• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Merged Libya: People's Revolution / Criminal Imperialism?

So, I'm confused. Was there actually no local movement trying to break free of Gadaffi? Was Gadaffi not actually ordering the slaughter of said movement and anyone in their general vicinity? Did the world press, who usually love to make the USA look bad, make up the stories of Gadffi's soldiers killing civilians?

I'm not trying to be confrontational here, I'm just confused about the facts. Is the general argument that NATO should have simply sat back and let whatever happened in Lybia happen?
 
Weak Kitten said:
So, I'm confused. Was there actually no local movement trying to break free of Gadaffi? Was Gadaffi not actually ordering the slaughter of said movement and anyone in their general vicinity? Did the world press, who usually love to make the USA look bad, make up the stories of Gadffi's soldiers killing civilians?
Click to expand...
There were a rebellion, and it was being suppressed. It is possible that it was worse than in other Arab countries at the time.
I just get a bit suspicious when the atrocities get exaggerated. in an effort to make it look like an humanitarian intervention.

Not only have Gadaffi have made himself quite unpopular over the years but there is also a issue of what companies get the oil contracts and at what price.

I'm not trying to be confrontational here, I'm just confused about the facts. Is the general argument that NATO should have simply sat back and let whatever happened in Lybia happen?
Click to expand...
I can't tell.
It sounds like a great idea to get rid of brutal dictators, but democracy at gunpoint have a rather poor track record.
 
Yaaaaaaaawn.

Crisis in country X. Should the US / NATO / the west intervene or not?

When the US / NATO / the west INTERVENES in a country that HAS OIL, the usual gang says, "See? It wants to control the oil!"

When the US / NATO / the west INTERVENES in a country that DOES NOT HAVE OIL, the usual gang says "See? It wants to look like it cares about human rights, but they know attacking this country will not interfere with oil supply! They'll never attack a country with oil!"

When the US / NATO / the west DOES NOT INTERVENE in a country that HAS OIL, the usual gang says, "See? They don't care about human rights, so long as the oil is flowing!"

When the US / NATO the west DOES NOTE INTERVENE in a country that DOES NOT HAVE OIL, the usual gangs says, "See? They claim they care about human rights, but if the country doesn't have oil they'll do nothing!"

Booooooring. Just stale "anti-imperialist" Marxist cliches that "explain" in advance that any possible reaction to the crisis in any country whatever is the "imperialists"' fault.
 
Last edited:
bikerdruid said:
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2011/aug2011/pers-a27.shtml
from the piece:
NATO’s assault on Libya, a criminal imperialist war from its outset more than five months ago, has descended into an exercise in out-and-out murder as special forces operatives and intelligence agents hunt down Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi.......NATO warplanes carried out over 20,000 sorties, destroying schools, hospitals and homes and slaughtering untold numbers of Libyan soldiers, many of them young conscripts.
Click to expand...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Van_Auken

Gee, a socialist apologizing for a brutal socialist dictator, color me surprised. :rolleyes:
 
bikerdruid said:
did you read the article i linked to?
it makes no apology for qadaffi.
Click to expand...

It actually doesn't mention him at all, or any of his war crimes and his atrocities against his people.

As if it didn't happen, or it had no importance.

Socialists have a very selective memory.
 
At least the revolution started first before NATO intervened, (unlike the sequence of events in Iraq). Wasn't the initial reason for intervening because the people in power were slaughtering the people in the rebellion?

Not saying we (NATO and/or the US) are typically truly motivated by human tragedy, usually we use it as an excuse to intervene when we have other motives. But picking sides in a rebellion? I'm not sure you can define that as 'all bad'. I think it would depend on a lot of factors.
 
bikerdruid said:
back-pedalling......
you said, "It actually doesn't mention him at all."
he is clearly mentioned in the op, and the article.
Click to expand...

He mentions his name once, and he calls him the "leader of Libya".

Doesn't mention anything about his brutal and inhumane repression of the rebels and civils.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom