Almost Dawn in Libya: Chris & Tim, Heading Home

Of course, only those who support the war are entitled to make pronouncements of fact based on pure speculation.

I have been a faithful reader of the Arab Spring revolutions in the threads first started by Catherina.

My last posts of a handful of posts were that the USA/NATO plan would likely cause more death and destruction by intervention.

Now NATO is looking at putting troops on the ground and there is little doubt that we had been influencing the "rebels" prior to the uprising. Qadaffi had been somewhat rehabbed since becoming a willing participant in the War on Terror (TM) since 2003. Now there is a much more distruction, more deaths, and a stalement or additional commitment to bring the situation to a close. The fact that France, UK, and USA have made statements as to regime change has ascerbated the need for violence.

Each of these nations are different.

Egypt and Mubarak were a client state of the USA and our militaries are likely still close and Mubarak corrupt.

Yemen is a client state of the USA and Saudi Arabia who have backed Saleh. The USA has had an FOL on Yemen's Socotra Island at the mouth of the Red Sea. In January 2010 General Petreaus made an agreement with Yemen where the facilty would be upgraded to a full Navy and Air Force base similar to the former Camp Lemonnier in Djibouti.

Bahrain is one of Gulf Cooperation States (UAE, Qatar, Bahrain, Saudi, Dubai, and Kuwait) that is Sunni ruled with 2nd class Shites that in some cases (like Bahrain and non GCC Syria) they are a substantial majority, similar to the situation in the former Iraq (Sunni minority ruled). Saudi sent troops to maintain the status quo in Bahrain. Bahrain just happens to be the home port for the USA's 5th Fleet.

Syria (not an ally of the USA) also is having protests and deaths of protesters. Libya unlike Egypt and the GCC nations but like Syria does not have a military to military relationship like the USA and Egypt nor does Syria have the oil resources or important shipping lane of the Suez and Red Sea.

Saudi Arabia can send troops to Bahrain and put down its own Shite rebellion with little attention.

My point is that intervention in Libya has caused and will cause more death and distruction because of the USA/NATO intervention and Qadaffi may be far from gone. The West encouraged and then kicked a hornet's nest and now have a problem of major mission creep.

Gaddafi has been responsible for 10,000 Libyan deaths, some 20,000 have disappeared, and many more have been wounded. Thousands have fled to Tunisia, Egypt and Europe. Gaddafi has bombed water supplies, poisoned water supplies, bombed sewage plants, milk factories, food supplies, etc.

NATO has NOT made it worse - they stopped the flattening of Misrata. They should have done better, and are probably going to do better in the future.

Not one journalist, despite many failed efforts by the Libyan authorities, has been shown any civilian casualties caused by NATO. Not one. If you could disprove this, I would be happy to read anything that does.

You are extremely naive not to believe that there not agents of the USA and NATO already on the ground before the protests started.

One could argue that NATO increased the flattening of Misrata.

The UN was about protecting civilians. More have died on both sides and more will die than if the initual situation had run its course. Gadaffi would have been gone with time regardless.

The USA/NATO in calling for regime change exceded the soft UN support and mission creep began immediately.

Gadaffi can hold out a long time against the "rebels" withput more intervention, death, and distruction.

Its not like the USA has a consitent policy in the region regards to Bahrain, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, and the other Arab allies of the Persion Gulf (Gulf Cooperation Council is Qatar, Kuwait, Dubai, UAE, Bahrain, and Saudi); none of which are democracies but Sunni dictatorships.

They have been there since before the UN bombing started.

I repeat, there will be no boots on the ground - meaning there will be no occupation.

(Please do not use ad hominem in your arguments, because it invalidates anything further that you say.)

Now lets get down to facts:

"One could argue that NATO increased the flattening of Misrata." - please explain because I do not have access to the facts that would lead to that conclusion.

"More have died on both sides and more will die than if the initual situation had run its course." Once again please provide solid, hard, verifiable facts that would lead to that conclusion.

"Gadaffi would have been gone with time regardless." Why? how? what about his sons?

"Gadaffi can hold out a long time against the "rebels" withput more intervention, death, and distruction" Gaddafi, without intervention, would kill all his opponents as he has done for the past 42 years. And, Gaddafi has done the bulk of the destruction and killing.

"Its not like the USA has a consitent policy in the region regards to Bahrain, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, and the other Arab allies of the Persion Gulf (Gulf Cooperation Council is Qatar, Kuwait, Dubai, UAE, Bahrain, and Saudi); none of which are democracies but Sunni dictatorships."

No, and there is no reason for the US to have a consistent policy because they are all different.

The Libyans used Tunisia and Egypt as their models - it failed, because Gaqddafi is not Mubarak and there are no similar WikiLeaks releases that resulted in the Tunisian leader stepping down. Those countries are not little boxes, all the same - hence dealing with them would not all be the same.

And for an intelligent and mature discussion of the Libyan situation, please read this column by NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF,
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/03/opinion/03kristof.html

Everything you wrote is your opinion with not the slightest hint of any facts to back up any of it. Not persuasive in the least.

I was trying to be kind.

Kristoff's claim that lives have been saved is open to question.

Suggesting that what I wrote is not "intelligent nor mature" nor "the slightests hints of any facts" seems sort of ad hominum to me.

The arguments I made are that:

1) Libya is a unique situation; the West had sort of embraced Qadaffi since the WOT and 2003.
2) The intervention was likely to cause more death and destruction than letting the situation play out normally (where Gadaffi may likely have retained power but the situation with Gadaffi in control was only a matter of time as Libya is relatively westernized for Africa and Arab already.
3). You admit the troops on the ground; all I say is that IMHO serious boots will be required to remove Gadaffi now -- regime change -- that was not part of a soft UN and OAS approval.

I pointed out why Egypt was not a good model and several other inconsistent middle east actions. I did not mention Tunisia because I do not understand the situation but support the Tunisian people and the ousting of Ali.

Who cares about being persuasive?

I gave a different view than yours with facts that can be verified and hypocracies in USA policy.

Admittedly, I am strongly anti-war. Those with more tendency to violence have fed the Beast including Qadaffi and loyalists and rebels.

Peace.

I did not suggest that what you wrote is not "intelligent nor mature". The word "you" was never used in that context.
Of the many articles, I have read I was struck by Kristof's article, and thought it intelligent and mature.
In fact, when I first posted the link to that article some time ago, that is what I said, but in probably different words.

As far as Libya is concerned, Bush tried diplomacy with Libya instead of invading the country. Many people crowed about how it had worked better than war, which, btw, I too dislike. I hated the Iraq war. There are tyrants in the world - how does one deal with them - go to war (no), rehabilitate them (it seemed to be working with Gaddafi because a lot of bad weapons were destroyed/removed, but he is still a bastard), ignore them, like Rwanda, apply sanctions in South Africa and hope for the wisdom of one individual to avoid civil war?

It is an extremely difficult choice to make, and each country is different.

My personal opinion, which may well be wrong, is that the entire north of Africa would be far better off without Gaddafi. And, a hero of mine, Desmond Tutu also supports the war because he knows what Gaddafi is.

What is odd to me, is that people objected to the Iraq war (as I did) because of the destruction of life, but do not object to what Gaddafi is doing. To me, it seems hypocritical.

that Obama and the gang did a wonderful thing by intervening in a humanitarian crisis.

And that premise is false.

This whole situation has been manipulated by us, by France and by the Brits. There have been intel people from the UK and the US on the ground the entire time. A council full of middle class expats sprang up out of nowhere, not organically as it is in Egypt. It looks much more like they lit the fire so they could call in the fire department.

Sorry, I've already seen this movie and Kristof is wrong again.

The only implication is that Gaddafi would've simply put down any rebellion and peace and love and joy would be had. That is, it is better that Gaddafi ride in to Benghazi than it is for anyone to stop Gaddafi from riding in to Benghazi.

"Gaddafi has been responsible for 10,000 Libyan deaths, some 20,000 have disappeared"

of people fighting Gaddafi are asking for troops. NATO has put them in the stupidest, most no-win situation possible.

to read the CVs. One of those people had an advanced degree in "privatisation" listed. It was probably just a bad translation but, there it was. lol

is one of the worst offenders when it comes to ginning up this war.

He's the one that wrote up the cluster bomb story but missed, for some reason, that the rebels are using mines.

Libya conflict: Rebels accused of reneging on mines vow
19 April 2011 Last updated at 17:32 ET

By Stuart Hughes BBC News

Human rights campaigners have accused rebels in Libya of failing to honour a pledge not to use land-mines in their fight against Muammar Gaddafi.

The BBC filmed rebels planting anti-vehicle mines near the key town of Ajdabiya at the weekend.

Human Rights Watch researchers said mines had been laid despite rebel assurances they would not be used.

The organisation has already gathered evidence of use of mines and cluster munitions by Col Gaddafi's forces.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-13138102

He's bucking to be the John Burns of Libya reporting.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/blog/2011/apr/20/libya-middle-east-syria-gaddafi-misrata#block-7

It happened in one day, after the cluster bomb story. This is really disgusting how you're trying to portray it.

Where are all the families and friends of those 20,000 people? Why aren't they flooding the social networks?

Good grief. If I open an account and start making up shit about Gaddafi on twitter, I fully expect to see it posted here.

...because no solid reports were coming out. It took months to determine the extent to which the toll was in Bosnia, and it will take months here in Libya when all is said and done. You have people dying in the hospital and you have people dying in the street, some of those people are just buried the same day, never tallied.

The number by the TNC is an estimate. I don't know how good of an estimate it is. Misrata has undergone about 10-15 deaths a day in recent weeks (on average), so it places it around the same or twice as bad as the Siege of Sarajevo.

WHO and IFHR put the deaths between 2000 and 3000 respectively, but that was back in early March, long before things escalated to the point that they have, you will not get reliable numbers for awhile yet. A lack of reliable numbers is not the same fucking thing as no deaths happening.

This is so similar to all of the Stalin-era arguments for no deaths by the party it's sickening.

funny also that you & your friends, who seem to be available 24/7 to respond to every post that questions the standard storyline on libya, have no yet responded to the human rights watch claim that there are no foreign mercenaries in eastern libya, contra the standard storyline.

is it because you can't claim hrw is a stalinist mouthpiece?

I believe that we do have evidence for paid mercenaries, I also believe that migrants are being forced to fight. The extent at which it goes remains to be seen.

Not one journalist, despite many failed efforts by the Libyan authorities, has been shown any civilian casualties caused by NATO. Not one. If you could disprove this, I would be happy to read anything that does.

A coalition air strike has killed seven civilians and injured 25 injured, according to a doctor working with rebel forces

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8422271/Libya-coalition-air-strike-kills-seven-civilians.html

:wtf:

Without interdiction from the air, much more firepower would have been brought to bear on Misrata. Had the relief column for Benghazi not been attacked, things probably would have gone very badly very quickly there, too, further eroding morale in Misrata.

I seriously think that, had we not intervened, the revolution would be over by now, and probably for quite some time. Surely it wasn't that cryptic, was it?

It is possible he would not have been able to get in there because the port would've been retaken.

But Misrata would still be in the same state it is in now.

but it's worth a try.

My postulating about events had they gone another way are generally mitigated with the admission that they're merely drawn from the causation of reality and similar situations, as opposed to being gospel.

Those who deal in FUTURE FACTS are still stacking the tens of thousands--for some, even HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS--of REAL bodies (in their minds) and using them to offset the very real dead and maimed of this ongoing mess. Those who are all ga-ga with their war pom-poms seek to simultaneously pat themselves on the back for being more emotionally deep, and that's quite a stretch for those who took skewed reports and blatant propaganda as justification for stomping into a complex and private affair.

You don't know what Misrata would be like right now. It could have fallen immediately upon a rout at Benghazi, sustaining little additional damage, or it may have been flattened and be much more of a smoking ruin. I don't know this either. I do know that MUCH more firepower would have been brought to bear if the loyalists hadn't had to hide their weapons and have some destroyed, and human nature tells us that morale would also sink if the rest of the rebellion was caving in.

Yes, had they not been able to get there, as you suggest, they might still be alive.

Regardless, this is all speculation, but for those who are pro-war, there should be some responsibility taken for bloodshed continuing almost 5 weeks into this "matter of days". The subtext here is that we are to feel deeply for the person starting this thread and sustain her emotional pain, while correspondingly being outraged at those who differ. That is bent double and offensive.

I asked you what the intervention has done that could've changed the outcome in Misrata. You can't provide hard facts so you just write long screeds. Outside of several humanitarian shipments and the destruction of a handful of tanks, Misrata is unchanged.

But I agree, Gaddafi should be made to take full responsibility for the crimes against humanity he has committed.

I have said no such thing. Please show me where I have. Do you not listen at all? It seems very obvious that you skew very mitigated statements to inflame casual readers.

Not only have I not said that flat out, I have been very careful to use words like "probably" and other qualifiers. You have done this more than once now, and it is underhanded to say the least.

The whole premise of that last post was that my predictions are offered with a consistently more measured tone, instead of the grandiose pronouncements of those who demand moral superiority for defending this aggression.

This is a serious abuse of rhetoric on this board, and I once again specifically request a retraction. Please retract that misrepresentation.

As for the rest of you casual readers, please take note of this tactic: to put words in the mouths of those who differ, use quotation marks to make it seem real and put it in subject lines to mislead others.

I don't like using "alert"; it's a craven act for those who want others to give them an edge in an argument, but this certainly warrants it.

(edited for punctuation only)

You think they would "probably still be alive" on the "premise that the revolt would have been put down by now" while ignoring real facts like the level of NATO intervention in Misrata and the historical nature of urban warfare. There is no evidence Gaddafi would've "put down" any revolt in Misrata. None. Your "probably" is predicated on 'facts' that don't fucking exist.

The use of quotation marks around the word 'facts' is to make it seem that I'm lying by making a specific statement that you then put in quotation marks. That is a pathetic attempt to cover. This is just grotesque.

Now you're running for cover and making it seem like a double insult is a double negative.

The translation of your sneering is that I'm presenting falsehoods as 'facts', and the following is an attempt to have people believe I've actually said specifically what is in quotation marks to follow.

Considering how the loyalists are doing without the ability to deploy serious firepower, there's plenty of room to infer that they'd be doing much better than they are at this point. Factor in morale after they would have heard of the troubles in Benghazi, and it's significant.

Mods, please leave this so its stench may linger. Thanks in advance.

Now your ignorance is just showing.

They were war correspondents. There are many other wars where they could have died.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x932019#932674

It was just fate, possibly if they had gotten up 30 mins earlier or 30 mins later, they would not have been where the rpg hit.

One could argue that they wouldn't have been able to because Gaddafi would've closed it up like he did, eg, Az Zawiya, but we saw the news crews get in to Ajdabiya when it was still Gaddafi-controlled, and so, it seems plausible these guys would've still been in Misrata.

The suggestion that the journalists might not have died in Misrata absent the intervention seems to be based on the conclusion that the opposition quickly would have crumbled before Gaddafi's forces.

It's possible that that could have been true in the East. But in Misrata, the only city still holding out in the West (for seven weeks, now), that's a very dubious proposition. Victory in the East may have allowed Gaddfafi to deploy more forces against Misrata, but that third-largest city in Libya, is very spread out, and pouring more artillery and Grad rockets and mortar fire into it would be unlikely to be decisive. It would just kill and maim more civilians.

Putting more tanks into Misrata would not improve the position of Gaddafi's forces much, because armor is at a distinct disadvantage in the urban combat environment--where, again, bands of ragtag rebel fighters have managed to destroy or disable Gaddafi's tanks.

Suggesting that these journalists would not have died, absent the intervention, is blatant spin. If you demand intellectual honesty from those who disagree with you, you have to practice it yourself.

And it should be noted that many who generally are anti-war support the Libyan revolution. So thinking of those who disagree with you as warmongers is particularly unhelpful. Calling them "pro-war" goes too far.

Love & Peace,
pinboy3niner

What it looks like is DC trading the Saudis Libya for handling Bahrain.

And when I look around, no, my antiwar friends do not support it.

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

The action is sure to create more deaths and damage IMHO.

Thanks for posting this, Tabatha.


:yourock:

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

WMD?

where?

Maybe, my dear, you should take a trip to Misrata to see with your own eyes. But, that may fail, because journalists are apt to be disappeared by Gaddafi. Four of them have been missing for 17 days - I guess that is an incubation of some kind.

and both Hilary and Obama supported that coup regime. They are still, today, at risk from the regime.

Gee, I wonder what the difference could possibly be.

http://en.rsf.org/report-honduras,182.html

The coupsters started kidnapping reporters, torturing them, and throwing them out on the highway as a warning to the whole profession. Then, they started killing them. It hasn't stopped yet.

Obama and Clinton turned a blind eye, at best.

Clinton says U.S. aid to resume to Honduras

pdated 3/4/2010 5:29:30 PM ET 2010-03-04T22:29:30

SAN JOSE, Costa Rica — U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said Thursday the Obama administration will resume aid to Honduras that was suspended after a coup last year and urged Latin American nations to recognize the new Honduran government.

Clinton said the Honduran government that took office in January was democratically elected, was reconciling the population split by last June's coup and deserved normal relations with countries that cut ties after the ouster of the former president.

"We think that Honduras has taken important and necessary steps that deserve the recognition and the normalization of relations," she told a news conference on the sidelines of a meeting of regional officials in Costa Rica.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35714555/ns/world_news-americas/

Interesting, that.

Probably because Venezuela has more killings than fucking all of Libya during this entire conflict, worse than Iraq, even.

I do not agree with the path for transition.

Neither do I see a quick resolution withoput putting feet on the ground for regime change.

Regime change IMHO is inevitable. The form and style of the USA/NATO intervention will cause more damage and death and long term repurcussions.

Gadaffi had pretty much been a friend of the West since 2003. Where was the outrage then?

I would like Libya to have a more robust democracy than we currently experience in the USA.

Where did Catherina go and why Josh?

...decided to throw the rebels under the bus under baseless insinuations and illogical conclusions from everything to oil conspiracies, to CIA conspiracies, and expat conspiracies. The reality of rebellions is that when they're fighting like this the fighters themselves tend to narrow shit down. For the Ivory Coast it was to oust Laurent Gbagbo. The French have had a lot of economic agreements with the Ivory Coast, but no one here denounced the UN actions there, no one here denounced the French riding in with tanks to Laurent Gbagbo's bunker.

For the rebels it is about one general idea; freedom and the ousting of Gaddafi.

The Ivory Coast was afforded that (the ouster of Gbagbo, the recognition of their voice) without "leftists" throwing the Ivoirians' under the bus. You can find the same vile postings on the internet about the Ivory Coast people, but of course, half of them are coming from right wingers who wanted the Christian to stay in charge there.

We agree that Gadaffi should go and Libya be a robust (and probably agree pro-west and secular too) democracy.

Catherina was knowledgable and dedicated and IMHO without much bias.

My perception is that Catherina knew the area and issues and supported peaceful revolutions.

Gbagbo lost an election and treid to hold position by violence.

The USA and former colonial NATO nations interferred in an uprising that was not "ripe" nor capable. Now more will be killed and more damage will occur.

I am well aware of the ugly of American evangelical christianity in Africa.

Libya is much more important to the EU and NATO than the Ivory Coast.

The biggest difference is that Gaddafi has way more firepower (thanks to the west) than Gbagbo had.

Why not intervene then in Bahrain, Yemen, and Syria? Or Saudi for that matter.

The situations are different have very little in common except in time.

Because they did in the Ivory Coast. And of course Libya.

Whether they "had" to or whether they "would've been better off" just allowing things be as they were, of course, is up to debate.

But that's irrelevant to the situation as it happened.