Brookings Institution: Libya intervention was NOT a failure.

[JDubya]

The Libyan intervention has become a topic of debate surrounding Hillary Clinton's fitness for becoming President. All of her detractors are harping on the same notion that it was a massive failure and a huge mistake that should preclude her from being elected.

Here is a detailed analysis of why that thinking is wrong, and it's from one of the most respected think tanks in Washington DC.


Everyone says the Libya intervention was a failure. They’re wrong.
Shadi Hamid | April 12, 2016 10:35am

Editors' Note: It has perhaps never been more important to question the prevailing wisdom on the 2011 United States-led intervention in Libya, writes Shadi Hamid. Even with the benefits of hindsight, he argues, many of the criticisms of the intervention fall short.

Libya and the 2011 NATO intervention there have become synonymous with failure, disaster, and the Middle East being a "shit show" (to use President Obama’s colorful descriptor). It has perhaps never been more important to question this prevailing wisdom, because how we interpret Libya affects how we interpret Syria and, importantly, how we assess Obama’s foreign policy legacy.

Of course, Libya, as anyone can see, is a mess, and Americans are reasonably asking if the intervention was a mistake. But just because it’s reasonable doesn’t make it right.

Most criticisms of the intervention, even with the benefit of hindsight, fall short. It is certainly true that the intervention didn’t produce something resembling a stable democracy. This, however, was never the goal. The goal was to protect civilians and prevent a massacre.

Critics erroneously compare Libya today to any number of false ideals, but this is not the correct way to evaluate the success or failure of the intervention. To do that, we should compare Libya today to what Libya would have looked like if we hadn’t intervened. By that standard, the Libya intervention was successful: The country is better off today than it would have been had the international community allowed dictator Muammar Qaddafi to continue his rampage across the country.

Critics further assert that the intervention caused, created, or somehow led to civil war. In fact, the civil war had already started before the intervention began. As for today’s chaos, violence, and general instability, these are more plausibly tied not to the original intervention but to the international community’s failures after intervention.

The very fact that the Libya intervention and its legacy have been either distorted or misunderstood is itself evidence of a warped foreign policy discourse in the U.S., where anything short of success—in this case, Libya quickly becoming a stable, relatively democratic country—is viewed as a failure.

NATO intervened to protect civilians, not to set up a democracy

As stated in the U.N. Security Council resolution authorizing force in Libya, the goal of intervention was "to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack." And this is what was achieved.

In February 2011, anti-Qaddafi demonstrations spread across the country. The regime responded to the nascent protest movement with lethal force, killing more than 100 people in the first few days, effectively sparking an armed rebellion. The rebels quickly lost momentum, however.

I still remember how I felt in those last days and hours as Qaddafi’s forces marched toward Benghazi. In a quite literal sense, every moment mattered, and the longer we waited, the greater the cost.

It was frightening to watch. I didn’t want to live in an America where we would stand by silently as a brutal dictator—using that distinct language of genocidaires—announced rather clearly his intentions to kill. In one speech, Qaddafi called protesters "cockroaches" and vowed to cleanse Libya "inch by inch, house by house, home by home, alleyway by alleyway."

Already, on the eve of intervention, the death toll was estimated at somewhere between 1,000 and 2,000. (This was when the international community’s tolerance for Arab Spring–related mass killings was still fairly low.)

As Obama’s advisers saw it, there were two options for military action: a no-fly zone (which, on its own, wouldn’t do much to stop Qaddafi’s tanks) or a broader resolution that would allow the U.S. and its allies to take further measures, including establishing what amounted to a floating no-drive zone around rebel forces. The president went with the latter option.

The NATO operation lasted about seven months, with an estimated death toll of around 8,000, apparently most of them combatants on both sides (although there is some lack of clarity on this, since the Libyan government doesn’t clearly define "revolutionaries" or "rebel supporters"). A Human Rights Watch investigation found that at least 72 civilians were killed as a result of the NATO air campaign, definitively contradicting speculative claims of mass casualties from the Qaddafi regime.

What Libya would look like today if NATO hadn’t intervened

It’s helpful to engage in a bit of counterfactual history here. As Niall Ferguson notes in his book Virtual Alternatives, "To understand how it actually was, we therefore need to understand how it actually wasn’t."

Applied to the Libyan context, this means that we’re not comparing Libya, during or after the intervention, with some imagined ideal of stable, functioning democracy. Rather, we would compare it with what we judge, to the best of our ability, the most likely alternative outcome would have been had the U.S. not intervened.

Here’s what we know: By March 19, 2011, when the NATO operation began, the death toll in Libya hadrisen rapidly to more than 1,000 in a relatively short amount of time, confirming Qaddafi’s longstanding reputation as someone who was willing to kill his countrymen (as well as others) in large numbers if that’s what his survival required.

There was no end in sight. After early rebel gains, Qaddafi had seized the advantage. Still, he was not in a position to deal a decisive blow to the opposition. (Nowhere in the Arab Spring era has one side in a military conflict been able to claim a clear victory, even with massive advantages in manpower, equipment, and regional backing.)

Any Libyan who had opted to take up arms was liable to be captured, arrested, or killed if Qaddafi "won," so the incentives to accept defeat were nonexistent, to say nothing of the understandable desire to not live under the rule of a brutal and maniacal strongman.

The most likely outcome, then, was a Syria-like situation of indefinite, intensifying violence. Even President Obama, who today seems unsure about the decision to intervene, acknowledged in an August 2014 interview with Thomas Friedman that "had we not intervened, it’s likely that Libya would be Syria...And so there would be more death, more disruption, more destruction."

What caused the current Libyan civil war?

Critics charge that the NATO intervention was responsible for or somehow caused Libya’s current state of chaos and instability. For instance, after leaving the Obama administration, Philip Gordon, the most senior U.S. official on the Middle East in 2013-'15, wrote: "In Iraq, the U.S. intervened and occupied, and the result was a costly disaster. In Libya, the U.S. intervened and did not occupy, and the result was a costly disaster. In Syria, the U.S. neither intervened nor occupied, and the result is a costly disaster."

The problem here is that U.S. intervention did not, in fact, result in a costly disaster, unless we are using the word "result" to simply connote that one thing happened after a previous thing. The NATO operation ended in October 2011. The current civil war in Libya began in May 2014—a full two and a half years later. The intervention and today’s violence are of course related, but this does not necessarily mean there is a causal relationship.

To argue that the current conflict in Libya is a result of the intervention, one would basically need to assume that the outbreak of civil war was inevitable, irrespective of anything that happened in the intervening 30 months.

This makes it all the more important to distinguish between the intervention itself and the international community’s subsequent failure—a failure that nearly all the relevant actors acknowledge—to plan and act for the day after and help Libyans rebuild their shattered country.

Such measures include sending training missions to help the Libyan army restructure itself (only in late 2013 did NATO provide a small team of advisers) or even sending multinational peacekeeping forces; expanding the United Nations Support Mission in Libya’s (UNSMIL) limited advisory role; and pressuring the Libyan government to consider alternatives to a dangerous and destabilizing political isolation law.

While perhaps less sexy, the U.S. and its allies could have also weighed in on institutional design and pushed back against Libya’s adoption, backed by UNSMIL, of one of world’s most counterproductive electoral systems—single non-transferable vote—along with an institutional bias favoring independents. This combination exacerbated tribal and regional divisions while making power sharing even more difficult.

Finally, the U.S. could have restrained its allies, particularly the Gulf States and Egypt, from excessive meddling in the lead-up to and early days of the 2014 civil war.

Yet Libya quickly tumbled off the American agenda. That’s not surprising, given that the Obama administration has always been suspicious of not just military entanglements but any kind of prolonged involvement—diplomatic, financial, or otherwise—in Middle East trouble spots. Libya "was farmed out to the working level," according to Dennis Ross, who served as a special assistant to President Obama until November 2011.

There was also an assumption that the Europeans would do more. This was more than just a hope; it was an organizing principle of Obama administration engagement abroad. Analysts Nina Hachigian and David Shorr have called it the "Responsibility Doctrine": a strategy of "prodding other influential nations…to help shoulder the burdens of fostering a stable, peaceful world order."

This may be the way the world should operate, but as a set of driving assumptions, this part of the Obama doctrine has proven to be wrong at best, and rather dangerous at worst.

We may not like it—and Obama certainly doesn’t—but even when the U.S. itself is not particularly involved in a given conflict, at the very least it is expected to set the agenda, convene partners, and drive international attention toward an issue that would otherwise be neglected in the morass of Middle East conflicts. The U.S., when it came to Libya, did not meet this minimal standard.

Even President Obama himself would eventually acknowledge the failure to stay engaged. As he put it to Friedman: "I think we [and] our European partners underestimated the need to come in full force if you’re going to do this."

Yet it is worth emphasizing that even with a civil war, ISIS’s capture of territory, and as many as three competing "governments," the destruction in Libya still does not come close to the level of death and destruction witnessed in Syria in the absence of intervention.

In other words, even this "worst-case scenario" falls well short of actual worst-case scenarios. According to the Libya Body Count, around 4,500 people have so far been killed over the course of 22 months of civil war.

In Syria, the death toll is about 100 times that, with more than 400,000 killed, according to the Syrian Center for Policy Research.

We’re all consequentialists now

For the reasons outlined above, Libya’s descent into civil conflict—and the resulting power vacuum, which extremist groups like ISIS eagerly filled—wasn’t inevitable. But let’s hypothesize for a moment that it was. Would that undermine support for the original intervention?

The Iraq War, to cite the most obvious example, wasn’t wrong because it led to chaos, instability, and civil war in the country. It was wrong because the decision to intervene in the first place was not justified, being based as it was on faulty premises regarding weapons of mass destruction.

If Iraq had quickly turned out "well" and become a relatively stable, flawed, yet functioning democracy, would that have retroactively justified an unjustified war? Presumably not, even though we would all be happy that Iraq was on a promising path.

The near reverse holds true for Libya. The justness of military intervention in March 2011 cannot be undone or negated retroactively. This is not the way choice or morality operates (imagine applying this standard to your personal life). This may suggest a broader philosophical divergence: Obama, according to one of his aides, is a "consequentialist."

Was the rightness of stopping the Rwandan genocide dependent on whether Rwanda could realistically become a stable democracy after the genocide was stopped? And how could policymakers make that determination, when the stabilization of any post-conflict situation is dependent, in part, not just on factual assessments but on always uncertain questions of the international community’s political will—something that is up to politicians—in committing the necessary time, attention, and resources to helping shattered countries rebuild themselves?

A distorted foreign policy discourse

Outside of the foreign policy community, politicians are usually criticized for what they do abroad, rather than what they don’t do. As former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates put it, "[Qaddafi] was not a threat to us anywhere. He was a threat to his own people, and that was about it." If the U.S had decided against intervention, Libya would have likely reverted to some noxious combination of dictatorship and insurgency. But we could have shirked responsibility (a sort of inverse "pottery barn" principle—if you didn’t break it, you don’t have to fix it). We could have claimed to have "done no harm," even though harm, of course, would have been done.

There was a time when the United States seemed to have a perpetual bias toward action. The instinct of leaders, more often than not, was to act militarily even in relatively small conflicts that were remote from American national security interests. Our country’s tragic experience in Iraq changed that. Inaction came to be seen as a virtue. And, to be sure, inaction is sometimes virtuous. Libya, though, was not one of those times.

http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/markaz/posts/2016/04/12-libya-intervention-hamid



Note: The above article was shortened in order to fit into the 15,000 character per post limit.

[Tahuyaman]

If Libya is considered a success, I'd sure hate to what foreign policy nightmare it would take to be called a failure

[MMC]

:rollseyes:

Intervention Fail: Back to Libya - Ron Paulronpaulinstitute.org/.../february/21/intervention-fail-back-to-Libya


NATO’s Failure in Libya - Voltaire Network (http://www.voltairenet.org/article177312.html)www.voltairenet.org/article177312.html


Libya - Council on Foreign Relations (http://www.cfr.org/region/libya/ri363)www.cfr.org/region/libya/ri363[/URL]
... which asserts that NATO’s 2011 intervention in Libya was “an abject failure” that ... The U.S. intervention in Libya was a complete failure.


Libyan Leaks: More Secret Documents Reveal Obama’s failure ... (http://www.bing.com/search?q=Libya+is+a+complete+failure&src=IE10TR&pc=EUPP_HPDTDFJS&first=1&FORM=PERE#)shoebat.com › General (http://shoebat.com/category/announcement/)

Obama's Libya Debacle - Foreign Affairs (https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/libya/obamas-libya-debacle)https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/libya/obamas-libya-debacle

Libya and the 5 Stages of U.S. Intervention | Cato Institute (http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/libya-5-stages-us-intervention)www.cato.org/publications/commentary/libya-5-stages-us-intervention


Kremlin: Libya 'Failed State' After Overthrow of Gaddafi ... (http://sputniknews.com/politics/20160411/1037812188/gaddafi-libya-kremlin.html)sputniknews.com/politics/20160411/1037812188/gaddafi-libya-kremlin.



(http://www.bing.com/search?q=Assessment+libya+failed+intervention&qs=n&pq=assessment+libya+failed+intervention&sc=0-36&sp=-1&sk=&cvid=EDDB2F84E81C4FFC87E622F943954387&first=23&FORM=PERE1#)




(http://www.bing.com/search?q=Libya+is+a+complete+failure&src=IE10TR&pc=EUPP_HPDTDFJS&first=1&FORM=PERE#)

[URL="http://www.bing.com/search?q=Libya+is+a+complete+failure&src=IE10TR&pc=EUPP_HPDTDFJS&first=9&FORM=PERE#"]

[maineman]

If Libya is considered a success, I'd sure hate to what foreign policy nightmare it would take to be called a failure

Iraq...2003 - 2008.

[Tahuyaman]

Iraq...2003 - 2008.

so, 2009 - 2016 is considered a success too?

[Tahuyaman]

these liberal hacks are getting loopier by the day.

[maineman]

so, 2009 - 2016 is considered a success too?

Obama was dealt a busted flush of a hand. He didn't get us into that mess.

[Tahuyaman]

Obama was dealt a busted flush of a hand. He didn't get us into that mess.

But he did promise to get us out, didn't he?

Hacks are are getting loopier by the day.

[Tahuyaman]

You can't keep blaming Bush for Obama's incompetence.

[maineman]

You can't keep blaming Bush for Obama's incompetence.
I blame Bush for Bush's incompetence. Who do you personally blame for the ridiculous stuff you have said here...like my supposed "railing against local enforcement efforts"???? Who made you write THAT lie?

[Tahuyaman]

Poor maineman. I think I've driven him crazy.

[maineman]

Keep slinking away from your own mistakes.

[Tahuyaman]

Keep slinking away from your own mistakes.

OK, I'll bite. What are you calling a mistake this time?

The left wingers are really trying to claim Libya is a foreign policy success. Holy shit......

[JDubya]

OK, I'll bite. What are you calling a mistake this time?

The left wingers are really trying to claim Libya is a foreign policy success. Holy shit......

Where did you hear or read that?

The article is not saying it was a success outside of preventing Gaddafi from massacring mass numbers of civilians, and as such, is not the abject "failure" it is being touted as.

[Tahuyaman]

Libya is an abject failure. There's no reasonable way to claim it was a success in any way shape or form.

[Tahuyaman]

If Libya is considered a success, I'd sure hate to what foreign policy nightmare it would take to be called a failure


Iraq...2003 - 2008.

Tell me, do you think the Obama administration can call Libya a foreign policy success?

[JDubya]

Libya is an abject failure. There's no reasonable way to claim it was a success in any way shape or form.

It's too bad the article I posted which explains in great detail how even though it wasn't a ringing success, it wasn't a total failure either, has all those big words and high concepts and stuff in it that you can't understand because they're over your head.

Otherwise you wouldn't say that for any other reason than the usual lock-stepping partisan hackery.

[JDubya]

Tell me, do you think the Obama administration can call Libya a foreign policy success?

You're deflecting.

Nobody used the word success.

[Tahuyaman]

If Libya is considered a success, I'd sure hate to what foreign policy nightmare it would take to be called a failure


You're deflecting.



Nobody used the word success.

So it was not a success? Yes.... No?

[Tahuyaman]

Otherwise you wouldn't say that for any other reason than the usual lock-stepping partisan hackery.

The only way anyone could say it was anything other than an abject failure is through partisan hackery.

[The Xl]

Except it was a complete failure by every conceivable metric.

[Ethereal]

The Brookings Institution... :rofl:

[Ethereal]

Hailed as a Model for Successful Intervention, Libya Proves to be the Exact Opposite (https://theintercept.com/2015/02/16/hailed-model-successful-intervention-libya-proves-exact-opposite/)

When Saddam Hussein was captured in 2003 by U.S. forces, Iraq War advocates boastfully celebrated the event as proof that they were right and used it to mock war opponents (Joe Lieberman and John Kerry, for instance, gleefully exploited the event to demand that Howard Dean admit his war opposition was wrong). When Muammar Gaddafi was forced by NATO bombing in August 2011 to flee Tripoli, advocates of U.S. intervention played the same game (ThinkProgress gleefully exploited the occasion to try to shame those who objected to the illegality of Obama’s waging the war even after Congress voted against its authorization: as though Gadaffi’s fleeing could render legal Obama’s plainly illegal intervention).

Once Gadaffi was brutally killed by a mob, advocates of intervention threw a giddy party for themselves, celebrating their own rightness and righteousness and declaring Libya a model for future Western interventions. Upon Gadaffi’s fleeing, The New York Times, which editorially supported the war, published a front-page article declaring: “U.S. Tactics in Libya May be a Model for Other Efforts.” While acknowledging that “it would be premature to call the war in Libya a complete success for United States interests,” the paper noted that events had given “Obama’s senior advisers a chance to claim a key victory for an Obama doctrine for the Middle East that had been roundly criticized in recent months as leading from behind.”

Leading war advocates such as Anne-Marie Slaughter and Nick Kristof celebrated themselves as humanitarian visionaries and chided war opponents for being blinkered and overly cynical about the virtues of American force. British and French leaders descended upon Libya to strut around like some sort of conquering heroes, while American and Canadian officials held pompous war victory ceremonies. Hillary Clinton was downright sociopathic, gloating and cackling in an interview when told about Gadaffi’s death by mob: “We came, we saw, he died.” Democratic partisans were drowning in similar bravado (“Unlike the all-hat-no-cattle types we are increasingly seeing over there, [Obama] may take his time, but he does seem to get his man”).

From the start, it was glaringly obvious that all of this was, at best, wildly premature. As I wrote the day after Gadaffi fled, the Democratic claims of vindication were redolent in all sorts of ways of war hawk boasting after Saddam was captured, and were just as irrational: “the real toll of this war (including the number of civilian deaths that have occurred and will occur) is still almost entirely unknown, and none of the arguments against the war (least of all the legal ones) are remotely resolved by yesterday’s events.”

Since 2011, Libya has rapidly unraveled in much the way Iraq did following that invasion: swamped by militia rule, factional warfare, economic devastation, and complete lawlessness. And to their eternal shame, most self-proclaimed “humanitarians” who advocated the Libya intervention completely ignored the country once the fun parts — the war victory dances and mocking of war opponents — were over. The feel-good “humanitarianism” of war advocates, as usual, extended only to the cheering from a safe distance as bombs dropped.

The unraveling of Libya is now close to absolute. Yesterday, the same New York Times editorial page that supported the intervention quoted the U.N.’s Libya envoy Bernardino León as observing: “Libya is falling apart. Politically, financially, the economic situation is disastrous.” The NYT editors forgot to mention that they supported the intervention, but did note that “Libya’s unraveling has received comparatively little attention over the past few months.” In other words, the very same NATO countries that dropped bombs on Libya in order to remove its government collectively ignored the aftermath once their self-celebrations were over.

Into the void of Libya’s predictable disintegration has stepped ISIS, among other groups. ISIS yesterday released a new video showing the beheading of 21 Egyptian Coptic Christians, which they carried out in Libya. This, in turn, led to all sorts of dire warnings about how close ISIS now is to Europe — it “established a direct affiliate less than 500 miles (800 kilometers) from the southern tip of Italy,” warned AP — which in turn has produced calls for re-intervention in Libya.

...


The U.S. Intervention in Libya Was Such a Smashing Success That a Sequel Is Coming (https://theintercept.com/2016/01/27/the-u-s-intervention-in-libya-was-such-a-smashing-success-that-a-sequel-is-coming/)

The immediate aftermath of the NATO bombing of Libya was a time of high gloating. Just as Iraq War advocates pointed to the capture and killing of Saddam Hussein as proof that their war was a success, Libya war advocates pointed to the capture and brutal killing of Muammar el-Qaddafi as proof of their vindication. War advocates such as Anne-Marie Slaughter and Nicholas Kristof were writing columns celebrating their prescience and mocking war opponents as discredited, and the New York Times published a front-page article declaring: “U.S. Tactics in Libya May be a Model for Other Efforts.” It was widely expected that Hillary Clinton, one of the leading advocates for and architects of the bombing campaign, would be regarded as a Foreign Policy Visionary for the grand Libya success: “We came, we saw, he died,” Clinton sociopathically boasted about the mob rape and murder of Qaddafi while guffawing on 60 Minutes.

Since then, Libya — so predictably — has all but completely collapsed, spending years now drowning in instability, anarchy, fractured militia rule, sectarian conflict, and violent extremism. The execution of Saddam Hussein was no vindication of that war nor a sign of improved lives for Iraqis, and the same was true for the mob killing of Qaddafi. As I wrote the day after Qaddafi fled Tripoli and Democratic Party loyalists were prancing around in war victory dances: “I’m genuinely astounded at the pervasive willingness to view what has happened in Libya as some sort of grand triumph even though virtually none of the information needed to make that assessment is known yet, including: how many civilians have died, how much more bloodshed will there be, what will be needed to stabilize that country, and, most of all, what type of regime will replace Qaddafi? … When foreign powers use military force to help remove a tyrannical regime that has ruled for decades, all sorts of chaos, violence, instability, and suffering — along with a slew of unpredictable outcomes — are inevitable.”

...

But don't expect the Clinton cult to admit the obvious.

[Ethereal]

From the article:

To do that, we should compare Libya today to what Libya would have looked like if we hadn’t intervened. By that standard, the Libya intervention was successful: The country is better off today than it would have been had the international community allowed dictator Muammar Qaddafi to continue his rampage across the country.

Except there is no way to know what it would have looked like if "we" hadn't intervened, a point that JDubya himself made in another thread.


Calling it a "failure" ASSUMES that the opposite course of action would have produced some significantly better outcome, which of course, nobody knows.

Absolutely amazing hypocrisy, but entirely expected.

In any case, the author is just plain wrong about all his important premises:



Belfer Center: Lessons from Libya: How Not to Intervene (http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/publication/23387/lessons_from_libya.html)

The Conventional Wisdom Is Wrong. Libya's 2011 uprising was never peaceful, but instead was armed and violent from the start. Muammar al-Qaddafi did not target civilians or resort to indiscriminate force. Although inspired by humanitarian impulse, NATO's intervention did not aim mainly to protect civilians, but rather to overthrow Qaddafi's regime, even at the expense of increasing the harm to Libyans.


If the Libyan war was about saving lives, it was a catastrophic failure (http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/oct/26/libya-war-saving-lives-catastrophic-failure)

...

And these massacre sites are only the latest of many such discoveries. Amnesty International has now produced compendious evidence of mass abduction and detention, beating and routine torture, killings and atrocities by the rebel militias Britain, France and the US have backed for the last eight months – supposedly to stop exactly those kind of crimes being committed by the Gaddafi regime.

Throughout that time African migrants and black Libyans have been subject to a relentless racist campaign of mass detention, lynchings and atrocities on the usually unfounded basis that they have been loyalist mercenaries. Such attacks continue, says Bouckaert, who witnessed militias from Misrata this week burning homes in Tawerga so that the town's predominantly black population – accused of backing Gaddafi – will be unable to return.

All the while, Nato leaders and cheerleading media have turned a blind eye to such horrors as they boast of a triumph of freedom and murmur about the need for restraint. But it is now absolutely clear that, if the purpose of western intervention in Libya's civil war was to "protect civilians" and save lives, it has been a catastrophic failure.

David Cameron and Nicolas Sarkozy won the authorisation to use "all necessary means" from the UN security council in March on the basis that Gaddafi's forces were about to commit a Srebrenica-style massacre in Benghazi. Naturally we can never know what would have happened without Nato's intervention. But there is in fact no evidence – including from other rebel-held towns Gaddafi re-captured – to suggest he had either the capability or even the intention to carry out such an atrocity against an armed city of 700,000.

What is now known, however, is that while the death toll in Libya when Nato intervened was perhaps around 1,000-2,000 (judging by UN estimates), eight months later it is probably more than ten times that figure. Estimates of the numbers of dead over the last eight months – as Nato leaders vetoed ceasefires and negotiations – range from 10,000 up to 50,000. The National Transitional Council puts the losses at 30,000 dead and 50,000 wounded.

Of those, uncounted thousands will be civilians, including those killed by Nato bombing and Nato-backed forces on the ground. These figures dwarf the death tolls in this year's other most bloody Arab uprisings, in Syria and Yemen. Nato has not protected civilians in Libya – it has multiplied the number of their deaths, while losing not a single soldier of its own.

...

So what should people believe?

A hyper-partisan apologist who is trafficking in speculation about what might have happened had "we" failed to intervene or the actual results and facts surrounding the intervention?

Gee, tough choice.

[FindersKeepers]

Where did you hear or read that?

The article is not saying it was a success outside of preventing Gaddafi from massacring mass numbers of civilians, and as such, is not the abject "failure" it is being touted as.


Shadi Hamid (the writer of your article) is a contributor to the blog at the Brooking's Insitute, he is not THE Brooking's Institute as you insinuated in the OP. His opinion is just that -- his opinion -- and based on the fact that the reporting about Gaddafi massacring was wrong -- Hamid's opinion is a little off in left field.

He also made the claim a few years ago that Obama was a card-carrying member of the Muslim Brotherhood and that the MB would be very successful in Egypt. In case you don't know -- they were banned.

I've read some of Hamid's stuff before -- some is very good -- but he's idealistic and he tends to write stuff that's isn't substantiated by facts, as in the OP article, which was actually written for VOX, and then rerun in the Brooking's blog.

Obama, himself, calls Libya a "sh!t storm" and he's probably a bit better acquainted with the intel that went bad and the results of the incursion, which he deems the "biggest mistake" of his Presidency.

And, of course, Hitlery was front and center in that mistake.

As usual -- you go nothin'.

[MMC]

Shadi Hamid (the writer of your article) is a contributor to the blog at the Brooking's Insitute, he is not THE Brooking's Institute as you insinuated in the OP. His opinion is just that -- his opinion -- and based on the fact that the reporting about Gaddafi massacring was wrong -- Hamid's opinion is a little off in left field.

He also made the claim a few years ago that Obama was a card-carrying member of the Muslim Brotherhood and that the MB would be very successful in Egypt. In case you don't know -- they were banned.

I've read some of Hamid's stuff before -- some is very good -- but he's idealistic and he tends to write stuff that's isn't substantiated by facts, as in the OP article, which was actually written for VOX, and then rerun in the Brooking's blog.

Obama, himself, calls Libya a "sh!t storm" and he's probably a bit better acquainted with the intel that went bad and the results of the incursion, which he deems the "biggest mistake" of his Presidency.

And, of course, Hitlery was front and center in that mistake.

As usual -- you go nothin'.

That's correct....even our own Military, Intel, and BO peep himself admits Libya was a complete failure. Very, very few think that it wasn't.

I'm glad somebody else caught that bit about it not being.....of the Brookings think tank.

[Peter1469]

Libya was a total failure. The intervention was also not legal under international law. This was an internal issue.

[FindersKeepers]

Libya was a total failure. The intervention was also not legal under international law. This was an internal issue.

True, and did it not also violate our War Powers Resolution when Obama did not seek congressional approval after 60 days? Not that I think the WPR is a great idea, but like I taught my kids...if you don't like a law, change it -- don't break it.

[Peter1469]

True, and did it not also violate our War Powers Resolution when Obama did not seek congressional approval after 60 days? Not that I think the WPR is a great idea, but like I taught my kids...if you don't like a law, change it -- don't break it.

This president is lawless: he has not sought war powers act cover for any of his wars.

[Common]

Iraq...2003 - 2008.

Lets not halfstep maineman, remember jimmy carter and iran and hostages, remember bill clintons somalia ? lets go back to kennedy starting vietnam and Lbj continueing it for 7 yrs and getting 1,313,000 people killed. Or how about WW2 and Truman, or woodrow wilson during WW1

They were all democrats maineman and you want to harp on bush after over 3000 americans were murdered and the two biggest buildings in our country taken down, ok, phony up much do you ???

[JDubya]

The Brookings Institution... :rofl:


But don't expect the Clinton cult to admit the obvious.

The Intercept.... (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Intercept) :rofl:


In February 2016, the site appended lengthy corrections to five stories by reporter Juan Thompson and retracted a sixth...


The site's investigation into Thompson's reporting had found that he had, on multiple occasions, attributed quotes to people who said he had not interviewed them or did not remember him doing so, people who they could not reach to verify the quote or whose identity could not be confirmed....

....he faulted The Intercept for lacking "a sustained and competent editor to guide me," alluding to the site's managerial turnovers.

So the moron laughed at my posting an article from a highly respected source, then posts some slop from website that admittedly lacks any journalistic standards whatsoever.

Typical drooler.

[Peter1469]

The Intercept.... (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Intercept) :rofl:



So the moron laughed at my posting an article from a highly respected source, then posts some slop from website that admittedly lacks any journalistic standards whatsoever.

Typical drooler.




Warning: Please don’t call members names.

[JDubya]

Shadi Hamid (the writer of your article) is a contributor to the blog at the Brooking's Insitute, he is not THE Brooking's Institute as you insinuated in the OP. His opinion is just that -- his opinion -- and based on the fact that the reporting about Gaddafi massacring was wrong -- Hamid's opinion is a little off in left field.

Obama, himself, calls Libya a "sh!t storm" and he's probably a bit better acquainted with the intel that went bad and the results of the incursion, which he deems the "biggest mistake" of his Presidency.

And, of course, Hitlery was front and center in that mistake.

As usual -- you go nothin'.

The author holds many titles that qualify him as an expert on the ME.


Shadi Hamid (http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/experts/hamids)

Senior Fellow, Foreign Policy (http://www.brookings.edu/about/programs/foreign-policy), Center for Middle East Policy (http://www.brookings.edu/about/centers/middle-east-policy), U.S. Relations with the Islamic World (http://www.brookings.edu/about/projects/islamic-world)

Shadi Hamid is a senior fellow in the Project on U.S. Relations with the Islamic World (http://www.brookings.edu/about/projects/islamic-world) in the Center for Middle East Policy (http://www.brookings.edu/about/centers/middle-east-policy) and the author of the new book "Islamic Exceptionalism: How the Struggle Over Islam is Reshaping the World (http://www.amazon.com/Islamic-Exceptionalism-Struggle-Reshaping-Middle/dp/1250061016/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1447698723&sr=1-1&keywords=islamic+exceptionalism)" (St. Martin's Press). His previous book “Temptations of Power: Islamists and Illiberal Democracy in a New Middle East (http://www.amazon.com/Temptations-Power-Islamists-Illiberal-Democracy/dp/0199314055/ref=sr_1_4?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1386096396&sr=1-4&keywords=temptations+of+power)” (Oxford University Press, 2014) was named a Foreign Affairs "Best Book of 2014." Hamid served as director of research at the Brookings Doha Center until January 2014. Prior to joining Brookings, he was director of research at the Project on Middle East Democracy (POMED) and a Hewlett Fellow at Stanford University's Center on Democracy, Development, and the Rule of Law. Hamid is a contributing writer for The Atlantic and the vice-chair of POMED's board of directors.

And he made a very well thought out and rational case.

[Tahuyaman]

I'm still laughing at anyone who can seriously attempt to spin the Libyian thing as anything other than a compete foreign policy failure. What's next? Claiming the "Russian reset" was a raving success as well?

[JDubya]

From the article:

To do that, we should compare Libya today to what Libya would have looked like if we hadn’t intervened. By that standard, the Libya intervention was successful: The country is better off today than it would have been had the international community allowed dictator Muammar Qaddafi to continue his rampage across the country.

Except there is no way to know what it would have looked like if "we" hadn't intervened, a point that JDubya himself made in another thread.

Absolutely amazing hypocrisy, but entirely expected.

In any case, the author is just plain wrong about all his important premises:

So what should people believe?

A hyper-partisan apologist who is trafficking in speculation about what might have happened had "we" failed to intervene or the actual results and facts surrounding the intervention?

Gee, tough choice.

How can I be guilty of hypocrisy when what I said and what the article I posted later on said, are exactly the same thing????

The author has forgotten more about the Middle East than you'll ever know, so when someone of your low caliber says he's wrong, I think most people will consider the source and weigh it against his vast background, intricate knowledge and years of experience studying and writing about the region and its conflicts, then arrive at their own decision as to who is more believable on the subject.

Only the most shameless right-wing hacks would ever take your word for anything.

[JDubya]

I'm still laughing at anyone who can seriously attempt to spin the Libyian thing as anything other than a compete foreign policy failure. What's next? Claiming the "Russian reset" was a raving success as well?

Tell us all about how wonderful life under Gaddafi was prior to the US intervention.

Tell us how wonderful it would have been now, for the innocent civilians caught in the middle of the rebel uprising and Gaddafi's brutal reprisals.

[Tahuyaman]

Tell us all about how wonderful life under Gaddafi was prior to the US intervention.

Tell us how wonderful it would have been now, for the innocent civilians caught in the middle of the rebel uprising and Gaddafi's brutal reprisals.

So, removing Gaddafi and turning it into a free for all is a sign of success?

Does that same idea work in Iraq with removing Hussein from power?

Like I said, calling it anything other than an example of how not to conduct foreign policy is total partisan hackery.

[Peter1469]

I'm still laughing at anyone who can seriously attempt to spin the Libyian thing as anything other than a compete foreign policy failure. What's next? Claiming the "Russian reset" was a raving success as well?

It is laughable. You can't possibly have a straight face and say the only goal was to protect civilians from Qaddafi and the chaos that followed Western intervention doesn't matter.

The Bookings Institute has elite thinkers from many different positions. I can't place this author. It can't be Neocon because no democracy was forced on Libya. Perhaps he is a liberal hawk who focused on short term humanitarian concerns.

[Peter1469]

Tell us all about how wonderful life under Gaddafi was prior to the US intervention.

Tell us how wonderful it would have been now, for the innocent civilians caught in the middle of the rebel uprising and Gaddafi's brutal reprisals.

Prior to the Arab Spring, Libya was the model of success in North Africa. Read more.

[Tahuyaman]

It is laughable. You can't possibly have a straight face and say the only goal was to protect civilians from Qaddafi and the chaos that followed Western intervention doesn't matter.

The Bookings Institute has elite thinkers from many different positions. I can't place this author. It can't be Neocon because no democracy was forced on Libya. Perhaps he is a liberal hawk who focused on short term humanitarian concerns.

I think the author is simply a partisan attempting to resuscitate Hllary Clinton's foreign policy credibility. There's not other logical explanation for taking the position he states.

[Tahuyaman]

Prior to the Arab Spring, Libya was the model of success in North Africa. Read more.


You are correct. The intervention in Libya defies an explanation. I Believe that the administration was simply looking to find any way possible to create a foreign policy success and they acted without cause or thinking it through. They thought going after Qaddafi would be a popular move.

[Tahuyaman]

When George HW Bush went after Noreiga in Panama, then Iraq in the first gulf war, he had approval ratings in the 90% range.

After 9/11 and during the early stages of the war in Iraq and Afghanistan George W Bush received some very high approval ratings as well.

Reagan received high approval ratings for his decisions to execute limited military strikes during his terms as well.

The Obama administration thought that the American people would rally in massive support if we got into another conflict with an obviously despicable dictator type. obama's foreign policy legacy is one of indecision and incompetence. They wanted to change that, but made it even worse.

[FindersKeepers]

And he made a very well thought out and rational case.

His "case" only seems rational if one is to think that Gaddafi was getting ready to massacre his citizens. However, since we already have clarification that the previous accusations that Gaddafi was already massacring were completely false, it puts Hamid's prediction firmly in the realm of koolaid-drinking.

Plus, Hamid completely counters the Pentagon, the UN, and Obama's assertions.

I'm sure it took you a long time to dig up that dubious article, but, given that Hamid's made so many other failed assertions in the past, there's really no reason to accept his outlier position -- unless, of course, one is just doing it for partisan reasons.

[JDubya]

So, removing Gaddafi and turning it into a free for all is a sign of success?

Does that same idea work in Iraq with removing Hussein from power?

Like I said, calling it anything other than an example of how not to conduct foreign policy is total partisan hackery.

Pre-invasion Iraq and pre-intervention Libya were two COMPLETELY DIFFERENT situations.

Iraq under Sadam Hussein actually WAS a very stable country, with ZERO outside incursion.

Libya after the Arab Spring uprising was anything BUT stable and Gaddafi WAS massacring civilians along with rebel fighters, putting the rest of the civilian population at great risk for mass genocide.

[JDubya]

Prior to the Arab Spring, Libya was the model of success in North Africa. Read more.

Yes, prior to the Arab Spring.

But that's not when the US intervened, is it?

What about POST Arab Spring? What about AFTER the rebel uprisings had the country on the verge of civil war and civilians were being killed right along with rebels?

Cute the way you just kind of snuck that little omission in there under the radar.

[Peter1469]

Yes, prior to the Arab Spring.

But that's not when the US intervened, is it?

What about POST Arab Spring? What about AFTER the rebel uprisings had the country on the verge of civil war and civilians were being killed right along with rebels?

Cute the way you just kind of snuck that little omission in there under the radar.

I didn't sneak anything you anti-intellectual. You bolded the language that you claim was sneaked..., yet it is there for all to read....

The international community should have stayed out of Libya's internal affairs. Intervention devastated the country.

[JDubya]

His "case" only seems rational if one is to think that Gaddafi was getting ready to massacre his citizens. However, since we already have clarification that the previous accusations that Gaddafi was already massacring were completely false, it puts Hamid's prediction firmly in the realm of koolaid-drinking.

Plus, Hamid completely counters the Pentagon, the UN, and Obama's assertions.

I'm sure it took you a long time to dig up that dubious article, but, given that Hamid's made so many other failed assertions in the past, there's really no reason to accept his outlier position -- unless, of course, one is just doing it for partisan reasons.

The reports were not "completely false".

Gaddafi files show evidence of murderous intent (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/jun/18/gaddafi-misrata-war-crime-documents)

Libya targeted civilian protesters - war crimes court (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-12983054)

It might not have reached the massive scale that it likely would have, but if you don't think civilians died at the hands of Gaddafi forces, whether intentionally or otherwise, you're being purposely naïve.

[JDubya]

I didn't sneak anything you anti-intellectual. You bolded the language that you claim was sneaked..., yet it is there for all to read....

The international community should have stayed out of Libya's internal affairs. Intervention devastated the country.

http://s33.postimg.org/gj0esavlb/warningptr.jpg

[JDubya]

I didn't sneak anything you anti-intellectual. You bolded the language that you claim was sneaked..., yet it is there for all to read....

The international community should have stayed out of Libya's internal affairs. Intervention devastated the country.

Oh, but the planned massacre of innocent civilians would not have, that what you're saying?

Yeah, right.

[Peter1469]

Oh, but the planned massacre of innocent civilians would not have, that what you're saying?

Yeah, right.

You knowledge of international law regarding intervention is zero, isn't that correct?

[JDubya]

You knowledge of international law regarding intervention is zero, isn't that correct?

Still trying to deflect I see.

R2P (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Responsibility_to_protect).

[MMC]

Still trying to deflect I see.

R2P (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Responsibility_to_protect).



Yet.....while you run away from all those links that show Libya is a failure. http://www.politicalforum.com/images/smilies/icon_lol.gif

[birddog]

Obama was dealt a busted flush of a hand. He didn't get us into that mess.

That's true. Slick Willie did due to his incompetence as CIC!

[Chris]

http://s33.postimg.org/gj0esavlb/warningptr.jpg

Infraction for imitating a Moderator--violate rule 9. Do not use moderator warning/notification boxes. Use the report button.

[Peter1469]

Yet.....while you run away from all those links that show Libya is a failure. http://www.politicalforum.com/images/smilies/icon_lol.gif

Do you think he realizes how foolish he looks?

[MMC]

Do you think he realizes how foolish he looks?

You mean before or after the last 4 pages. :laugh:

[Tahuyaman]

Pre-invasion Iraq and pre-intervention Libya were two COMPLETELY DIFFERENT situations.

Iraq under Sadam Hussein actually WAS a very stable country, with ZERO outside incursion.

Libya after the Arab Spring uprising was anything BUT stable and Gaddafi WAS massacring civilians along with rebel fighters, putting the rest of the civilian population at great risk for mass genocide.


Under Qadaffi, Libya was a very stable country.

Somehow I knew you would view intervention in Iraq quite differently than intervention in Libya. Thank you for demonstrating the partisan hack's view.

[Tahuyaman]

Do you think he realizes how foolish he looks?


Hacks rarely, if ever do.

[Tahuyaman]

You knowledge of international law regarding intervention is zero, isn't that correct?

Correct.

[maineman]

Under Qadaffi, Libya was a very stable country.


until the Spring of 2011, perhaps... but after that, it fell apart and the violence and unrest was none of OUR doing.

[Tahuyaman]

until the Spring of 2011, perhaps... but after that, it fell apart and the violence and unrest was none of OUR doing.

And it was none of our business.

The intervention in Libya was a foreign policy disaster. Period. I suspect you know that, but for a couple of reasons refuse to admit it.

[JDubya]

Pre-invasion Iraq and pre-intervention Libya were two COMPLETELY DIFFERENT situations.

Iraq under Sadam Hussein actually WAS a very stable country, with ZERO outside incursion.

Libya after the Arab Spring uprising was anything BUT stable and Gaddafi WAS massacring civilians along with rebel fighters, putting the rest of the civilian population at great risk for mass genocide.


Under Qadaffi, Libya was a very stable country.

Somehow I knew you would view intervention in Iraq quite differently than intervention in Libya. Thank you for demonstrating the partisan hack's view.

Same stupid shit your type always pulls.

I will give you that prior to the Arab Spring rebellion, Libya was a reasonably stable country under the iron-fisted rule of a sadistic madman.

But that's not when the US intervened, is it?

So why do you keep thinking that if you just continue to ignore that fact, it will go away and make what you're saying right?

Because it won't.

By the time the US intervened in Libya, the country was in chaos.

Get it?

And under the UN's R2P (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Responsibility_to_protect) doctrine, the US was OBLIGATED to intercede.

[Tahuyaman]

I get it.


You have your partisan talking points and that's it. You think the intervention in Libya was a good foreign policy decision. of course I'm sure you think that Obama's legacy will be one of foreign policy greatness.

[Tahuyaman]

This president is lawless: he has not sought war powers act cover for any of his wars.


He he would respond by saying that he inherited every conflict.

[Peter1469]

And it was none of our business.

The intervention in Libya was a foreign policy disaster. Period. I suspect you know that, but for a couple of reasons refuse to admit it.

The US had zero national security interests in Libya once it gave up its chemical weapons program. Intervening there was a waste of our time and resources. The liberal hawks insisted based on humanitarian concerns.

[maineman]

And it was none of our business.

The intervention in Libya was a foreign policy disaster. Period. I suspect you know that, but for a couple of reasons refuse to admit it.

you said Libya was a very stable country. At the time of our limited involvement, that was incorrect.

[Tahuyaman]

you said Libya was a very stable country. At the time of our limited involvement, that was incorrect.


It was more stable than it was after our intervention.

Now, are you going to admit that it was a foreign policy blunder, or are you going to continue on with the partisan stance?

[Tahuyaman]

The US had zero national security interests in Libya once it gave up its chemical weapons program. Intervening there was a waste of our time and resources. The liberal hawks insisted based on humanitarian concerns.

Also, Qaddafi gave up his weapons program voluntarily because he saw the writing on the wall and did not want to be next. It did not take a military intervention in Libya to make that happen.

Liberals like to exert American force abroad in order to refute this notion that they are weak. Even when there's no American interests involved.

[Tahuyaman]

you said Libya was a very stable country. At the time of our limited involvement, that was incorrect.

Was it our business?

[Peter1469]

Also, Qaddafi gave up his weapons program voluntarily because he saw the writing on the wall and did not want to be next. It did not take a military intervention in Libya to make that happen.

Liberals like to exert American force abroad in order to refute this notion that they are weak. Even when there's no American interests involved.

The US invaded Iraq in 2003 and seized Baghdad, the Jewel of the Arab world, in short order. We went through the Iraqi army like a hot knife through butter.

We humiliated and terrified the entire Arab world. That is when Qaddafi got in line.

[Peter1469]

Was it our business?

Not to the point of committing combat forces. We could have made money selling weapons to people with money.

[maineman]

Was it our business?

was Libya stable? You said so. You ask a lot of questions in a ploy to avoid answering any.

[Tahuyaman]

was Libya stable? You said so. You ask a lot of questions in a ploy to avoid answering any.


Why can't you once again answer a simple question?

Let's try again...... Was it our business?

I answered yours. Clealy, I said that Libya was stable prior to our intervention.

[Tahuyaman]

The partisan hacks just can't admit that Obama was responsible for a foreign policy blunder of his own making.

[Tahuyaman]

Not to the point of committing combat forces. We could have made money selling weapons to people with money.

no one can leave it at that though. One thing leads to another.

[Tahuyaman]

We have riots and unrest in American cities on occasion. We have mobs attacking police officers, looting businesses and no one would say that we are not a stable nation.

[maineman]

Why can't you once again answer a simple question?

Let's try again...... Was it our business?

I answered yours. Clealy, I said that Libya was stable prior to our intervention.

you are incorrect. Libya was NOT stable prior to our intervention. Do some reading.

[maineman]

Libyan Civil War
Main articles: Muammar Gaddafi's response to the 2011 Libyan Civil War and Libyan Civil War (2011)
Origins: February–March 2011

Following the start of the Arab Spring in 2011, Gaddafi spoke out in favour of Tunisian President Zine El Abidine Ben Ali, then threatened by the Tunisian Revolution. He suggested that Tunisia's people would be satisfied if Ben Ali introduced a Jamahiriyah system there.[256] Fearing domestic protest, Libya's government implemented preventative measures, reducing food prices, purging the army leadership of potential defectors and releasing several Islamist prisoners.[257] They proved ineffective, and on 17 February 2011, major protests broke out against Gaddafi's government. Unlike Tunisia or Egypt, Libya was largely religiously homogenous and had no strong Islamist movement, but there was widespread dissatisfaction with the corruption and entrenched systems of patronage, while unemployment had reached around 30%.[258]

Accusing the rebels of being "drugged" and linked to al-Qaeda, Gaddafi proclaimed that he would die a martyr rather than leave Libya.[259] As he announced that the rebels would be "hunted down street by street, house by house and wardrobe by wardrobe",[260] the army opened fire on protests in Benghazi, killing hundreds.[261] Shocked at the government's response, a number of senior politicians resigned or defected to the protesters' side.[262] The uprising spread quickly through Libya's less economically developed eastern half.[263] By February's end, eastern cities like Benghazi, Misrata, al-Bayda and Tobruk were controlled by rebels,[264] and the Benghazi-based National Transitional Council (NTC) had been founded to represent them.[265]

In the conflict's early months it appeared that Gaddafi's government – with its greater firepower – would be victorious.[263] Both sides disregarded the laws of war, committing human rights abuses, including arbitrary arrests, torture, extrajudicial executions and revenge attacks.[266] On 26 February the United Nations Security Council passed Resolution 1970, suspending Libya from the UN Human Rights Council, implementing sanctions and calling for an International Criminal Court (ICC) investigation into the killing of unarmed civilians.[267] In March, the Security Council declared a no fly zone to protect the civilian population from aerial bombardment, calling on foreign nations to enforce it; it also specifically prohibited foreign occupation.[268] Ignoring this, Qatar sent hundreds of troops to support the dissidents, and along with France and the United Arab Emirates provided the NTC with weaponry and training.[269]


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muammar_Gaddafi

[maineman]

If you can call that "stable", then you are even MORE of a moronic hack than I could have previously imagined.

[Tahuyaman]

you are incorrect. Libya was NOT stable prior to our intervention. Do some reading.
Ok, you disagree with me.

Was it our business?

[Tahuyaman]

Maineman is so mired in a partisan position that he can't answer a simple question.

[Tahuyaman]

If it was appropriate for us to insert ourself into a Libyan domestic issue is it also appropriate to insert ourself in the domestic issues of every nation run by someone we disapprove of?

[maineman]

Ok, you disagree with me.

Was it our business?

We have had a long and storied history of intervening in countries where tyrants are holding court. It wasn't our business in Iran in the 50's or Chile when we helped overthrow Allende, or Iraq in 2003. For that matter, was Korea "our business"? Was Vietnam? Was Cuba our business when we fronted the bay of Pigs invasion? Isolationists would say no to all of those situations... but we intervened nonetheless.

Now... can you read post #78 and honestly say that Libya was STABLE prior to our intervention?

[maineman]

Maineman is so mired in a partisan position that he can't answer a simple question.

I did. Can you? Can you read #78 and still stand by your assertion that Libya was STABLE prior to our intervention?

[Tahuyaman]

We have had a long and storied history of intervening in countries where tyrants are holding court. It wasn't our business in Iran in the 50's or Chile when we helped overthrow Allende, or Iraq in 2003. For that matter, was Korea "our business"? Was Vietnam? Was Cuba our business when we fronted the bay of Pigs invasion? Isolationists would say no to all of those situations... but we intervened nonetheless.

Now... can you read post #78 and honestly say that Libya was STABLE prior to our intervention?

was it our business? Why can't you answer?

[Tahuyaman]

Did the riots in Baltimore, Los Angeles, Detroit or Ferguson mean America is an unstable nation making it appropriate for another nation to intervene?

[Tahuyaman]

I did. Can you? Can you read #78 and still stand by your assertion that Libya was STABLE prior to our intervention?

You're not going to answer, huh?

[maineman]

Did the riots in Baltimore, Los Angeles, Detroit or Ferguson mean America is an unstable nation making it appropriate for another nation to intervene?

If the federal government had totally lost control of vast areas of the country as a result of those riots, it would certainly indicate that we were not "stable"

"By February's end, eastern cities like Benghazi, Misrata, al-Bayda and Tobruk were controlled by rebels, and the Benghazi-based National Transitional Council (NTC) had been founded to represent them."

[maineman]

You're not going to answer, huh?

I did answer. But let me answer it again: If you are an isolationist, you would say no. If you are a neocon, you would say yes.... I am neither, but I believe that for humanitarian reasons, Libya was our business.

[maineman]

Can you honestly say that, with Gadaffi losing complete control of vast areas of eastern Libya, that Libya was a "stable" country prior to our intervention?

[Tahuyaman]

I did answer. But let me answer it again: If you are an isolationist, you would say no. If you are a neocon, you would say yes.... I am neither, but I believe that for humanitarian reasons, Libya was our business.

Finally, I forced an answer. A qualified answer, but an answer just the same.

I'm not an isolationist and I say it wasn't any of our business in any way shape or form.

[maineman]

Finally, I forced an answer. A qualified answer, but an answer just the same.

I'm not an isolationist and I say it wasn't any of our business in any way shape or form.

answer my question.

[Tahuyaman]

Can you honestly say that, with Gadaffi losing complete control of vast areas of eastern Libya, that Libya was a "stable" country prior to our intervention?

I believe he would have regained control. How he would have done that was none of our business either.

[maineman]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_military_intervention_in_Libya

no ground troops... limited air action as part of a UN coalition. The United Nations obviously thought it was THEIR business. This wasn't Obama going it alone.

[maineman]

I believe he would have regained control. How he would have done that was none of our business either.

if the country was "stable", why would anyone need to "regain control"??

[Tahuyaman]

answer my question.

I answered it several times. Would it finally sink in if I answered it ten more times? Twenty times? Tell me how many times will it take?

[maineman]

I answered it several times. Would it finally sink in if I answered it ten more times? Twenty times? Tell me how many times will it take?


You think that Gaddafi might have eventually been able to regain control of the eastern part of his country ---- in a country that you said was "stable". Leaders don't need to regain control of giant portions of their country if their country is stable.

Fucking stupid answer.

[Tahuyaman]

if the country was "stable", why would anyone need to "regain control"??

Sure, there was unrest and violence in some areas. Just as there is in every country on earth outside of Iran and N Korea.


You seem to think it's appropriate for America to get involved in the domestic issues of anyone, just for reasons other than spreading democracy.

You appear to base you approval or disapproval based on the party affiliation of the person in charge of American foreign policy. In other words, you're a hack.

[Peter1469]

Why should the US have taken Gaddafi out because Libya was unstable?

[Tahuyaman]

You think that Gaddafi might have eventually been able to regain control of the eastern part of his country -

There Was no "might" about it. He would have and you and the handwringing liberals would have been beating the war drums because of how he did it.

[Tahuyaman]

Why should the US have taken Gaddafi out because Libya was unstable?

Who are you addressing that question to?

[Peter1469]

Who are you addressing that question to?

Any intelligent member.

[maineman]

Sure, there was unrest and violence in some areas. Just as there is in every country on earth outside of Iran and N Korea.


You seem to think it's appropriate for America to get involved in the domestic issues of anyone, just for reasons other than spreading democracy.

You appear to base you approval or disapproval based on the party affiliation of the person in charge of American foreign policy. In other words, you're a hack.

Gadaffi loses control of the eastern part of his country and you still cling to your assertion that the country was "stable". Fucking stupid. REALLY fucking stupid.

[maineman]

Why should the US have taken Gaddafi out because Libya was unstable?

why are you saying that this was a US operation when it was a UN operation with a large coalition?

[Tahuyaman]

Qaddafi has been a target and a potential trophy for an administration since the late 1970's or early 80's.

A president might think he will be revered as a humanitarian hero worthy of a Nobel Peace prize for taking him out.

[Tahuyaman]

why are you saying that this was a US operation when it was a UN operation with a large coalition?


I figured that excuse would have come up much earlier.

[Tahuyaman]

Gadaffi loses control of the eastern part of his country and you still cling to your assertion that the country was "stable". $#@!ing stupid. REALLY $#@!ing stupid.


And you cling to your hackish positions.

[Peter1469]

why are you saying that this was a US operation when it was a UN operation with a large coalition?

I am only concerned with the United State's actions- the US is sovereign, international institutions are our tools, not masters. What vital interest of the US were we advancing?

It was a waste of our resources. And it created a less stable Middle East.

[maineman]

I am only concerned with the United State's actions- the US is sovereign, international institutions are our tools, not masters. What vital interest of the US were we advancing?

It was a waste of our resources. And it created a less stable Middle East.

minimal resources... and I think that the middle east would not be any more stable if we had let Libya unravel on its own.

[Peter1469]

minimal resources... and I think that the middle east would not be any more stable if we had let Libya unravel on its own.

1. So?
2. We don't know that. Gaddafi could have smashed the rebels.

It was only "minimal" resources because we didn't occupy the place.

[maineman]

And you cling to your hackish positions.

you can call them hawkish if you like. I certainly have not been so fucking stupid - and bullheaded - that I could continue to hold a position that the country of Libya - where rebels had basically taken control of the eastern half of the country a d Gadaffi was hanging on by his fingernails - was somehow "stable" right up until the moment the UN stepped in.

[maineman]

1. So?
2. We don't know that. Gaddafi could have smashed the rebels.

It was only "minimal" resources because we didn't occupy the place.

yet you can say that the UN effort made the middle east "less stable"? Less stable than what, exactly? Measured how, exactly?

[Tahuyaman]

you can call them hawkish if you like. I certainly have not been so $#@!ing stupid - and bullheaded - that I could continue to hold a position that the country of Libya - where rebels had basically taken control of the eastern half of the country a d Gadaffi was hanging on by his fingernails - was somehow "stable" right up until the moment the UN stepped in.


You're repeating the same insults over and over. It's time you thought of some new ones, or recycle your old standard "tar baby" line.

[maineman]

You're repeating the same insults over and over. It's time you thought of some new ones, or recycle your old standard "tar baby" line.

I am not trying to insult you. I am merely pointing out how foolish your position is. You started out saying that Libya was stable prior to our intervention. I posted a lengthy quote which talked about the months long civil war sweeping across Libya wherein the entire eastern part of the country was in rebel hands... and, rather than just graciously admit that maybe "stable" was a sort of stupid word to use in that situation, you doubled down. Because you can't bear to ever admit you make a mistake. Fucking stupid.

[Peter1469]

yet you can say that the UN effort made the middle east "less stable"? Less stable than what, exactly? Measured how, exactly?

The UN 'effort' would not have toppled the sovereign power in Libya had the US acted in its vital national security interests (meaning doing something else).

The Arab Spring was a phase. We destroyed the entire country with our meddling.

[maineman]

The UN 'effort' would not have toppled the sovereign power in Libya had the US acted in its vital national security interests (meaning doing something else).

The Arab Spring was a phase. We destroyed the entire country with our meddling.

your opinion... I do not share it.

[Tahuyaman]

I am not trying to insult you.


I know.. You just can't help yourself. You don't like your views and opinions being challenged. You require an echo chamber.

[maineman]

I know.. You just can't help yourself. You don't like your views and opinions being challenged. You require an echo chamber.

"Libya was a stable country prior to our intervention"

:rofl:

[maineman]

Tahuyaman cannot bear to admit he misspoke. EVER.

hahahahahahahahahahahahaha

[Tahuyaman]

"Libya was a stable country prior to our intervention"

:rofl:


And rhere were no national interests there which warranted us sticking our nose into their internal issues.

[Tahuyaman]

@Tahuyaman (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1365) cannot bear to admit he misspoke. EVER.

hahahahahahahahahahahahaha


Nice try. Not working though.

[maineman]

And rhere were no national interests there which warranted us sticking our nose into their internal issues.

irrelevant as to whether or not Libya - in the midst of a civil war where rebels controlled large areas of the country - was "stable" or not.

Idiot. Bullheaded idiot who can NEVER admit he misspoke. NEVER. Pathetic.

[maineman]

Nice try. Not working though.

did you admit you misspoke and I somehow missed it? Did you admit that a country in the midst of a civil war where rebel forces control large areas of the country really cannot be called "stable"? Did I miss it???

[Tahuyaman]

Like I said, president's of the liberal persuasion love to get involved with the affairs of foreign nations in order to prove that they are tough on issues surrounding foreign policy or national defense. Then they criticize their political opposition for doing the same things.

[maineman]

Like you said, "Libya was a stable country prior to our intervention"


hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahaha

[maineman]

Like I said, president's of the liberal persuasion love to get involved with the affairs of foreign nations in order to prove that they are tough on issues surrounding foreign policy or national defense. Then they criticize their political opposition for doing the same things.

and we did it without one single boot on the ground. doncha wish Bush could have "disarmed" Saddam like that????

[Tahuyaman]

irrelevant as to whether or not Libya - in the midst of a civil war where rebels controlled large areas of the country - was "stable" or not.

Idiot. Bullheaded idiot who can NEVER admit he misspoke. NEVER. Pathetic.


At least it doesn't take me thirty posts to answer a simple question, then when I do answer, it's a real answer and not laden with qualifiers or ifs ands and buts....

but then again, I'm not a partisan hack.

[maineman]

At least it doesn't take me thirty posts to answer a simple question, then when I do answer, it's a real answer and not laden with qualifiers or ifs ands and buts....

but then again, I'm not a partisan hack.

you're still sticking with the "stable" thing, huh?

:rofl:

[Tahuyaman]

and we did it without one single boot on the ground. doncha wish Bush could have "disarmed" Saddam like that????


Holy shit......

[Tahuyaman]

you're still sticking with the "stable" thing, huh?

:rofl:

I'm sticking with it was none of our business. You're sticking with it was because the president is a Democrat.

[maineman]

as a matter of record, Iraq was a hell of a lot more "stable" when we sent a conquering army into it than Libya was when we flew some air missions OVER it.

stable.

hahahahahahahahahahahahaha

[maineman]

I'm sticking with it was none of our business. You're sticking with it was because the president is a Democrat.

AND...because the situation was far from STABLE!

hahahahahahaha

[valley ranch]

In Libya we spent billions to kill Libyans, to arm and give the country to the very butthead we say we are fighting. How was this not Obama's and Hillary's doing?

[Tahuyaman]

I'm sticking with it was none of our business. You're sticking with it was because the president is a Democrat.


That at and the statement that it was an abject failure.

The only humanitarian responsibility we had there was the one they ignored.

[Tahuyaman]

AND...because the situation was far from STABLE!

hahahahahahaha

It certainly wasn't unstable enough to be any concern of ours.

[maineman]

unstable? I thought you said it was stable. make up your mind.

[Tahuyaman]

did you admit you misspoke and I somehow missed it? Did you admit that a country in the midst of a civil war where rebel forces control large areas of the country really cannot be called "stable"? Did I miss it???

You never did say whether or not you considered it a success?

I suspect I know what that answer would be if you actually attempted one.

[Tahuyaman]

unstable? I thought you said it was stable. make up your mind.


You are one word parsing nit-wit. A reasonable discussion is impossible with you involved.

[maineman]

You are one word parsing nit-wit. A reasonable discussion is impossible with you involved.

when you say shit like Libya was a stable country until we intervened - and then stick with it even when shown that it was an erroneous statement, it really is difficult to have a reasonable discussion. That's for sure.

[Tahuyaman]

Like I said. Once you chime in, all hopes for a reasonable discussion disappear into thin air.

[valley ranch]

This is a couple years old.

Libya: From Africa’s Richest State Under Gaddafi, to Failed State After NATO Intervention


This article was first published on October 19, 2014.
This week marks the three-year anniversary of the Western-backed assassination of Libya’s former president, Muammar Gaddafi, and the fall of one of Africa’s greatest nations.
In 1967 Colonel Gaddafi inherited one of the poorest nations in Africa; however, by the time he was assassinated, Gaddafi had turned Libya into Africa’s wealthiest nation. Libya had the highest GDP per capita and life expectancy on the continent. Less people lived below the poverty line than in the Netherlands.
After NATO’s intervention in 2011, Libya is now a failed state and its economy is in shambles. As the government’s control slips through their fingers and into to the militia fighters’ hands, oil production has all but stopped.
The militias variously local, tribal, regional, Islamist or criminal, that have plagued Libya since NATO’s intervention, have recently lined up into two warring factions. Libya now has two governments, both with their own Prime Minister, parliament and army.
On one side, in the West of the country, Islamist-allied militias took over control of the capital Tripoli and other cities and set up their own government, chasing away a parliament that was elected over the summer.
On the other side, in the East of the Country, the “legitimate” government dominated by anti-Islamist politicians, exiled 1,200 kilometers away in Tobruk, no longer governs anything.
The fall of Gaddafi’s administration has created all of the country’s worst-case scenarios: Western embassies have all left, the South of the country has become a haven for terrorists, and the Northern coast a center of migrant trafficking. Egypt, Algeria and Tunisia have all closed their borders with Libya. This all occurs amidst a backdrop of widespread rape, assassinations and torture that complete the picture of a state that is failed to the bone.
America is clearly fed up with the two inept governments in Libya and is now backing a third force: long-time CIA asset, General Khalifa Hifter, who aims to set himself up as Libya’s new dictator. Hifter, who broke with Gaddafi in the 1980s and lived for years in Langley, Virginia, close to the CIA’s headquarters, where he was trained by the CIA, has taken part in numerous American regime change efforts, including the aborted attempt to overthrow Gaddafi in 1996.
In 1991 the New York Times reported that Hifter may have been one of “600 Libyan soldiers trained by American intelligence officials in sabotage and other guerrilla skills…to fit in neatly into the Reagan Administration’s eagerness to topple Colonel Qaddafi”.
Hifter’s forces are currently vying with the Al Qaeda group Ansar al-Sharia for control of Libya’s second largest city, Benghazi. Ansar al-Sharia was armed by America during the NATO campaign against Colonel Gaddafi. In yet another example of the U.S. backing terrorists backfiring, Ansar al-Sharia has recently been blamed by America for the brutal assassination of U.S. Ambassador Stevens.
Hifter is currently receiving logistical and air support from the U.S. because his faction envision a mostly secular Libya open to Western financiers, speculators, and capital.

Perhaps, Gaddafi’s greatest crime, in the eyes of NATO, was his desire to put the interests of local labour above foreign capital and his quest for a strong and truly United States of Africa. In fact, in August 2011, President Obama confiscated $30 billion from Libya’s Central Bank, which Gaddafi had earmarked for the establishment of the African IMF and African Central Bank.In 2011, the West’s objective was clearly not to help the Libyan people, who already had the highest standard of living in Africa, but to oust Gaddafi, install a puppet regime, and gain control of Libya’s natural resources.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/libya-from-africas-richest-state-under-gaddafi-to-failed-state-after-nato-intervention/5408740

[MMC]

unstable? I thought you said it was stable. make up your mind.

Nah that was BO peep and Biden that said it was stable. Why did you miss your Cult Leaders statements.

[MMC]

you can call them hawkish if you like. I certainly have not been so $#@!ing stupid - and bullheaded - that I could continue to hold a position that the country of Libya - where rebels had basically taken control of the eastern half of the country a d Gadaffi was hanging on by his fingernails - was somehow "stable" right up until the moment the UN stepped in.

Rebels? You don't even have a clue as to what you are talking about.

Best you talk about something you know about.....rather than trying to wing it. Just sayin.

[Ethereal]

The Intercept.... (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Intercept) :rofl:



So the moron laughed at my posting an article from a highly respected source, then posts some slop from website that admittedly lacks any journalistic standards whatsoever.

Typical drooler.




My articles were from Glenn Greenwald, whose journalistic works have earned him a Pulitzer Prize and an Oscar, the highest possible standards in journalism and documentaries.

Try again.

[Ethereal]

The author holds many titles that qualify him as an expert on the ME.



And he made a very well thought out and rational case.

He is a partisan supporter of Hillary Clinton whose entire argument is based on speculation about what might have happened in the absence of an intervention.

But as you said in another thread...


Calling it a "failure" ASSUMES that the opposite course of action would have produced some significantly better outcome, which of course, nobody knows.

So if "nobody knows" what the "opposite course of action would have produced", as you claim, then how can his argument be "well thought out" and "rational"?

Let me guess.

Because he agrees with you and is deflecting blame from your cult leader?

[MMC]

My articles were from Glenn Greenwald, whose journalistic works have earned him a Pulitzer Prize and an Oscar, the highest possible standards in journalism and documentaries.

Try again.

They don't know much about those outside their Liberal rags other than those on Fox. Then Limbaugh and Beck.

[Ethereal]

How can I be guilty of hypocrisy when what I said and what the article I posted later on said, are exactly the same thing????

You said there was no way to know what the opposite course of action would have produced.

Yet the article you just posted is based entirely on speculation about what the opposite course of action would have looked like.

What about this is confusing you?


The author has forgotten more about the Middle East than you'll ever know, so when someone of your low caliber says he's wrong, I think most people will consider the source and weigh it against his vast background, intricate knowledge and years of experience studying and writing about the region and its conflicts, then arrive at their own decision as to who is more believable on the subject.

Only the most shameless right-wing hacks would ever take your word for anything.

As usual, you resort to outright lies and distortions because you cannot defend your flimsy partisan propaganda on its merits.

I posted ample evidence from Harvard University and the Guardian refuting your beloved's false premises.

You must have seen them, so I can only assume you ignored them in the desperate hope that no one would notice your cravenly dodge.

So here they are again:



Belfer Center: Lessons from Libya: How Not to Intervene (http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/publication/23387/lessons_from_libya.html)

The Conventional Wisdom Is Wrong. Libya's 2011 uprising was never peaceful, but instead was armed and violent from the start. Muammar al-Qaddafi did not target civilians or resort to indiscriminate force. Although inspired by humanitarian impulse, NATO's intervention did not aim mainly to protect civilians, but rather to overthrow Qaddafi's regime, even at the expense of increasing the harm to Libyans.


If the Libyan war was about saving lives, it was a catastrophic failure (http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/oct/26/libya-war-saving-lives-catastrophic-failure)

...

And these massacre sites are only the latest of many such discoveries. Amnesty International has now produced compendious evidence of mass abduction and detention, beating and routine torture, killings and atrocities by the rebel militias Britain, France and the US have backed for the last eight months – supposedly to stop exactly those kind of crimes being committed by the Gaddafi regime.

Throughout that time African migrants and black Libyans have been subject to a relentless racist campaign of mass detention, lynchings and atrocities on the usually unfounded basis that they have been loyalist mercenaries. Such attacks continue, says Bouckaert, who witnessed militias from Misrata this week burning homes in Tawerga so that the town's predominantly black population – accused of backing Gaddafi – will be unable to return.

All the while, Nato leaders and cheerleading media have turned a blind eye to such horrors as they boast of a triumph of freedom and murmur about the need for restraint. But it is now absolutely clear that, if the purpose of western intervention in Libya's civil war was to "protect civilians" and save lives, it has been a catastrophic failure.

David Cameron and Nicolas Sarkozy won the authorisation to use "all necessary means" from the UN security council in March on the basis that Gaddafi's forces were about to commit a Srebrenica-style massacre in Benghazi. Naturally we can never know what would have happened without Nato's intervention. But there is in fact no evidence – including from other rebel-held towns Gaddafi re-captured – to suggest he had either the capability or even the intention to carry out such an atrocity against an armed city of 700,000.

What is now known, however, is that while the death toll in Libya when Nato intervened was perhaps around 1,000-2,000 (judging by UN estimates), eight months later it is probably more than ten times that figure. Estimates of the numbers of dead over the last eight months – as Nato leaders vetoed ceasefires and negotiations – range from 10,000 up to 50,000. The National Transitional Council puts the losses at 30,000 dead and 50,000 wounded.

Of those, uncounted thousands will be civilians, including those killed by Nato bombing and Nato-backed forces on the ground. These figures dwarf the death tolls in this year's other most bloody Arab uprisings, in Syria and Yemen. Nato has not protected civilians in Libya – it has multiplied the number of their deaths, while losing not a single soldier of its own.

...

Feel free to address the EVIDENCE that REFUTES your laughably partisan propaganda. Dodging it and then lying will not work, sorry to say.

[Ethereal]

Tell us all about how wonderful life under Gaddafi was prior to the US intervention.

I already did.

Under Gaddafi, Libya's Human Development Index was rated "High" among African and Middle Eastern countries, and was ranked 53rd in the world among 163 countries. (http://www.ly.undp.org/content/libya/en/home/countryinfo.html)

But even if life under Gaddafi was a nightmare, it still wouldn't matter, because the US government is not a humanitarian organization whose mandate it is to liberate oppressed people across the globe.

The US government exists in order to "form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity..."

It says nothing about going on moral crusades in distant lands. Perhaps I missed it?

In any case, the rationale you are employing is the exact same logic that people employed when they tried to rationalize the invasion of Iraq.

They told how us how horrible Saddam Hussein was and that this somehow justified regime change in Iraq.

And we all saw how well that worked out.

Of course, Hillary Clinton was involved in promoting that disaster, too, so I can see why you would try to recycle the same hackneyed propaganda as last time.


Tell us how wonderful it would have been now, for the innocent civilians caught in the middle of the rebel uprising and Gaddafi's brutal reprisals.

You already told us that there is no way to know the answer to that question.


Calling it a "failure" ASSUMES that the opposite course of action would have produced some significantly better outcome, which of course, nobody knows.

Now you are pretending to know what would have happened had the opposite course of action been taken.

Make up your mind, would you?

[Ethereal]

Pre-invasion Iraq and pre-intervention Libya were two COMPLETELY DIFFERENT situations.

Iraq under Sadam Hussein actually WAS a very stable country, with ZERO outside incursion.

Libya after the Arab Spring uprising was anything BUT stable and Gaddafi WAS massacring civilians along with rebel fighters, putting the rest of the civilian population at great risk for mass genocide.

Do you think if you keep repeating lies about Gaddafi massacring civilians that it will make it true?

And Saddam Hussein massacred civilians on several occasions, so even if your propaganda about Gaddafi's alleged massacres were true, it wouldn't make a difference, let alone a "COMPLETE" one.

But you keep up your desperate, pathetic attempt to shine the turd that is Hillary Clinton's foreign policy record. It only makes her and her supporters look like the imbeciles they are.

[Ethereal]

Yes, prior to the Arab Spring.

But that's not when the US intervened, is it?

What about POST Arab Spring? What about AFTER the rebel uprisings had the country on the verge of civil war and civilians were being killed right along with rebels?

Cute the way you just kind of snuck that little omission in there under the radar.

What about it?

The central government was putting down the uprisings, just like any other central government in the world would do if people rebelled against it.

Just like Saddam Hussein did several times when there were uprisings in Iraq.

Apparently, you think the US government is some kind of humanitarian organization that is responsible for defending rebellions in foreign countries?

Funny, I can't find anything to support that view in the US Constitution.

[Ethereal]

until the Spring of 2011, perhaps... but after that, it fell apart and the violence and unrest was none of OUR doing.

It fell apart precisely because western governments intervened on behalf of the amorphous rebel groups.

[Ethereal]

you are incorrect. Libya was NOT stable prior to our intervention. Do some reading.

How are you defining "stable"?

Because virtually every country in the world experiences bouts of unrest, including western countries like America.

If the US government intervened every time a foreign country experience civil unrest, they'd being doing nothing else.

Is that what you want? For the US government to go around supporting every rebel uprising in the world?

[Ethereal]

Libyan Civil War
Main articles: Muammar Gaddafi's response to the 2011 Libyan Civil War and Libyan Civil War (2011)
Origins: February–March 2011

Following the start of the Arab Spring in 2011, Gaddafi spoke out in favour of Tunisian President Zine El Abidine Ben Ali, then threatened by the Tunisian Revolution. He suggested that Tunisia's people would be satisfied if Ben Ali introduced a Jamahiriyah system there.[256] Fearing domestic protest, Libya's government implemented preventative measures, reducing food prices, purging the army leadership of potential defectors and releasing several Islamist prisoners.[257] They proved ineffective, and on 17 February 2011, major protests broke out against Gaddafi's government. Unlike Tunisia or Egypt, Libya was largely religiously homogenous and had no strong Islamist movement, but there was widespread dissatisfaction with the corruption and entrenched systems of patronage, while unemployment had reached around 30%.[258]

Accusing the rebels of being "drugged" and linked to al-Qaeda, Gaddafi proclaimed that he would die a martyr rather than leave Libya.[259] As he announced that the rebels would be "hunted down street by street, house by house and wardrobe by wardrobe",[260] the army opened fire on protests in Benghazi, killing hundreds.[261] Shocked at the government's response, a number of senior politicians resigned or defected to the protesters' side.[262] The uprising spread quickly through Libya's less economically developed eastern half.[263] By February's end, eastern cities like Benghazi, Misrata, al-Bayda and Tobruk were controlled by rebels,[264] and the Benghazi-based National Transitional Council (NTC) had been founded to represent them.[265]

In the conflict's early months it appeared that Gaddafi's government – with its greater firepower – would be victorious.[263] Both sides disregarded the laws of war, committing human rights abuses, including arbitrary arrests, torture, extrajudicial executions and revenge attacks.[266] On 26 February the United Nations Security Council passed Resolution 1970, suspending Libya from the UN Human Rights Council, implementing sanctions and calling for an International Criminal Court (ICC) investigation into the killing of unarmed civilians.[267] In March, the Security Council declared a no fly zone to protect the civilian population from aerial bombardment, calling on foreign nations to enforce it; it also specifically prohibited foreign occupation.[268] Ignoring this, Qatar sent hundreds of troops to support the dissidents, and along with France and the United Arab Emirates provided the NTC with weaponry and training.[269]


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muammar_Gaddafi



The Huffington Post: The CIA, the Libyan Rebellion, and the President (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-bromwich/cia-libya-obama-_b_843166.html)
...

The truth is far different. Not only is it the case that many in the rebel party fought to kill Americans in Iraq (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8407047/Libyan-rebel-commander-admits-his-fighters-have-al-Qaeda-links.html); that Al Qaeda has backed the rebellion (http://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?id=212003); and that even the supreme commander of NATO forces, Admiral Stavridis, has lately been disturbed by “flickers (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8414583/Libya-al-Qaeda-among-Libya-rebels-Nato-chief-fears.html)“ of an Al Qaeda force within the rebellion — though those reports alone were sufficiently alarming. The reports however were confirmed by an omission in Monday’s speech; for the president declined to say one word about the identity of the rebel army to which he was giving his support. Even then, one might have thought, as well-behaved people are taught to think: what does any of us really know? But the Mazzetti-Schmitt story shows beyond doubt that the Libya adventure from the start was a toxic brew; a commitment to be understood not in the light of the Egyptian protests but of previous American activities in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Yemen.

According to Mazzetti and Schmitt, the CIA and its British equivalent MI6 scoured Libya as far back as 2003, initially in the effort to persuade Muammar Gaddafi to give up his nuclear weapons program. When that effort succeeded, the intelligence operatives went away, or so Mazzetti and Schmitt suggest. When the February protests began and a crackdown followed, the CIA and MI6 went back into Libya and picked up the old connections. What are they doing now on the ground? Arranging targets for air strikes with the help of U-2 spy planes and a Global Hawk drone. Also learning of and creating links between the rebel groups to facilitate enhanced advisory work at a later date. In short, doing everything but fight, it would seem; but Mazzetti and Schmitt add that “dozens” of British special forces accompany the operatives from the CIA and MI6. What do special forces do?

The meaning of the Times report can be fully grasped only if one augments its findings with a March 26 McClatchy story (http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/03/26/111109/new-rebel-leader-spent-much-of.html) by Chris Adams.

Adams sketches the career of the former chief military officer of Colonel Gaddafi’s army, Khalifa Hifter, who was recently appointed to lead the rebel army. (The article does not say who appointed him.) The ascent of Hifter is a study in itself. After leading Gaddafi’s disastrous war against Chad in the late 1980s, Adams reports, General Hifter (also known as Haftar, Hefter, and Huftur) retired to “suburban Virginia,” where he has lived for much of the last two decades. It has been reported elsewhere (http://www.democracynow.org/2011/3/29/a_debate_on_us_military_intervention) that the suburb in question is Vienna, Virginia: five minutes from CIA headquarters at Langley.

However the facts are to be explained, this close associate of an African dictator whom American officials have long regarded as a dangerous madman somehow obtained easy entrance to the U.S. And his safe return to Libya was facilitated at a remarkably opportune moment.

It seems then that a long train of earlier commitments in Libya was set in motion as soon as the Egyptian uprising began. “Kinetic military action” is the term of art for a policy whose content perhaps no single person is in full possession of.

Yet one thing is clear, thanks to Mazzetti and Schmitt. “Several weeks ago, President Obama signed a secret finding authorizing the CIA to provide arms and other support to Libyan rebels.” It is said that the arms have not yet been sent; but the timing is interesting. The order was signed just about the moment that President Obama was lauding the triumph of non-violence in Egypt. The Times reporters wisely let the serial flat reiterations of “no comment” from leading officials speak for themselves.

The upshot is this. An event that we Americans were led to believe was an autonomous rising on the model of Egypt turns out to have been deeply compromised from the start, and compromised by American meddling...

AQ rebels trying to overthrow a secular autocrat who was cooperating with the west's "war on terror" and you think supporting them was a good idea?

[Ethereal]

We have had a long and storied history of intervening in countries where tyrants are holding court. It wasn't our business in Iran in the 50's or Chile when we helped overthrow Allende, or Iraq in 2003. For that matter, was Korea "our business"? Was Vietnam? Was Cuba our business when we fronted the bay of Pigs invasion? Isolationists would say no to all of those situations... but we intervened nonetheless.

Now... can you read post #78 and honestly say that Libya was STABLE prior to our intervention?

So now you're comparing the intervention in Libya to Vietnam and Iraq, two of the worst foreign policy disasters in American history?

Setting the bar pretty low, aren't we?

And why are you using the term "isolationists" to describe people who object to disastrous wars of aggression?

[Ethereal]

I did answer. But let me answer it again: If you are an isolationist, you would say no. If you are a neocon, you would say yes.... I am neither, but I believe that for humanitarian reasons, Libya was our business.

So what other humanitarian crusades would you like to go on?

Perhaps we should liberate North Korea next? Maybe Iran? Or even Saudi Arabia?

[Ethereal]

Can you honestly say that, with Gadaffi losing complete control of vast areas of eastern Libya, that Libya was a "stable" country prior to our intervention?

The only reason it got that bad in the first place is because western governments were fomenting rebellion in Libya in order to effectuate another disastrous round of "regime change" policies.

When will westerners wake up and smell the coffee?

How many governments does the CIA have to overthrow before they will connect the dots?

[Ethereal]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_military_intervention_in_Libya

no ground troops... limited air action as part of a UN coalition. The United Nations obviously thought it was THEIR business. This wasn't Obama going it alone.

Funny, I thought the Congress, not the UN, was responsible for authorizing the US government to take military action.

[Ethereal]

if the country was "stable", why would anyone need to "regain control"??

Because "stability" is not static, it's dynamic.

Stability implies an equilibrium between two or more forces.

So when one force gets out of balance like it did in Libya, the other force must increase in order to reestablish an equilibrium.

Your mistake is in assuming that "stability" means a static situation where nothing changes.

In reality, stability is characterized by constant change.

[Ethereal]

you can call them hawkish if you like. I certainly have not been so $#@!ing stupid - and bullheaded - that I could continue to hold a position that the country of Libya - where rebels had basically taken control of the eastern half of the country a d Gadaffi was hanging on by his fingernails - was somehow "stable" right up until the moment the UN stepped in.

If the point of intervening in Libya was to stabilize the situation, then the intervention was a complete failure.

[Ethereal]

What's funny about this is how hypocritical and cynical Clinton's rationale for intervention in Libya turned out to be.

Because Egypt experienced unrest similar to that in Libya.

And the Egyptian government tried to repress it just as brutally, if not more so, than Gaddafi did in Libya.

So did Hillary Clinton and Obama decide to militarily intervene in Egypt on behalf of the protesters and dissidents?

Nope.

And wouldn't you know it? They eventually sided with the military dictatorship that now rules Egypt.


After Feigning Love for Egyptian Democracy, U.S. Back To Openly Supporting Tyranny (https://theintercept.com/2014/10/02/feigned-american-support-egyptian-democracy-lasted-roughly-six-weeks/)

So Obama and Clinton support "democracy" and "human rights" in Libya while supporting a brutally repressive military dictatorship in Egypt?

What gives?

[Ethereal]

Hillary Clinton and her supporters care so much about democracy and human rights that they help prop up brutal dictatorships in Egypt and Saudi Arabia.

It would be funny if it weren't so cynical and disgusting.

[Ethereal]

as a matter of record, Iraq was a hell of a lot more "stable" when we sent a conquering army into it than Libya was when we flew some air missions OVER it.

stable.

hahahahahahahahahahahahaha

Iraq was stable and Libya was not?

How so?

Because there have been multiple instances of unrest in Iraq throughout the years.

And Saddam Hussein really did massacre people in response.

[Ethereal]

http://egyptianstreets.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/hilbil.jpg

Bill and Hillary smiling and glad-handing Egypt's military dictator.

Their firm commitment to human rights and democracy is truly inspiring.

[Peter1469]

It fell apart precisely because western governments intervened on behalf of the amorphous rebel groups.

Right. And technically under international law, nations are not supposed to intervene in internal conflicts until a belligerent (legal term of art) is recognized by the international community. Lately we have ignored that requirement and just said the amorphous rebel group of the day de facto satisfies that requirement.

Even during our Civil War, foreign military officers were with Southern units specifically to determine whether the South's rebellion would meet the standards of the day for belligerency status. Had they determined that the South meet that standard, our Civil War would have turned out very differently.

[JDubya]

Right. And technically under international law, nations are not supposed to intervene in internal conflicts until a belligerent (legal term of art) is recognized by the international community. Lately we have ignored that requirement and just said the amorphous rebel group of the day de facto satisfies that requirement.

Even during our Civil War, foreign military officers were with Southern units specifically to determine whether the South's rebellion would meet the standards of the day for belligerency status. Had they determined that the South meet that standard, our Civil War would have turned out very differently.

R2P.

Look it up.

[JDubya]

My articles were from Glenn Greenwald, whose journalistic works have earned him a Pulitzer Prize and an Oscar, the highest possible standards in journalism and documentaries.

Try again.

He won one Pulitzer for a book about Edward Snowden.

What makes him an expert on the ME? Nothing, that's what.

My article was written by an actual expert on the subject, who is a native of the region and who holds or has held several ranking positions at organizations devoted solely to the study of the region.


Shadi Hamid


Senior Fellow, Foreign Policy, Center for Middle East Policy, U.S. Relations with the Islamic World


Shadi Hamid is a senior fellow in the Project on U.S. Relations with the Islamic World in the Center for Middle East Policy and the author of the new book "Islamic Exceptionalism: How the Struggle Over Islam is Reshaping the World" (St. Martin's Press).

His previous book “Temptations of Power: Islamists and Illiberal Democracy in a New Middle East” (Oxford University Press, 2014) was named a Foreign Affairs "Best Book of 2014."

Hamid served as director of research at the Brookings Doha Center until January 2014. Prior to joining Brookings, he was director of research at the Project on Middle East Democracy (POMED) and a Hewlett Fellow at Stanford University's Center on Democracy, Development, and the Rule of Law.

Hamid is a contributing writer for The Atlantic and the vice-chair of POMED's board of directors.

So, given the choice, I'll believe the writings of a legitimate expert on the subject as opposed to a gay lawyer who lives in South America and writes about a lot of unrelated subject matter.

[Peter1469]

That is stretching the law to allow interventions at will.


R2P.

Look it up.

[JDubya]

He is a partisan supporter of Hillary Clinton whose entire argument is based on speculation about what might have happened in the absence of an intervention.

But as you said in another thread...

So if "nobody knows" what the "opposite course of action would have produced", as you claim, then how can his argument be "well thought out" and "rational"?

Let me guess.

Because he agrees with you and is deflecting blame from your cult leader?


You said there was no way to know what the opposite course of action would have produced.

Yet the article you just posted is based entirely on speculation about what the opposite course of action would have looked like.

What about this is confusing you?

As usual, you resort to outright lies and distortions because you cannot defend your flimsy partisan propaganda on its merits.

I posted ample evidence from Harvard University and the Guardian refuting your beloved's false premises.

You must have seen them, so I can only assume you ignored them in the desperate hope that no one would notice your cravenly dodge.

So here they are again:

Feel free to address the EVIDENCE that REFUTES your laughably partisan propaganda. Dodging it and then lying will not work, sorry to say.

I can refute your bullshit with one link...


Gaddafi files show evidence of murderous intent (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/jun/18/gaddafi-misrata-war-crime-documents)

The dark green box files are packed closely together in rows that stretch up to the ceiling – as dull as dull could be. But the papers hidden inside them will sink Muammar Gaddafi.

In these boxes, hidden at a secure location in the besieged rebel city of Misrata, lie thousands of documents containing the orders given by the Libyan leader and transmitted by his generals to unleash the torture, arrest and bombardment that have torn the country apart. For war crimes prosecutors, they are pure gold.

The International Criminal Court's chief prosecutor, Luis Moreno Ocampo, has already filed indictments against Gaddafi, his son, Saif al-Islam, and his intelligence chief, Abdullah Senussi, for war crimes and crimes against humanity. These files provide the proof, according to the Libyan lawyers who collected them, that make convictions all but certain.

The Observer was last week granted exclusive access to view some of the files – documents that even the ICC has not yet seen. A glance at the paperwork is astonishing: on the top of one file is a letter from 4 March, two weeks after Misrata rose up to defy Gaddafi, signed by the general he put in charge of the operation to quell the protest: Youssef Ahmed Basheer Abu Hajar. Addressed to the "fighting formations", which had by then cut all roads into the city, it issues a blunt instruction: "It is absolutely forbidden for supply cars, fuel and other services to enter the city of Misrata from all gates and checkpoints."

Or, to put it more bluntly, he ordered his army to inflict starvation on every man, woman and child in Misrata.

There are other documents, not to be revealed to the press – at least, not until a trial is in open court – that reveal Gaddafi's generals giving orders to smash rebel centres, regardless of causing civilian casualties.

"We have lots of evidence that Gaddafi wanted all of Misrata gone," said Misratan war crimes investigator Khalid Alwab, 35. "We have him [Gaddafi] saying he wanted the people of Taruga [the town to the west] and Zlitan [the town to the east] to each take half. He says that he wanted to turn the blue sea red."

Ooops....


But even if life under Gaddafi was a nightmare, it still wouldn't matter, because the US government is not a humanitarian organization whose mandate it is to liberate oppressed people across the globe.

The US government exists in order to "form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity..."

It says nothing about going on moral crusades in distant lands. Perhaps I missed it?


R2P. Look it up.


In any case, the rationale you are employing is the exact same logic that people employed when they tried to rationalize the invasion of Iraq.

They told how us how horrible Saddam Hussein was and that this somehow justified regime change in Iraq.

And we all saw how well that worked out.

Of course, Hillary Clinton was involved in promoting that disaster, too, so I can see why you would try to recycle the same hackneyed propaganda as last time.

You already told us that there is no way to know the answer to that question.

Now you are pretending to know what would have happened had the opposite course of action been taken.

Make up your mind, would you?

You are conflating two non-related issues.

There was no unrest or mass uprising imminent in Iraq. Hussein was a despot, but he wasn't actively engaged in massacring his people at the time we invaded and the stated purpose of the invasion was non-existent WMD.

Under the UN doctrine in place at the time, we were obligated to put a stop to what by all appearances, looked like an imminent human disaster.


Do you think if you keep repeating lies about Gaddafi massacring civilians that it will make it true?

And Saddam Hussein massacred civilians on several occasions, so even if your propaganda about Gaddafi's alleged massacres were true, it wouldn't make a difference, let alone a "COMPLETE" one.

But you keep up your desperate, pathetic attempt to shine the turd that is Hillary Clinton's foreign policy record. It only makes her and her supporters look like the imbeciles they are.

Just debunked your crap a couple of quotes above. Reams of documents that prove Gaddafi was ordering his generals to massacre civilians.

You lose. Try again.

[JDubya]

That is stretching the law to allow interventions at will.

That is the official UN doctrine the US was acting under.

So how can it be a UN sanctioned doctrine and against international law at the same time?

Oh wait... it can't.

Never mind.

[maineman]

How are you defining "stable"?
It's a lot easier to define the absence of stable. Stability does NOT exist when rebels have taken over a giant area of the country and the existing government is not capable of quelling the uprising. If the Bundy crowd in Oregon had not simply occupied a wildlife sanctuary, but instead had taken control of Oregon, Washington, Idaho and Montana...AND the federal government had been incapable of reasserting its control over those states, I doubt that you would suggest that THAT America was "stable".

[Peter1469]

That is the official UN doctrine the US was acting under.

So how can it be a UN sanctioned doctrine and against international law at the same time?

Oh wait... it can't.

Never mind.

I answered that already. Don't be simple.

To expand on my previous answers, we have two issues here.

1. The UN has been controlled by liberal hawks the last decade or so. They advance using military power for humanitarian reasons with zero thought to the results or whether anyone has an actual interest to act.

2. More importantly, we are in the age of the Nation-State. International organizations have no authority. They are mere tools used by sovereign Nation-States.

Globalism is on the retreat - at least for those who are paying attention.

[JDubya]

I answered that already. Don't be simple.

To expand on my previous answers, we have two issues here.

1. The UN has been controlled by liberal hawks the last decade or so. They advance using military power for humanitarian reasons with zero thought to the results or whether anyone has an actual interest to act.

2. More importantly, we are in the age of the Nation-State. International organizations have no authority. They are mere tools used by sovereign Nation-States.

Globalism is on the retreat - at least for those who are paying attention.

Show me where you gave me a SUBSTANTIVE explanation as to why R2P fails to negate your claim that our interceding in Libya was against international law.

Because if you've already done so, I haven't seen it.

As to your two numbered points, those are your views and nothing more. Trying to portray them as factual data just makes your argument look even weaker.

[Peter1469]

Show me where you gave me a SUBSTANTIVE explanation as to why R2P fails to negate your claim that our interceding in Libya was against international law.

Because if you've already done so, I haven't seen it.

As to your two numbered points, those are your views and nothing more. Trying to portray them as factual data just makes your argument look even weaker.

Pay attention. I said it was against the traditions of international law. Subsequently I explained further showing how liberal hawks are attempting to change things.

Keep up.

As far as the second point goes- it is actual fact. Look at the world and the conduct of nation-states.

People in general are so uneducated they can't come to any rational conclusions based off verifiable observation. They think what they are told to think.

[JDubya]

Pay attention. I said it was against the traditions of international law. Subsequently I explained further showing how liberal hawks are attempting to change things.

Keep up.

As far as the second point goes- it is actual fact. Look at the world and the conduct of nation-states.

People in general are so uneducated they can't come to any rational conclusions based off verifiable observation. They think what they are told to think.

First of all, you don't need me to tell you where you can shove your condescension.

Second of all, everything you said in the above quote is just more of your usual pure, utter, 100% unadulterated bullshit.

You saying that "...it was against the traditions of international law" is the same as saying nothing. It certainly was not a SUBSTANTIVE explanation with references to exactly which statutes or tenets of international law R2P supposedly violates and how it does so.

Furthermore, you didn't even attempt to address my question as to how R2P could simultaneously be both an official UN doctrine AND violate international law at the same time.

It's becoming increasingly obvious that whenever you get your bullshit called out, you favorite tactic is to take an insulting, condescending tone thinking that it will deflect attention away from your own utter failure.

But it never does.

Pay attention, "little Peter".

Keep up.

[Peter1469]

First of all, you don't need me to tell you where you can shove your condescension.

Second of all, everything you said in the above quote is just more of your usual pure, utter, 100% unadulterated bullshit.

You saying that "...it was against the traditions of international law" is the same as saying nothing. It certainly was not a SUBSTANTIVE explanation with references to exactly which statutes or tenets of international law R2P supposedly violates and how it does so.

Furthermore, you didn't even attempt to address my question as to how R2P could simultaneously be both an official UN doctrine AND violate international law at the same time.

It's becoming increasingly obvious that whenever you get your bullshit called out, you favorite tactic is to take an insulting, condescending tone thinking that it will deflect attention away from your own utter failure.

But it never does.

Pay attention, "little Peter".

Keep up.

I don't think that you understand the concepts of nationalism, globalism, and the differences in the two world views.

But there are differences. The place of international organizations in the grand scheme being one of those.


Second of all, everything you said in the above quote is just more of your usual pure, utter, 100% unadulterated bullshit.

Thanks for the confirmation that you are anti-intellectual and don't understand the issues.

You emote. That is all.

[JDubya]

I don't think that you understand the concepts of nationalism, globalism, and the differences in the two world views.

But there are differences. The place of international organizations in the grand scheme being one of those.



Thanks for the confirmation that you are anti-intellectual and don't understand the issues.

You emote. That is all.

And you deflect. That is all.

But at least we've established that you cannot or will not back up your earlier assertion that intervening in Libya was supposedly against international law, right before telling me I didn't understand international law. So that's something I guess.

And it looks like we now know who really doesn't understand it, don't we?

(It's you).

[Peter1469]

And you deflect. That is all.

But at least we've established that you cannot or will not back up your earlier assertion that intervening in Libya was supposedly against international law, right before telling me I didn't understand international law. So that's something I guess.

And it looks like we now know who really doesn't understand it, don't we?

(It's you).

Incorrect.

I am not deflecting.

Under the realist school of foreign policy the nation-state is sovereign. International organizations are not. They serve as tools of nation-states.

Nations act in their own self interest. Sometimes that is in line with international consensus. Other times it is not.

Libya: the US had no vital interest in deposing Gaddafi. None. Zero.

You liberal war hawks destroyed the place over the vague concept of human rights. You effort got you chaos. Realists told you that as you insanely did it.

You need to stop projecting on others you lack of knowledge. But read. Drones too can learn.

[JDubya]

Incorrect.

I am not deflecting.

Under the realist school of foreign policy the nation-state is sovereign. International organizations are not. They serve as tools of nation-states.

Nations act in their own self interest. Sometimes that is in line with international consensus. Other times it is not.

Libya: the US had no vital interest in deposing Gaddafi. None. Zero.

You liberal war hawks destroyed the place over the vague concept of human rights. You effort got you chaos. Realists told you that as you insanely did it.

You need to stop projecting on others you lack of knowledge. But read. Drones too can learn.

Yes you are deflecting. You never stop.

All your drooling blabber about international organizations being tools of nation-states sounds like typical meaningless right-wing lunatic fringe drivel you've picked up from some goofball contard website and then tossed around to make it sound like you actually have something to say when its obvious that you don't .

You cannot point to ANY specific "international law" that intervening in Libya supposedly violated as you claimed, and you cannot explain how the UN... the governing body which sets and enforces international laws, could adopt a doctrine like R2P, which according to you, violates the very laws the UN is there to create and enforce.

Real genius there, Pete.

Your phony baloney is showing.

As for your contention that we "...liberal war hawks destroyed the place..." see my first paragraph. Just more of the same nonsense. Libya was descending into civil war and a humanitarian crisis was looming on the horizon. Had Obama not intervened and thousands of civilians had been slaughtered, as it has been proven Gaddafi was planning to do (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/jun/18/gaddafi-misrata-war-crime-documents), you right-wing bullshit champions would've been spewing your vomit about how Obama was too much of a pussy to step in and defend people who were fighting for democracy because Obama hates democracy etc, etc, blah blah blah all day everyday 24/7/365 forever and ever non-stop until the end of time.

Conservative = lying reprobate dirtbag.

[Ethereal]

He won one Pulitzer for a book about Edward Snowden.

What makes him an expert on the ME? Nothing, that's what.

My article was written by an actual expert on the subject, who is a native of the region and who holds or has held several ranking positions at organizations devoted solely to the study of the region.



So, given the choice, I'll believe the writings of a legitimate expert on the subject as opposed to a gay lawyer who lives in South America and writes about a lot of unrelated subject matter.

You tried to undermine the credibility of Greenwald's articles by attacking something someone else did.

Not sure how your worshipful attitude towards Hamid is at all relevant to your error.

[Ethereal]

I can refute your bull$#@! with one link...



Ooops....



R2P. Look it up.



You are conflating two non-related issues.

There was no unrest or mass uprising imminent in Iraq. Hussein was a despot, but he wasn't actively engaged in massacring his people at the time we invaded and the stated purpose of the invasion was non-existent WMD.

Under the UN doctrine in place at the time, we were obligated to put a stop to what by all appearances, looked like an imminent human disaster.



Just debunked your crap a couple of quotes above. Reams of documents that prove Gaddafi was ordering his generals to massacre civilians.

You lose. Try again.

You said there is no way to know what would have happened in the absence of NATO intervention, yet the article you posted in the OP is based entirely on speculation about what would have happened in the absence of NATO intervention.

So which one is it?

And your link doesn't refute anything. All it does is speculate about Gaddafi's intent.

You must really love speculation, since that's what your entire argument seems to be based on.

Me, I prefer facts to speculation.

And here are the facts, which you refuse to address:



Belfer Center: Lessons from Libya: How Not to Intervene (http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/publication/23387/lessons_from_libya.html)

The Conventional Wisdom Is Wrong. Libya's 2011 uprising was never peaceful, but instead was armed and violent from the start. Muammar al-Qaddafi did not target civilians or resort to indiscriminate force. Although inspired by humanitarian impulse, NATO's intervention did not aim mainly to protect civilians, but rather to overthrow Qaddafi's regime, even at the expense of increasing the harm to Libyans.


If the Libyan war was about saving lives, it was a catastrophic failure (http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/oct/26/libya-war-saving-lives-catastrophic-failure)

...

And these massacre sites are only the latest of many such discoveries. Amnesty International has now produced compendious evidence of mass abduction and detention, beating and routine torture, killings and atrocities by the rebel militias Britain, France and the US have backed for the last eight months – supposedly to stop exactly those kind of crimes being committed by the Gaddafi regime.

Throughout that time African migrants and black Libyans have been subject to a relentless racist campaign of mass detention, lynchings and atrocities on the usually unfounded basis that they have been loyalist mercenaries. Such attacks continue, says Bouckaert, who witnessed militias from Misrata this week burning homes in Tawerga so that the town's predominantly black population – accused of backing Gaddafi – will be unable to return.

All the while, Nato leaders and cheerleading media have turned a blind eye to such horrors as they boast of a triumph of freedom and murmur about the need for restraint. But it is now absolutely clear that, if the purpose of western intervention in Libya's civil war was to "protect civilians" and save lives, it has been a catastrophic failure.

David Cameron and Nicolas Sarkozy won the authorisation to use "all necessary means" from the UN security council in March on the basis that Gaddafi's forces were about to commit a Srebrenica-style massacre in Benghazi. Naturally we can never know what would have happened without Nato's intervention. But there is in fact no evidence – including from other rebel-held towns Gaddafi re-captured – to suggest he had either the capability or even the intention to carry out such an atrocity against an armed city of 700,000.

What is now known, however, is that while the death toll in Libya when Nato intervened was perhaps around 1,000-2,000 (judging by UN estimates), eight months later it is probably more than ten times that figure. Estimates of the numbers of dead over the last eight months – as Nato leaders vetoed ceasefires and negotiations – range from 10,000 up to 50,000. The National Transitional Council puts the losses at 30,000 dead and 50,000 wounded.

Of those, uncounted thousands will be civilians, including those killed by Nato bombing and Nato-backed forces on the ground. These figures dwarf the death tolls in this year's other most bloody Arab uprisings, in Syria and Yemen. Nato has not protected civilians in Libya – it has multiplied the number of their deaths, while losing not a single soldier of its own.

...

Sorry to inform you, but your self-serving speculation about what might have happened does not refute what actually happened.

[Ethereal]

That is the official UN doctrine the US was acting under.

So how can it be a UN sanctioned doctrine and against international law at the same time?

Oh wait... it can't.

Never mind.

The UN is not the legal entity charged with authorizing the US military to wage war, the US Congress is.

I understand that many Democrats want to forfeit American sovereignty to an unaccountable, unelected globalist bureaucracy, but most Americans still believe in American independence.

[Ethereal]

It's a lot easier to define the absence of stable. Stability does NOT exist when rebels have taken over a giant area of the country and the existing government is not capable of quelling the uprising. If the Bundy crowd in Oregon had not simply occupied a wildlife sanctuary, but instead had taken control of Oregon, Washington, Idaho and Montana...AND the federal government had been incapable of reasserting its control over those states, I doubt that you would suggest that THAT America was "stable".

How do you know they were not capable of quelling the uprising? And assuming that Libya met the definition of "unstable" at the time, how does that rationalize military intervention? Is the US government supposed to intervene in every country that is experiencing "instability", however we're defining that?

[Peter1469]

Foolishness can be reversed. But you have to take the first step.

1. International organizations as tools of nation-states is not "right wing." First, your only conception of right wing is Neocon. And the concept that I speak of is from the realist school. But you have no idea what I just said.

2. Regarding the traditional notions of when other nations can intervene in internal conflicts figure out what Geneva Convention Article III (http://www.cfr.org/human-rights/geneva-conventions/p8778)is, then read it. It is going to confuse you. Hint. Look for Common Article III and try not to get distracted by Article III.

3. Your cry to help the suffering Libyans is noble. Who cares? The question is when should a sovereign power expend its blood and treasure. I say in furtherance of its vital national security interests.

I have studied international law of war for the last 18 years. I have taught relevant courses and blocks of instructions to combat soldiers and commanders.

You just say I don't know what I am talking about. Yet you have never uttered a word to prove you have a scintilla of knowledge of the topic.

Refer back to the first sentence of the post.


Yes you are deflecting. You never stop.

All your drooling blabber about international organizations being tools of nation-states sounds like typical meaningless right-wing lunatic fringe drivel you've picked up from some goofball contard website and then tossed around to make it sound like you actually have something to say when its obvious that you don't .

You cannot point to ANY specific "international law" that intervening in Libya supposedly violated as you claimed, and you cannot explain how the UN... the governing body which sets and enforces international laws, could adopt a doctrine like R2P, which according to you, violates the very laws the UN is there to create and enforce.

Real genius there, Pete.

Your phony baloney is showing.

As for your contention that we "...liberal war hawks destroyed the place..." see my first paragraph. Just more of the same nonsense. Libya was descending into civil war and a humanitarian crisis was looming on the horizon. Had Obama not intervened and thousands of civilians had been slaughtered, as it has been proven Gaddafi was planning to do (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/jun/18/gaddafi-misrata-war-crime-documents), you right-wing bullshit champions would've been spewing your vomit about how Obama was too much of a pussy to step in and defend people who were fighting for democracy because Obama hates democracy etc, etc, blah blah blah all day everyday 24/7/365 forever and ever non-stop until the end of time.

Conservative = lying reprobate dirtbag.

[Ethereal]

Many of the Libyan rebels were Salafi extremists who want to impose an Islamic theocracy on Libya and the Arabic world generally.

These are the kinds of "noble" rebels that Clinton and Obama were helping.

God forbid Gaddafi slaughter some Salafi scum lords.

What a tragedy that would have been.

[maineman]

Is the US government supposed to intervene in every country that is experiencing "instability", however we're defining that?
Supposed to? No. Precluded from? Also no.

[Peter1469]

The UN is not the legal entity charged with authorizing the US military to wage war, the US Congress is.

I understand that many Democrats want to forfeit American sovereignty to an unaccountable, unelected globalist bureaucracy, but most Americans still believe in American independence.

Way above his knowledge base.

[Ethereal]

Supposed to? No. Precluded from? Also no.

If the US government isn't supposed to intervene every time a country is subject to "instability", then how does "instability" rationalize intervention in Libya?

And if the goal was to stabilize Libya, the intervention was clearly a failure.

[JDubya]

You said there is no way to know what would have happened in the absence of NATO intervention, yet the article you posted in the OP is based entirely on speculation about what would have happened in the absence of NATO intervention.

So which one is it?

And your link doesn't refute anything. All it does is speculate about Gaddafi's intent.

You must really love speculation, since that's what your entire argument seems to be based on.

Me, I prefer facts to speculation.

And here are the facts, which you refuse to address:

Sorry to inform you, but your self-serving speculation about what might have happened does not refute what actually happened.

It wasn't speculation at all. The road Gaddafi would have gone down to maintain his own power was pretty obvious.

Speculation about what a wonderful utopia Libya would've been today had we only stayed out, is on the other hand, aside from unrealistic nonsense, pure speculation.

And as it turns out Hamid was totally 100% correct about what Gaddafi's intentions were regarding the massacre of civilians (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/jun/18/gaddafi-misrata-war-crime-documents).

I have provided you with that same link to a source that provides all the proof you need, but it's obvious that you are either a) not man enough to look at it or b) youve seen it but you're too dishonest to admit it.

Either way, the reflection on you is nothing to feel good about.

[JDubya]

The UN is not the legal entity charged with authorizing the US military to wage war, the US Congress is.

I understand that many Democrats want to forfeit American sovereignty to an unaccountable, unelected globalist bureaucracy, but most Americans still believe in American independence.

No shit Sherlick.

He was citing international law as the reason why the intervention was supposedly illegal.

I was merely trying to get him to back up his claim.

[maineman]

If the US government isn't supposed to intervene every time a country is subject to "instability", then how does "instability" rationalize intervention in Libya?

And if the goal was to stabilize Libya, the intervention was clearly a failure.

Did you miss the part where I said that instability did not preclude the US from intervening if the President felt it was in our national interest?

[Ethereal]

Did you miss the part where I said that instability did not preclude the US from intervening if the President felt it was in our national interest?

No, I didn't miss it.

So are you trying to suggest that intervention in Libya was in our "national interest" somehow?

And correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the Congress tasked with authorizing the use of military force and not the President?

[Ethereal]

It wasn't speculation at all. The road Gaddafi would have gone down to maintain his own power was pretty obvious.

Speculation about what a wonderful utopia Libya would've been today had we only stayed out, is on the other hand, aside from unrealistic nonsense, pure speculation.

And as it turns out Hamid was totally 100% correct about what Gaddafi's intentions were regarding the massacre of civilians (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/jun/18/gaddafi-misrata-war-crime-documents).

I have provided you with that same link to a source that provides all the proof you need, but it's obvious that you are either a) not man enough to look at it or b) youve seen it but you're too dishonest to admit it.

Either way, the reflection on you is nothing to feel good about.

You claimed in another thread there is no way to know what would have happened in the absence of NATO intervention.

Yet the article you posted in the OP is based entirely on speculation about what that scenario would have looked like.

In other words, you're contradicting yourself.

And your speculation about Gaddafi's intent does not and cannot refute what actually happened.



Belfer Center: Lessons from Libya: How Not to Intervene (http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/publication/23387/lessons_from_libya.html)

The Conventional Wisdom Is Wrong. Libya's 2011 uprising was never peaceful, but instead was armed and violent from the start. Muammar al-Qaddafi did not target civilians or resort to indiscriminate force. Although inspired by humanitarian impulse, NATO's intervention did not aim mainly to protect civilians, but rather to overthrow Qaddafi's regime, even at the expense of increasing the harm to Libyans.


If the Libyan war was about saving lives, it was a catastrophic failure (http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/oct/26/libya-war-saving-lives-catastrophic-failure)

...

And these massacre sites are only the latest of many such discoveries. Amnesty International has now produced compendious evidence of mass abduction and detention, beating and routine torture, killings and atrocities by the rebel militias Britain, France and the US have backed for the last eight months – supposedly to stop exactly those kind of crimes being committed by the Gaddafi regime.

Throughout that time African migrants and black Libyans have been subject to a relentless racist campaign of mass detention, lynchings and atrocities on the usually unfounded basis that they have been loyalist mercenaries. Such attacks continue, says Bouckaert, who witnessed militias from Misrata this week burning homes in Tawerga so that the town's predominantly black population – accused of backing Gaddafi – will be unable to return.

All the while, Nato leaders and cheerleading media have turned a blind eye to such horrors as they boast of a triumph of freedom and murmur about the need for restraint. But it is now absolutely clear that, if the purpose of western intervention in Libya's civil war was to "protect civilians" and save lives, it has been a catastrophic failure.

David Cameron and Nicolas Sarkozy won the authorisation to use "all necessary means" from the UN security council in March on the basis that Gaddafi's forces were about to commit a Srebrenica-style massacre in Benghazi. Naturally we can never know what would have happened without Nato's intervention. But there is in fact no evidence – including from other rebel-held towns Gaddafi re-captured – to suggest he had either the capability or even the intention to carry out such an atrocity against an armed city of 700,000.

What is now known, however, is that while the death toll in Libya when Nato intervened was perhaps around 1,000-2,000 (judging by UN estimates), eight months later it is probably more than ten times that figure. Estimates of the numbers of dead over the last eight months – as Nato leaders vetoed ceasefires and negotiations – range from 10,000 up to 50,000. The National Transitional Council puts the losses at 30,000 dead and 50,000 wounded.

Of those, uncounted thousands will be civilians, including those killed by Nato bombing and Nato-backed forces on the ground. These figures dwarf the death tolls in this year's other most bloody Arab uprisings, in Syria and Yemen. Nato has not protected civilians in Libya – it has multiplied the number of their deaths, while losing not a single soldier of its own.

...

There were no indiscriminate attacks on civilians; the protesters were not peaceful; and the intervention in Libya failed to stop masses of civilians from dying violent deaths.

Your position is based entirely on false premises and self-serving speculation.

You and your beloved Hamid have nothing.

[Ethereal]

No $#@! Sherlick.

He was citing international law as the reason why the intervention was supposedly illegal.

I was merely trying to get him to back up his claim.

It was a war of aggression, so it was illegal under international norms and laws.

And because it was not authorized by the US Congress, it was illegal under domestic norms and laws.

A brazen criminal act all around.

[JDubya]

Foolishness can be reversed. But you have to take the first step.

1. International organizations as tools of nation-states is not "right wing." First, your only conception of right wing is Neocon. And the concept that I speak of is from the realist school. But you have no idea what I just said.

2. Regarding the traditional notions of when other nations can intervene in internal conflicts figure out what Geneva Convention Article III is, then read it. It is going to confuse you. Hint. Look for Common Article III and try not to get distracted by Article III.
What a load of pure, desperate BULLSHIT!!!!! :biglaugh:

First of all, there is no difference between Article III and "Common Article III". It was only referred to as "common" because it is COMMON to all four conventions, Einstein.

Plus, it has NOTHING TO DO WITH humanitarian interventions!!!!

Did you really think you could slip that weak-ass attempt at sleight of hand past me???

Not this kid, sonny boy. No way.

You still don't know WTF you're talking about and all your high-handed little insults cannot hide that.


3. Your cry to help the suffering Libyans is noble. Who cares? The question is when should a sovereign power expend its blood and treasure. I say in furtherance of its vital national security interests.

What blood? How many Americans were killed or wounded during the air-only campaign we conducted in Libya? Or are you wetting your diaper over some bombs and missiles expended?


I have studied international law of war for the last 18 years. I have taught relevant courses and blocks of instructions to combat soldiers and commanders.

I do not believe that for one nanosecond. Not for one fraction of the smallest increment of time in the universe. You talk like an uninformed dummy on subjects you claim to be an expert on, then try to lie and use slippery weasel tactics to make it appear as though you were right about something you were DEAD WRONG about.

That shit might work with some people around here, but not with me.

You do not impress me one iota.


You just say I don't know what I am talking about. Yet you have never uttered a word to prove you have a scintilla of knowledge of the topic.

Refer back to the first sentence of the post.

On the contrary I have totally destroyed you on this topic, while you have yet to produce one SCINTILLA of proof that there is an international law forbidding humanitarian interventions into internal conflicts in other countries.

Because THERE IS NONE.

That bogus crap with the Geneva Convention and "Common Article III" was pathetic.

Responsibility To Protect (R2P) is the governing doctrine that UN created and sanctions as the blueprint for powerful and resourceful countries like the US to follow is cases like Libya, and there is no international law that forbids it.

God, you must be so desperate to foist your hatred of Hillary Clinton on the rest of the world that it drives you insane with impotent rage.

I bet just because she's smarter and more powerful than you can ever dream of becoming, she makes you feel impotent, too.

Sad.

[JDubya]

It was a war of aggression, so it was illegal under international norms and laws.

And because it was not authorized by the US Congress, it was illegal under domestic norms and laws.

A brazen criminal act all around.

Cite the international law.

Cite the international norm, whatever the fuck that means....

http://d35brb9zkkbdsd.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/Norm.gif

[JDubya]

You claimed in another thread there is no way to know what would have happened in the absence of NATO intervention.

Yet the article you posted in the OP is based entirely on speculation about what that scenario would have looked like.

In other words, you're contradicting yourself.

As I have proven numerous times now, there was no speculation involved in knowing what Gaddafi was going to do to civilians.

Ignore it all you want, but it's right there for everyone else to see.

You're just making yourself look worse and worse now .

And you can keep on gnawing on that stupid "contradicted yourself" bone like a dumb dog, but it'll get you nowhere.

Might as well dig a hole and bury it, Fido.


And your speculation about Gaddafi's intent does not and cannot refute what actually happened.

There were no indiscriminate attacks on civilians; the protesters were not peaceful; and the intervention in Libya failed to stop masses of civilians from dying violent deaths.

Your position is based entirely on false premises and self-serving speculation.

You and your beloved Hamid have nothing.

If there were no indiscriminate attacks on civilians then why was the World Court in the process of bringing war crimes charges against him at the time of his death?

Can ya use yer 6th grade edjeekashun to answer that one, Jethro?

Also... FYI.... they were not "protesters". It was an armed rebellion for the purpose of removing Gaddafi from power and replace him with a democratic govt.

No charge for that little world affairs lesson.

This time.

Next time I'll have to charge you.

[Ethereal]

Chaos in Libya a Growing Draw for Extremists, Report Warns (http://www.wsj.com/articles/chaos-in-libya-a-growing-draw-for-extremists-report-warns-1453900954)

What a smashing success it has been.

[Ethereal]

Cite the international law.

Cite the international norm, whatever the $#@! that means....

http://d35brb9zkkbdsd.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/Norm.gif


Definition of Aggression, United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3314 (XXIX). (http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/instree/GAres3314.html)

...aggression is the most serious and dangerous form of the illegal use of force...

[Ethereal]

As I have proven numerous times now, there was no speculation involved in knowing what Gaddafi was going to do to civilians.

Ignore it all you want, but it's right there for everyone else to see.

You're just making yourself look worse and worse now .

And you can keep on gnawing on that stupid "contradicted yourself" bone like a dumb dog, but it'll get you nowhere.

Might as well dig a hole and bury it, Fido.

What he was going to do, as opposed to what he actually did.

Speculation versus fact.

I prefer fact.


Belfer Center: Lessons from Libya: How Not to Intervene (http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/publication/23387/lessons_from_libya.html)

The Conventional Wisdom Is Wrong. Libya's 2011 uprising was never peaceful, but instead was armed and violent from the start. Muammar al-Qaddafi did not target civilians or resort to indiscriminate force. Although inspired by humanitarian impulse, NATO's intervention did not aim mainly to protect civilians, but rather to overthrow Qaddafi's regime, even at the expense of increasing the harm to Libyans.

And you did contradict yourself.

You said there is no way to know what would have happened in the absence of NATO intervention, yet your entire position is based on what that scenario would have looked like.

What about that confuses you?


If there were no indiscriminate attacks on civilians then why was the World Court in the process of bringing war crimes charges against him at the time of his death?

Because sometimes courts make mistakes or errors.


Can ya use yer 6th grade edjeekashun to answer that one, Jethro?

Also... FYI.... they were not "protesters". It was an armed rebellion for the purpose of removing Gaddafi from power and replace him with a democratic govt.

No charge for that little world affairs lesson.

This time.

Next time I'll have to charge you.

Dang, I'm so impressed.

Except the rebels were mostly Salafi extremists who don't believe in liberal democracy.



Libyan rebel commander admits his fighters have al-Qaeda links (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8407047/Libyan-rebel-commander-admits-his-fighters-have-al-Qaeda-links.html)


Al Qaida commander backs Libyan rebels in message (http://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/Al-Qaida-commander-backs-Libyan-rebels-in-message)


Libya: al-Qaeda among Libya rebels, Nato chief fears (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8414583/Libya-al-Qaeda-among-Libya-rebels-Nato-chief-fears.html)

AQ thanks you for your support.

[Peter1469]

What a load of pure, desperate BULLSHIT!!!!! :biglaugh:

First of all, there is no difference between Article III and "Common Article III". It was only referred to as "common" because it is COMMON to all four conventions, Einstein.

Plus, it has NOTHING TO DO WITH humanitarian interventions!!!!

Did you really think you could slip that weak-ass attempt at sleight of hand past me???

Not this kid, sonny boy. No way.

You still don't know WTF you're talking about and all your high-handed little insults cannot hide that.

You got mixed up with Article III after I specifically warned you. Classic. You can't make this shit up!






What blood? How many Americans were killed or wounded during the air-only campaign we conducted in Libya? Or are you wetting your diaper over some bombs and missiles expended?

Every expense in Libya was a waste of US resources. The Neocons want occupation next. Then you will have the blood that you crave.






I do not believe that for one nanosecond. Not for one fraction of the smallest increment of time in the universe. You talk like an uninformed dummy on subjects you claim to be an expert on, then try to lie and use slippery weasel tactics to make it appear as though you were right about something you were DEAD WRONG about.

That shit might work with some people around here, but not with me.

You do not impress me one iota.

So what? I don't care if useless people say useless stuff.




On the contrary I have totally destroyed you on this topic, while you have yet to produce one SCINTILLA of proof that there is an international law forbidding humanitarian interventions into internal conflicts in other countries.

Because THERE IS NONE.

That bogus crap with the Geneva Convention and "Common Article III" was pathetic.

Responsibility To Protect (R2P) is the governing doctrine that UN created and sanctions as the blueprint for powerful and resourceful countries like the US to follow is cases like Libya, and there is no international law that forbids it.

God, you must be so desperate to foist your hatred of Hillary Clinton on the rest of the world that it drives you insane with impotent rage.

I bet just because she's smarter and more powerful than you can ever dream of becoming, she makes you feel impotent, too.

Sad.

lol


This topic is above you.

[maineman]

So are you trying to suggest that intervention in Libya was in our "national interest" somehow?

Obviously, or the President would not have done it.


And correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the Congress tasked with authorizing the use of military force and not the President?

OK...you're wrong. Read up on the War Powers Resolution.

(I actually cannot fucking believe you even asked such a stupid question!)

[Tahuyaman]

No, I didn't miss it.

So are you trying to suggest that intervention in Libya was in our "national interest" somehow?....


Obviously, or the President would not have done it.


There was no national interest in Libya.

The only interest was selfishishness. Obama was desperately looking for a way to rehabilitate his legacy of foreign policy failure.

All he did was validate that legacy of failure.

[maineman]

There was no national interest in Libya.

The only interest was selfishishness. Obama was desperately looking for a way to rehabilitate his legacy of foreign policy failure.

All he did was validate that legacy of failure.

your opinion.... which I do not share...

It certainly is not fact.

[Tahuyaman]

I'm sure the War Powers Resolution would be completely misrepresented if someone tried to school people on it.

[maineman]

I'm sure the War Powers Resolution would be completely misrepresented if someone tried to school people on it.

If YOU were the one attempting to enlighten anyone on it, I think that would be a certainty.

[Ethereal]

Obviously, or the President would not have done it.

So what was the national security interest?


OK...you're wrong. Read up on the War Powers Resolution.

I've read it and it clearly doesn't apply.

And even if it did apply, there is a time limit on how long the President can go without obtaining congressional authorization.


(I actually cannot $#@!ing believe you even asked such a stupid question!)

It's only a stupid question if you don't believe in the constitution and the separation of powers.

[Tahuyaman]

your opinion.... which I do not share...

It certainly is not fact.

It is a fact that there was no national interest in Libya.

[maineman]

It is a fact that there was no national interest in Libya.

nope. sorry. not a fact. just your opinion.

[Tahuyaman]

nope. sorry. not a fact. just your opinion.

OK, what was this vital national interest?

[Tahuyaman]

If YOU were the one attempting to enlighten anyone on it, I think that would be a certainty.

I'd really enjoy watching you misrepresent the specifics of the resolution.

[maineman]

read Obama's speech on the subject. I did. It was quite clear.

http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/03/28/us.libya/

[maineman]

I'd really enjoy watching you misrepresent the specifics of the resolution.

giving you enjoyment is so low on my list of things to do, that I will purposely refrain from doing so just to avoid it.

[Tahuyaman]

No national interest identified or explained.

[maineman]

No national interest identified or explained.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/24/us/politics/24obama-statement-libya.html

as the President said,

"This is not simply a concern of the United States. The entire world is watching, and we will coordinate our assistance and accountability measures with the international community. To that end, Secretary Clinton and I have asked Bill Burns, our Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs, to make several stops in Europe and the region to intensify our consultations with allies and partners about the situation in Libya.

I’ve also asked Secretary Clinton to travel to Geneva on Monday, where a number of foreign ministers will convene for a session of the Human Rights Council. There she’ll hold consultations with her counterparts on events throughout the region and continue to ensure that we join with the international community to speak with one voice to the government and the people of Libya."

And even as we are focused on the urgent situation in Libya, let me just say that our efforts continue to address the events taking place elsewhere, including how the international community can most effectively support the peaceful transition to democracy in both Tunisia and in Egypt.

So let me be clear. The change that is taking place across the region is being driven by the people of the region. This change doesn’t represent the work of the United States or any foreign power. It represents the aspirations of people who are seeking a better life.

As one Libyan said, “We just want to be able to live like human beings.” We just want to be able to live like human beings. It is the most basic of aspirations that is driving this change. And throughout this time of transition, the United States will continue to stand up for freedom, stand up for justice, and stand up for the dignity of all people.

[Tahuyaman]

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/24/us/politics/24obama-statement-libya.html

as the President said,
.....

So let me be clear. The change that is taking place across the region is being driven by the people of the region. This change doesn’t represent the work of the United States or any foreign power. It represents the aspirations of people who are seeking a better life.
.


That right there tells us that it's their issue not ours.

If it was our business to intervene in the domestic affairs of every nation where people are seeking a better life, we'd be in nearly every nation on earth.

[Tahuyaman]

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/24/us/politics/24obama-statement-libya.html

as the President said,

"This is not simply a concern of the United States. The entire world is watching, and we will coordinate our assistance and accountability measures with the international community. To that end, Secretary Clinton and I have asked Bill Burns, our Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs, to make several stops in Europe and the region to intensify our consultations with allies and partners about the situation in Libya.

I’ve also asked Secretary Clinton to travel to Geneva on Monday, where a number of foreign ministers will convene for a session of the Human Rights Council. There she’ll hold consultations with her counterparts on events throughout the region and continue to ensure that we join with the international community to speak with one voice to the government and the people of Libya."

And even as we are focused on the urgent situation in Libya, let me just say that our efforts continue to address the events taking place elsewhere, including how the international community can most effectively support the peaceful transition to democracy in both Tunisia and in Egypt.

So let me be clear. The change that is taking place across the region is being driven by the people of the region. This change doesn’t represent the work of the United States or any foreign power. It represents the aspirations of people who are seeking a better life.

As one Libyan said, “We just want to be able to live like human beings.” We just want to be able to live like human beings. It is the most basic of aspirations that is driving this change. And throughout this time of transition, the United States will continue to stand up for freedom, stand up for justice, and stand up for the dignity of all people.


No no vital US national interest explained in any way.

[JDubya]

No no vital US national interest explained in any way.

The willfully obtuse never see what they don't want to see.

[Tahuyaman]

The willfully obtuse never see what they don't want to see.

He did not communicate any US national interest what-so-ever and neither can you or maineman.

[JDubya]

He did not communicate any US national interest what-so-ever and neither can you or maineman.

Of course he did.

It just didn't involve money or new jobs or lower taxes, so you don't understand it.

Those rebels were fighting for democracy. The possibility of democracy spreading throughout the Middle East was by all means in America's national interest. And even if trying to encourage that wasn't part of the goal, preventing a humanitarian nightmare alone was in America's national interest in terms of us being taken seriously by the rest of the world and other despots taking us at our word.

I'm sure that is all beyond your grasp, though.

[Tahuyaman]

Of course he did.

It just didn't involve money or new jobs or lower taxes, so you don't understand it.

Those rebels were fighting for democracy. The possibility of democracy spreading throughout the Middle East was by all means in America's national interest. And even if trying to encourage that wasn't part of the goal, preventing a humanitarian nightmare alone was in America's national interest in terms of us being taken seriously by the rest of the world and other despots taking us at our word.

I'm sure that is all beyond your grasp, though.

If anything he explained how it was none of our business.

I guess you think we can spread democracy across the globe?

[Tahuyaman]

Of course he did......

Those rebels were fighting for democracy. The possibility of democracy spreading throughout the Middle East was by all means in America's national interest.

During the Bush years liberals were screaming that it's not our place to spread democracy to the Middle East. What changed since then?

[JDubya]

If anything he explained how it was none of our business.

I guess you think we can spread democracy across the globe?

No, I don't think that. But the Arab Spring and the Libyan revolution was not a case of us trying to spread democracy. We saw it happening on its own and tried to lend assistance while at the same time trying to prevent an impending civilian massacre.

Nothing to you of course.

But we all know that had Obama done nothing and there had been a civilian massacre, every last one of you right-wingers would he harping night and day about how Obama was too big of a pussy to stand up for freedom etc, etc.

I've got you dribblers and your M.O. down cold.

[maineman]

If anything he explained how it was none of our business.

I guess you think we can spread democracy across the globe?
Sometimes we can... sometimes we can try... and sometimes we need to step in for no other reason than to avoid carnage.

[JDubya]

During the Bush years liberals were screaming that it's not our place to spread democracy to the Middle East. What changed since then?

There was no Arab Spring happening during the Bush years when we needlessly invaded Iraq.

We did not invade and occupy Libya.

I would think even you could see the difference between those two incidences.

[maineman]

During the Bush years liberals were screaming that it's not our place to spread democracy to the Middle East. What changed since then?got a link that would substantiate that claim?

[maineman]

There was no Arab Spring happening during the Bush years when we needlessly invaded Iraq.

We did not invade and occupy Libya.

I would think even you could see the difference between those two incidences.he can only see the red tinged light coming through his belly button.

[Tahuyaman]

No, I don't think that. But the Arab Spring and the Libyan revolution was not a case of us trying to spread democracy. We saw it happening on its own and tried to lend assistance while at the same time trying to prevent an impending civilian massacre.

Nothing to you of course.

But we all know that had Obama done nothing and there had been a civilian massacre, every last one of you right-wingers would he harping night and day about how Obama was too big of a $#@! to stand up for freedom etc, etc.

I've got you dribblers and your M.O. down cold.

watching from across the globe is fine. Right wingers like me know that we have no place inserting ourselves where no US interests are concerned.

[Tahuyaman]

During the Bush years liberals were screaming that it's not our place to spread democracy to the Middle East. What changed since then?


got a link that would substantiate that claim?

Are you really going to deny that?

You're a hopeless hack.

[valley ranch]

The carnage was caused and paid for by our intervention, the murder, rape and robbery is still going on. Now we, this administration is off to see the wizard still intervening in Syria.

[Tahuyaman]

The left approves of attempting to spread democracy or nation building when a liberal is guiding the foreign policy.

[maineman]

Are you really going to deny that?

You're a hopeless hack.

Substantiate it, or retract it.

[JDubya]

watching from across the globe is fine. Right wingers like me know that we have no place inserting ourselves where no US interests are concerned.

Funny how you right-wingers didn't know that in 2003 when you were all blindly supporting Bush invading Iraq.

[Tahuyaman]

Substantiate it, or retract it.


Incredibly, you are going to deny it.

Unbelievable.

Well, when it comes to you, it's not all that unbelievable.

[JDubya]

The left approves of attempting to spread democracy or nation building when a liberal is guiding the foreign policy.

And the right approves of it when a conservative is guiding foreign policy.

[Tahuyaman]

Funny how you right-wingers didn't know that in 2003 when you were all blindly supporting Bush invading Iraq.


Back then, liberals like Hillary Clinton were all racing to every TV camera they could find telling everyone how Iraq was a danger to the peace and security of the western world and needed to be taken care of once and for all. Were you there with her?

Of course today everyone was always opposed to the war. Even those who are on record supporting it.

[Tahuyaman]

Liberals try to justify their hypocricy by calling others a hypocrite.

[Tahuyaman]

The left approves of attempting to spread democracy or nation building when a liberal is guiding the foreign policy.


And the right approves of it when a conservative is guiding foreign policy.

Is that your justification for now supporting something you disapproved of during a past administration?

[JDubya]

Is that your justification for now supporting something you disapproved of during a past administration?

Stop being ridiculous. They were nowhere near the same thing.

How many ground forces did we send into Libya? How many Americans died during the intervention? How much time and money did we spend occupying the country?

Answer: none, none and none.

And Iraq?

[valley ranch]

Yes, iraq was another fool thing we've paid for, with blood as well. We should never have gone in and once in we left it unfinished.
We're batting a thousand in the mid east.

[Peter1469]

No national interest identified or explained.

There were no US vital national security interests involved. The president's three liberal hawks, Hillary, Powers, and Rice convinced the president to act for humanitarian reasons. Liberal hawks are closely related to neocons.

[Peter1469]

Sometimes we can... sometimes we can try... and sometimes we need to step in for no other reason than to avoid carnage.

Why did the West ignore the carnage in Darfur?

No oil? Too black? Both?

[maineman]

Why did the West ignore the carnage in Darfur?

No oil? Too black? Both?

both, probably....sadly enough.

[maineman]

Incredibly, you are going to deny it.

Unbelievable.

Well, when it comes to you, it's not all that unbelievable.

and you huff and puff and bluster about when you can't prove the things you say. If you had said "Iraq" instead of the entire middle east, I wouldn't have asked for you to substantiate it... but you didn't.

[Tahuyaman]

How many ground forces did we send into Libya? How many Americans died during the intervention?...

what difference does that make at this point?

[Tahuyaman]

and you huff and puff and bluster about when you can't prove the things you say. If you had said "Iraq" instead of the entire middle east, I wouldn't have asked for you to substantiate it... but you didn't.


Lol......

You're a hack. You'll support any action executed by an administration led by a Democrat. Your decision to support or oppose any action is based upon the party affiliation of the policy maker.

[maineman]

Lol......

You're a hack. You'll support any action executed by an administration led by a Democrat. Your decision to support or oppose any action is based upon the party affiliation of the policy maker.

false. I was completely against LBJ's escalation in Vietnam. I was sorely disappointed with Carter's less than aggressive response to the Iranian embassy crisis. I was completely against Clinton's inaction in Rwanda. You are a liar who just makes shit up about people when you don't know what the fuck you are talking about.

get lost, asshole.

[maineman]

what difference does that make at this point?

the point is, as far as "interventions" go, it was pretty brief, and pretty low cost.

[Tahuyaman]

There were no US vital national security interests involved. The president's three liberal hawks, Hillary, Powers, and Rice convinced the president to act for humanitarian reasons. Liberal hawks are closely related to neocons.

Correct. Like I said earlier. If that is in our national interests we could intervene in nearly every nation on earth.

It's discouraging for me to see how many people determine their support or opposition to serious things like this based on the party affiliation of the policy maker.

[Tahuyaman]

false. I was completely against LBJ's escalation in Vietnam. I was sorely disappointed with Carter's less than aggressive response to the Iranian embassy crisis. I was completely against Clinton's inaction in Rwanda. You are a liar who just makes $#@! up about people when you don't know what the $#@! you are talking about.

get lost, $#@!.

I don't believe you.

[Tahuyaman]

the point is, as far as "interventions" go, it was pretty brief, and pretty low cost.


Uh..... OK.