their music than politics (probably same with Australia).

Anyway, back to Libya and Gaddafi. I still haven't had time to read Science's article, but I'll try do it pronto. On the ground in Tripoli things look grim (eg. Gaddafi's loyalists controlling the water supply & shutting it off - a desperate measure). But basically, I think that Gaddafi's regime is history. If he gets caught, word is that he'll stand trial in Libya for his crimes against the Libyan people. 

My mother was young when he came to power, she remembers there was a certain optimism then in the Arab world then (as now, but for different reasons, post-colonialism). She's not Middle Eastern, but things that Nasser of Egypt did as well as Gaddafi & others was widely reported then all over the world. Gaddafi did some good things, like all of them did at the start, but as the saying goes, power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. After about 40 years in the seat, it was high times that guys like him & Mubarak left. I mean we had enough of Prime Minister John Howard here for 11 years, three or four times that would be a total nightmare (although he wasn't in the league of these guys, but he too was superglued to the seat). Every leader has a use-by date, but some of them unfortunately can't grasp this.

I saw a report on TV showing Gaddafi's private jet, with all the mod cons, incl. a jacuzzi. This guy who said he lived like a bedouin Arab or something was living more like a king, in the lap of luxury. I dislike this hypocrisy and hubris. Whenever a leader styles himself as a "man of the people," or even our own politicians refer to what "the Australian people" want, they're really referring to what they want, not the people...


----------



## Guest

Sid James said:


> These things always get bogged down in American politics, and frankly, I don't give a damn. If I want to discuss America, I'd rather discuss their music than politics (probably same with Australia).
> 
> Anyway, back to Libya and Gaddafi. I still haven't had time to read Science's article, but I'll try do it pronto. On the ground in Tripoli things look grim (eg. Gaddafi's loyalists controlling the water supply & shutting it off - a desperate measure). But basically, I think that Gaddafi's regime is history. If he gets caught, word is that he'll stand trial in Libya for his crimes against the Libyan people.
> 
> My mother was young when he came to power, she remembers there was a certain optimism then in the Arab world then (as now, but for different reasons, post-colonialism). She's not Middle Eastern, but things that Nasser of Egypt did as well as Gaddafi & others was widely reported then all over the world. Gaddafi did some good things, like all of them did at the start, but as the saying goes, power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. After about 40 years in the seat, it was high times that guys like him & Mubarak left. I mean we had enough of Prime Minister John Howard here for 11 years, three or four times that would be a total nightmare (although he wasn't in the league of these guys, but he too was superglued to the seat). Every leader has a use-by date, but some of them unfortunately can't grasp this.
> 
> I saw a report on TV showing Gaddafi's private jet, with all the mod cons, incl. a jacuzzi. This guy who said he lived like a bedouin Arab or something was living more like a king, in the lap of luxury. I dislike this hypocrisy and hubris. Whenever a leader styles himself as a "man of the people," or even our own politicians refer to what "the Australian people" want, they're really referring to what they want, not the people...


Quite often, dictators arise with popular support. They typically arise from a system where people have been repressed, or are in a state of emergency, and a charismatic figure emerges promising deliverance. Originally, the concept of dictator has its roots in ancient Rome - at times of emergency, sole power was entrusted in a single person to give them all the tools necessary to bring the people through a crisis, with the understanding that they would step down afterwards. Julius Caesar violated that trust and assumed dictatorial powers for life (literally).

The problem is that, while people may accept dictatorial control in times of crisis where they feel that their safety is more important than their rights, it is difficult to keep people in a constant state of emergency. And once they no longer feel that threat, they start to resent the restriction of their rights. Thus most dictators have to keep their people feeling ever more threatened, even if it means creating new crises. Thus you have many Middle East dictators using the all too familiar scapegoats of America and Israel to distract their people from their own abuses and excesses. Or you have North Korea and their perpetual saber-rattling when most in that part of the world would rather not go to war.

Eventually, though, you simply can't limit the rights of people in perpetuity and expect to get away with it. People get too restless and resentful of the increased pressures put on them by dictators who must do more and more to maintain their power. And then the fragility of their power is exposed.


----------



## starthrower

Hilltroll72 said:


> Probably not all of them. I consider Bernie to be a voice in the wilderness - and, unfortunately, approximately that effective.


Yeah, listening to Sanders rant and rave, you can kind of pretend we have a representative democracy for a minute.


----------



## Guest

Since it appears that the current meme in this thread is that only conservatives are guilty of misrepresenting the facts, I will return to the original point of this thread.

As I read in an article the other day, this recent success in Libya is starting to feel like Iraq immediately in the aftermath of the Bush "Mission Accomplished" photo op. We are told how well the opposition has been doing, and indeed it is quite an accomplishment that they are now in Tripoli, and Qaddafi's days seem numbered. But I am still somewhat worried about who exactly we have supported in this government overthrow. What is the fate of the various and sundry weaponry of the Qaddafi regime? What kind of post-Qaddafi Libya will we see? Will it be like Iran after the fall of the shah?


----------



## Guest

Prior to Qaddafi's fall, the Lockerbie Pan Am bomber was up and about and appearing at events with his good friend, the Libyan dictator. Now that Qaddafi is persona non grata, suddenly Migrahi is on death's door, and in a coma. Of course, how hard is it to lay in a bed with an oxygen mask and pretend you are near death? And the grateful Transitional National Council has no plans to lock him up or turn him over to anybody. He is a convicted terrorist, and the "new" government in Libya is shielding him. So far, I'm not too impressed with the makeup of this new government in Libya. And it also makes me even more skeptical about the motives of the Scottish government that originally decided to release Migrahi - I typically don't buy into these oil company conspiracy stories, but it seems increasingly plausible.


----------



## Sid James

Dr Mike, I agree strongly with the gist of what you say in post #78. It is true that many dictators come to power with some degree of mandate for change, popular support, etc. but abuse that power after a while. Mao was the classic example, he started by reforming educations & feeding the people, etc. but not long after he became paranoid, started locking up opponents, & later the "cultural revolution" which was horrible. In terms of that, what we've had in China was evolution not revolution to change things, and it's mainly been economic change. The West criticises China for human rights abuses, but they're still happy to trade with them. So that you say in your post #80 that you're worried Libya post-Gaddafi may end up like Iran post- the Shah, I'm not sure about that, really. In Iran, the USA & other western powers were propping up the Shah, who many of the people hated. They wanted democracy under former leader Mossadegh, who was unseated by the Shah with USA support. Mossadegh, like Nassar of Egypt, wanted to nationalise infrastructure, esp. the petrol infrastructure/production. Big daddy USA & UK were not happy for this. So they intervened & installed the Shah, who repressed people. Of course, after him, the Islamic state has not been democratic, but neither was the Shah, really. So what I'm saying is that many of these countries have had little or no tradition of democracy. & it's not only thanks to internal politics (eg. the Islamists) but also to the West for doing certain things, in the post-colonial & cold war phase/eras. I think it's best to let these countries sort things out themselves in terms of their political future...


----------



## science

Islamic countries, just as the US, will always have fundamentalist politicians, and less principled politicians who cater to fundamentalists. But it's worth noticing, too, that Islamic fundamentalism has been hurt a lot by the democratic movements.


----------



## Ralfy

"Files: Americans aid Gaddafi in rebel fight"






"Western Oil Majors Will Get the First Crack at Libyan Oil Production"

http://moneymorning.com/2011/08/30/western-oil-majors-will-get-first-crack-at-libyan-oil-production/

"Divisions emerge among Libya's NATO-led 'rebels'"

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2011/aug2011/liby-a31.shtml


----------



## science

The Wall St. Journal looks at the documents from the last days of the Qaddafi regime in Tripoli. They're fascinating because they show how clueless it was.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904583204576544511584748244.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

------------

And of course, inevitably (though the author of this headline should be given a different responsibility):



> *Files Note Close C.I.A. Ties to Qaddafi Spy Unit*
> 
> TRIPOLI, Libya - Documents found at the abandoned office of Libya's former spymaster appear to provide new details of the close relations the Central Intelligence Agency shared with the Libyan intelligence service - most notably suggesting that the Americans sent terrorism suspects at least eight times for questioning in Libya despite that country's reputation for torture.


Not "despite." Rather, "because of." More at the NYT: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/03/world/africa/03libya.html?_r=1&hp


----------



## Ralfy

"Rebel military chief says he was tortured by CIA"

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...hief-says-he-was-tortured-by-cia-2347912.html


----------



## Almaviva

Oh well, what's the point of these threads without Dr.Mike?


----------



## science

You can argue with me if you want!

Regardless, here's an article on Turkey - Israel relations. Basic stuff, but good to know about.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...urkey-sever-ties-over-gaza-flotilla-raid.html

Not precisely about Libya, but as important for the big picture in the Middle East. IMO, Israel is in big trouble long-term, and the revolutions in Egypt and Libya won't help them at all. Turkey's turning against them only leaves them even more isolated. I suspect that in a decade or two there will be a mass "exodus" of Jews from Israel to places like North America, where they'll be more welcome. I could also imagine the GOP trying to capitalize on that, if it hasn't changed too much by then.... But I think it'll be a very different party within a decade.

Everyone, feel free to post articles! I might not read highly opinionated pieces, but I'd love to see the articles that influence your thinking and discuss them.


----------



## Almaviva

I think Israel will eventually run into big trouble as the technological gap is narrowed by Arab states acquiring nuclear weapons.
I wouldn't bet on Israel's survival in the long run.


----------



## science

Almaviva said:


> I think Israel will eventually run into big trouble as the technological gap is narrowed by Arab states acquiring nuclear weapons.
> I wouldn't bet on Israel's survival in the long run.


Yup. Bound to happen eventually.

The Jews also have a demographic problem _within_ Israel, as Israeli Arabs (being much poorer) are having many more children. Another generation or two of that and they won't be able to win elections.


----------



## Almaviva

science said:


> Yup. Bound to happen eventually.
> 
> The Jews also have a demographic problem _within_ Israel, as Israeli Arabs (being much poorer) are having many more children. Another generation or two of that and they won't be able to win elections.


This bad? What is the percentage of the population who are Israeli citizens with voting rights, but Arabs?


----------



## science

Almaviva said:


> This bad? What is the percentage of the population who are Israeli citizens with voting rights, but Arabs?


Actually - I didn't know this until just now - over the last decade or so (since the problem got a lot of media attention) the birthrate among Israeli Jews has gone up, and among Israeli Arabs it is falling, so that for now at least the ratio is stable.

That's some good news for the Jews if it holds up.


----------



## Ralfy

"Meet Professor Juan Cole, Consultant to the CIA"

http://www.counterpunch.org/2011/08/30/meet-professor-juan-cole-consultant-to-the-cia/


----------



## Ralfy

"Devastating secret files reveal Labour lies over Gaddafi: Dictator warned of holy war if Lockerbie bomber Megrahi died in Scotland"

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...i--warned-holy-war-Megrahi-died-Scotland.html


----------



## Almaviva

Ralfy said:


> "Devastating secret files reveal Labour lies over Gaddafi: Dictator warned of holy war if Lockerbie bomber Megrahi died in Scotland"
> 
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...i--warned-holy-war-Megrahi-died-Scotland.html


Wow, this looks really damaging, but is the source reliable? The Daily Mail? I'm not being sarcastic, honest question.


----------



## graaf

And people think it is to be understood figuratively when it is said that corporate TV stations work as Hollywood:
*Al Jazeera's fake Green Square*
http://stopwarcrimes.wordpress.com/2011/08/22/al-jazeeras-fake-green-square/
for those who have missed the movie about it:


----------



## science

Almaviva said:


> Wow, this looks really damaging, but is the source reliable? The Daily Mail? I'm not being sarcastic, honest question.


Certainly _looks_ shady, doesn't it?


----------



## Ralfy

"Labour Gaddafi links were 'right'"

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23984707-labour-gaddafi-links-were-right.do


----------



## graaf

Gadhafi's Ukrainian nurse talks about life with 'Daddy'
http://edition.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/europe/09/03/ukraine.gadhafi.nurse/index.html


> "If it were not for Gadhafi, who else would have built it?" she said. "It was he who constructed it. He has transferred Libyans from camelbacks into cars."





> "None of us had ever been one on one with him," she said. "There wasn't even a single room in his household where we could have possibly been left alone with him." That's why she was shocked by the gossip that Gadhafi had sexual relationships with his foreign nurses.


----------



## Almaviva

graaf said:


> Gadhafi's Ukrainian nurse talks about life with 'Daddy'
> http://edition.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/europe/09/03/ukraine.gadhafi.nurse/index.html


Where exactly are you going with this, graaf? I'm just curious. I won't assume anything about your intention when posting this, it could be as simple as sharing a curious piece of information. So I'm not assuming, but I'm asking.

Does this mean that Gadhafi is being unfairly treated by the international media and Westerners have been spreading lies about him to justify an invasion that would be some sort of oil-grab?

Because I certainly don't infer from the fact that he did not sexually abuse his attractive nurse any notion that he is a good man who wasn't behind terrorist acts that brought down a plane full of innocent civilians or ordered the massacre of many civilians who were protesting against his regime.

So this naive young woman who only knew two realities in her life - Ukraine where she made $125 per month, and Libya where she had a luxurious and secluded life - thinks that Gadhafi took people from camelbacks into cars - well, he certainly did that for his friends, because for his enemies, he took them from camelbacks into the grave.


----------



## Ralfy

"NATO's client regime in Libya confronts divisions as military offensives stall"

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2011/sep2011/liby-s15.shtml


----------



## science

So - 

The Palestinians are probably going to get the UN votes for statehood, and the US (Obama) is going to veto it. 

Opinions?


----------



## Almaviva

science said:


> So -
> 
> The Palestinians are probably going to get the UN votes for statehood, and the US (Obama) is going to veto it.
> 
> Opinions?


It's hard to have an opinion on such a messy situation.


----------



## science

Almaviva said:


> It's hard to have an opinion on such a messy situation.


I agree. There's so much to consider.

I understand that no US president is going to let it happen until the politics of the US changes, making the Arab/Muslim votes and lobby more powerful than the Jewish votes and lobby. (And even if that happens, there's still the Evangelical Christians.) But I think that in this case, it's unfortunate. Still, on balance I am for Palestinian statehood, and now is as good a time as any. Obama is going to disappoint the Arab world as much as he has disappointed American liberals.

Interestingly, when we (I am a US citizen) use our veto, there could be huge protests in various countries and it could amount to another step for the Arab Spring, especially in Saudi Arabia. (Though SA's state media would probably try to suppress the news, al-Jazeera will report it.) But it seems like it could also be a step backwards in Syria and Iran, two states whose governments derive a large part of their legitimacy from their apparent (not actually substantial) resistance to Israel and the US.


----------



## graaf

Almaviva said:


> Where exactly are you going with this, graaf? I'm just curious. I won't assume anything about your intention when posting this, it could be as simple as sharing a curious piece of information. So I'm not assuming, but I'm asking.


For me, it shows that he only way corporate media is going to show "the other side of the story" is when it comes to a non-issue.


Almaviva said:


> So this naive young woman who only knew two realities in her life - Ukraine where she made $125 per month, and Libya where she had a luxurious and secluded life - thinks that Gadhafi took people from camelbacks into cars - well, he certainly did that for his friends, because for his enemies, he took them from camelbacks into the grave.


She was naive for witnessing something, and you are not naive for believing a staged fake reporting? About cars for his friends - I guess that means that he must have had _millions_ of friends, must have been hard to remember them all...


Almaviva said:


> Does this mean that Gadhafi is being unfairly treated by the international media and Westerners have been spreading lies about him to justify an invasion that would be some sort of oil-grab?


Alma, please don't be offended, but questions like these, coming from an educated person, is what I would call voluntary naivety. Do you believe me that I was honestly surprised (rather slightly shocked) when I saw that you are actually not sure that media would lie in the interest of US foreign policy? (i.e. things like imperialism, domination, installing puppet states and such) Well, at least now I know I can put this thread to rest. With a song, of course:


----------



## Ukko

Damn near every post in this thread runs on one oblique or another. Not an unbiased opinion in the bunch (except for mine of course).


----------



## Almaviva

graaf said:


> For me, it shows that he only way corporate media is going to show "the other side of the story" is when it comes to a non-issue.
> 
> She was naive for witnessing something, and you are not naive for believing a staged fake reporting? About cars for his friends - I guess that means that he must have had _millions_ of friends, must have been hard to remember them all...
> 
> Alma, please don't be offended, but questions like these, coming from an educated person, is what I would call voluntary naivety. Do you believe me that I was honestly surprised (rather slightly shocked) when I saw that you are actually not sure that media would lie in the interest of US foreign policy? (i.e. things like imperialism, domination, installing puppet states and such) Well, at least now I know I can put this thread to rest. With a song, of course:


Graaf, I'm really appalled. So against all evidence of Gadhafi's sponsorship of terrorism (have you ever heard of a certain airplane in Scotland?) and his firing on his own people, you put a naive nurse who wasn't sexually abused by him (big deal) and suddenly he's a nice guy? And *I'm* the one being naive here? OK, pal...

The "cars for his friends, grave for his enemies" was a figure of speech. I don't really think that literally every car owner in Libya is a friend of Gadhafi's. If that's the way you'll counter what I'm saying, then it will be hard to exchange views on this.

Who says I'm believing in any kind of report about Tripoli and the Green Square? Where did you get *that* from, concerning me? Don't put words in my mouth. There were several instances of fake reports - like the rebels having arrested Gadhafi's son - which were obviously meant to discourage resistance. Still, this doesn't change the *fact* that the rebels have won in Libya. These are called war tactics, using misinformation to advance a cause. Similarly, Gadhafi had international journalists tour safe areas to show that he was still in control. Yes, right. That worked.

You think otherwise? So please show me how is Gadhafi still in control?


----------



## graaf

* Gadhafi is not a nice guy. But that does not mean anything to global policy. His obedience/disobedience is all that matters. Not his treatment of his people.
* Rebels didn't win. For god's sake, how could they possibly - there's only 1000 of them. NATO won.
* Did that plane over Scotland carry 50.000 people? Because that many civilians died in this war in Libya. War fought by NATO, not 1000 Arab equivalents of ********.
* I said that nurse's testimony is just a case of reporting other side of story only about irrelevant things. So, irrelevant things. Irrelevant is the word. So it does not mean that Gadhafi is good guy - don't put words in my mouth.


----------



## Almaviva

graaf said:


> * Gadhafi is not a nice guy. But that does not mean anything to global policy. His obedience/disobedience is all that matters. Not his treatment of his people.
> * Rebels didn't win. For god's sake, how could they possibly - there's only 1000 of them. NATO won.
> * Did that plane over Scotland carry 50.000 people? Because that many civilians died in this war in Libya. War fought by NATO, not 1000 Arab equivalents of ********.
> * I said that nurse's testimony is just a case of reporting other side of story only about irrelevant things. So, irrelevant things. Irrelevant is the word. So it does not mean that Gadhafi is good guy - don't put words in my mouth.


He wasn't showing any signs of disobedience when he started firing on his own people.
The NATO intervention was because Gadhafi became too unstable and lost legitimacy. The international community didn't want a madman with a crumbling grip to power in charge any longer.
Rebels won, with NATO's support. Where did you get this 1,000 number?? Do you think the new Libyan government represents only 1,000 people???
The locals asked for NATO's support. In Syria where the locals specifically asked for no foreign intervention, there wasn't one.
50,000 people? Can you please tell me how many of these were killed by Gadhafi's mercenaries, how many of them died fighting for what they wanted and believed, and how many of them were killed by NATO bombardment?
You need to realize that as much as Western media may paint things rosy, the other side may also exaggerate these figures. 50,000, huh?
Well, about putting words in your mouth, at least I asked, while you said this: 
"and you are not naive for believing a staged fake reporting?"
Please kindly quote in what post of mine I said anything about believing in this staged fake reporting. Provide a link, please.
Oh, and by the way, kindly provide a link as well to when I supposedly said that I don't think that the media lies in the interest of US policy, like you said here:
"you are actually not sure that media would lie in the interest of US foreign policy?"
For someone who are saying I'm putting words in your mouth, you're doing a lot of it yourself, aren't you?
Anyway, I don't want to engage in a shouting match with you. It's bad example. So I'm signing out of this thread.


----------



## Ralfy

science said:


> So -
> 
> The Palestinians are probably going to get the UN votes for statehood, and the US (Obama) is going to veto it.
> 
> Opinions?


Probably worth noting:

"US risks being 'toxic' over Palestinian veto: Saudi prince"

http://news.yahoo.com/us-risks-being-toxic-over-palestinian-veto-saudi-172657205.html


----------



## Ralfy

"NATO steps up bombing, killing hundreds, as Libyan 'rebel' offensive stalls"

http://wsws.org/articles/2011/sep2011/liby-s19.shtml


----------



## science

Hilltroll72 said:


> Damn near every post in this thread runs on one oblique or another. Not an unbiased opinion in the bunch (except for mine of course).


Bias itself doesn't matter to me. Bias only bothers me when it renders me unable to find truth - and then it's not the bias but the error that is immoral.


----------



## Sid James

Gaddafi is dead - it cost the rebels of the Libyan uprising thousands of lives, but now yet another dictator has finally bitten the dust...


----------



## graaf

Sid James said:


> Gaddafi is dead - it cost the rebels of the Libyan uprising thousands of lives, but now yet another dictator has finally bitten the dust...


... and the rest can continue to shoot their own people, as long as they obbey to the US.


----------



## Sid James

I haven't got time now to watch those clips in full, but I take your point. However, I think that Noam Chomsky can be inflammatory and biased. He did a tour here in Australia decades ago and called a number of our leading academics who happened to disagree with him "Stalinists" or something of the sort. I don't think that's actually a mark of a good academic, to just call people names if they disagree with you. You have to make a well reasoned argument not just sling mudballs at people who are not taking what you say as the gospel...


----------



## science

Chomsky is the left's equivalent to Limbaugh or Beck - if only the latter were marginalized as successfully as the former! 

They all make good points fairly often, but it's as if on accident, since their goal is not to find truth and promote justice, but to promote their worldview and find justifications for it.


----------



## Sid James

^I largely agree. I have friends who love Chomsky, read his books, he was like a faddish "in" thing, esp. among the left, 5-10 years back. Now he's kind of seen as a dinosaur, by those in the centre at least. I don't know about Beck but I've heard about Rush Limbaugh. To be fair, Chomsky is an intellectual, he has firm academic credentials (doesn't he?), he's not just a hack journalist, but at the same time, he says some things as fact or gospel, and clearly if you can think a bit you can see that they aren't, he's got his own ideology just like the next guy, as you suggest...

[EDIT - Chomsky was just in Australia recently, he did a conference in the last few days, but I think he's left on the jet to his next "destination?"]...


----------



## graaf

Sid James said:


> I haven't got time now to watch those clips in full, but I take your point. However, I think that Noam Chomsky can be inflammatory and biased. He did a tour here in Australia decades ago and called a number of our leading academics who happened to disagree with him "Stalinists" or something of the sort. I don't think that's actually a mark of a good academic, to just call people names if they disagree with you. You have to make a well reasoned argument not just sling mudballs at people who are not taking what you say as the gospel...


I have trouble imagining his as being inflammatory, but I guess anything is possible. Usually his quotes are taken out of the context and with a spin. So, to check it out, I googled Australia Chomsky Stalin, and found the context of what you were talking about: he said that US found a way to use Vietnam's attack on Cambodia to promote its own interests:

_Chomsky analyses East Timor in comparison to Cambodia, and shifting government alliances.

"Cambodia was a useful atrocity, it was ideologically serviceable versus one ideologically dysfunctional. When Vietnam invaded Cambodia, they became the bad guys. Holbrook mentioned in an early 1980s congressional record that we must support DK, Democratic Kampuchea, because of its continuity with the Pol Pot regime. Unfortunately the East Timorese forces can't claim such credibility."

Another journalist suggests that Chomsky is known as a "Khmer Rouge defender." Chomsky is quick in replying. "Stalin would have been proud of such a lie. It shows the nature of the Western intellectual community. They should tell the truth and not just serve the State."_

So, it takes a few minutes of googling to see that his words were twisted 180 degrees - something everybody would rightly characterize as Stalinist lie. In Soviet Russia, war is peace, slavery is freedom, and you said the opposite of what you said... 

Another example: he says he is anarchist. Context: He describes anarchism as skeptical attitude towards authority and oppression, in the sense that any oppression has burden of proof. So, he does not say that we should abolish all institutions and live in hordes.


----------



## Ralfy

Chomsky gets it right in general, especially in terms of blowback and U.S. foreign policies. For those who want to see the same arguments raised in a "non-leftist" work, see Chalmers Johnson's _Blowback_.

Beck and Limbaugh, on the other hand, are not the right's equivalent of Chomsky. Instead, one should choose an intellectual from the right who will, say, debunk what Chomsky and Johnson wrote (impossible, as the U.S. and many other sources have been confirming what they wrote for the last few decades) or justify U.S. actions under the rubric of, say, _realpolitik_.

Meanwhile, from Aug. 31st:

"Secret files: US officials aided Gaddafi"

http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/features/2011/08/2011831151258728747.html


----------



## Sid James

I agree with Graaf that Chomsky was right in that conversation, in terms of the wrongs of the USA's "bleeding Vietnam" policies of the past. But I remember reading what he said to other academics at a conference at a university here, something like that, he didn't only call those journalists Stalinists, but other academics here as well. I don't like how he seems to react badly with one inch of a criticism of his opinions/views, whether they be right or wrong. I remember someone here writing in the press about one of Chomsky's books, that some of his sources were pretty dubious (eg. towards the biased side, or controversial in terms of their interpretation of history/events, etc.). Maybe that critic was also a "Stalinist" according to Chomsky? Anyway, I'm not discounting what Chomsky says entirely, I just think he's a bit of the relic of the Cold War...


----------



## Ralfy

"BBC report - Libyan rebels to establish Sharia law"

http://www.examiner.com/religion-po...-report-libyan-rebels-to-establish-sharia-law


----------



## Igneous01

to me this feels like: 1 dictator falls, another rises. Maybe this time it will be masked with demoracy


----------



## Guest

As I have said before, I think it is good when dictators get their comeuppance, but I am not a knee-jerk democracy fan. I support the rise of LIBERAL democracy, not just democracy. The kind of democracy where your political rights end where they start to trample on the rights of others.


----------



## graaf

Igneous01 said:


> to me this feels like: 1 dictator falls, another rises. Maybe this time it will be masked with demoracy


I don't think it will be masked, I just think it might gradually lose publicity. Also, I don't think North Africa can all over a sudden become democratic, I'd say it is gradual and slow process, over many generations. We easily forget (if we ever knew) that even for modern democratic countries it took a lot of time to become truly democratic, to have actual rule of law and all the rest of it...


----------



## science

The truly necessary thing is a large and powerful middle class, in which the wealth and thus the power is not concentrated in a tiny minority at the top. I doubt that condition exists in Libya. Of course we will blame the people when some new oligarch establishes his power, but we do not blame ourselves as that is taking place in our own countries. Well, anyway, whatever makes us feel good I guess.


----------



## Igneous01

science said:


> The truly necessary thing is a large and powerful middle class, in which the wealth and thus the power is not concentrated in a tiny minority at the top. I doubt that condition exists in Libya. Of course we will blame the people when some new oligarch establishes his power, but we do not blame ourselves as that is taking place in our own countries. Well, anyway, whatever makes us feel good I guess.


quite right, usually people will always point fingers at someone else about their problems. But lets face it, people cant self govern themselves or their actions, and so they will always accept someone to do that for them, whether his intentions are good or not. I guess its something we have learned to deal with, but I wouldn't claim it being healthy.


----------



## Sid James

Well democracy is indeed flawed, but it's the best thing we have for rule over the many by a few -

"Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." (Winston Churchill, from a House of Commons speech on Nov. 11, 1947)


----------

