Loading...
Welcome to Anarcho-Punk.net community ! Please register or login to participate in the forums.   Ⓐ//Ⓔ

US Attacks Libya

Discussion in 'General political debates' started by Anxiety69, Mar 20, 2011.

  1. JoeyV

    JoeyVExperienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    236

    0

    3

    Sep 23, 2010
     
    Really Great article butcher!
    Still not sure whether to support this war or be against it.
    although that article Really bring me back to being against the Libyan war.
    Might hit some anti war protest soon, but lets continue this discussion So we can get different perspectives.
     
  2. butcher

    butcherExperienced Member Uploader Experienced member Forum Member


    2,118

    0

    18

    Sep 8, 2009
     
    Cheers, it didn't write it but... just reprinted it from infoshop... ;)
    I've not got my mind around it tbh, but considering most of the infoz I get are from (mostly corporate/'mainstream') media, I think listening to the voices of ppl actually living there is kinda important.

    Meanwhile, Znet done gone tons of articles on the military intervention.
     
  3. JoeyV

    JoeyVExperienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    236

    0

    3

    Sep 23, 2010
     
    Cool thanks for the info will check out that site,
    Yeah I find It really interesting when its coming from the people also.
    Mainstream media can be very biased, It all seems like he said she said crap.
    I've been meaning to ask you where you get your news from though,
    I've been on infoshop but haven't looked around there much.
     
  4. butcher

    butcherExperienced Member Uploader Experienced member Forum Member


    2,118

    0

    18

    Sep 8, 2009
     
    Infoshop is ok most of the time, can be a bit US centric. As I'm a nerd, and most of infoshop's stories are simply reprinted from other sources, I'll just trawl through the primary source sites. Like the interview with the Libyan Anarchist comes from a blog, thus it generally follows that said blog will have other interesting things on it around the same topic. Its not in english, but google translate works well enough to understand whats going on most of the time. ;)

    Also good is the libcom 'news' forum, it can be painful to trawl through at times, but generally there are good articles linked there.

    Outside of that, most of my interests are on Latin American & Asia-Pacific stuff, all my sources are listed on the blogroll of my marrichiweu blog in my signature, the other two is where I make the news, lol
    check the plug :ecouteurs:

    EDIT: forgot to mention Narco News, Our War, Intercontinental Cry and the FARJ websites.
     
  5. ungovernable

    ungovernableAutonome Staff Member Uploader Admin Team Experienced member


    4,319

    57

    24

    Aug 21, 2009
    Male, 33 years old
    Canada Canada
    Yes you are a pacifist because you say you're not willing to pay the price to get your freedom from tyranny, you say that you cant afford a few death and blablabla

    Then you're an idealist and you are not realist, if you studied history and knew what you were talking about you would see that no radical social change ever happenned without a revolution, and revolution always end up with death and fighting. And please dont talk me about Gandhi.

    ALL anarchist revolutions happenned with wars. Wake up.

    Many others countries are also cooperating. So what is your theory, what are they getting out of it?

    Are you kidding me ? They're not going to get back their reputation, the majority of americans is against libyan war, and the US didnt even ask the congress if they agree for a war (and they did it for irak)

    You contradict yourself. You just said that peaceful revolutions are possible.

    You say you're not a pacifist but to you Gandhi is an example.

    BTW there were killings even in that "revolution". And if gandhi won its not because of his pacifism but because the britains were too busy fighting wars in other countries.

    :lmao: :lmao: :lmao: your ex-president, what a good source !!

    So what are those "other options" ??

    And dont even tell me that negociation with a bloody tyrant is an option. Fuck collaborationism, theres nothing to ask to a tyrant.

    Yes.




    And you really think it would be productive ? Do you realize what will happen if this war stops ?
     
  6. Bakica

    BakicaExperienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    951

    0

    0

    Feb 21, 2010
     
    :o
    Yep.

    Hmm, then I still don't get why did they declare a war if all my assumptions are wrong ? To actually help somone ? I'm pretty sure they want to be seen as the rescuers of the Libyan people. You said you are not sure if you support this war or not, well I'm just giving some options why we shouldn't support war :)
    I think I didn't say that, if I did I didn't mean that. What I wanted to say is that there are tons of options before a war. Maybe I'm not able to give you some, but I'm sure someone more expirienced will be.
    Hmm, it's the same if I tell you you're nazi becouse you quoted hitler.
    That's an option, too ! If I must pick between talking to him and declaring war, what will I choose ? Look, I get your point, maybe my opinion is a bit idealistic ( it's not as it seems, I'm just expressing myself spontaneously), but if there's a way to avoid war I'm more then happy to do it. A revolution can't be avoided. I think I just realized now idealistic I sound ! :ecouteurs:
    :ecouteurs:

    This quoting is fucked up :lmao:
     
  7. ungovernable

    ungovernableAutonome Staff Member Uploader Admin Team Experienced member


    4,319

    57

    24

    Aug 21, 2009
    Male, 33 years old
    Canada Canada
    What an answer....

    I never said i'm not sure if i support war or not, i DON'T SUPPORT ANY WARS but it is counter productive to fight against a war helping another people's revolution. Stop being so fucking egoist, if it was your country that was under the bombs of Gaddafi and the revolution you and your people are trying to doing is dying because of that, you wouldnt be against military support, even if its coming from the UN

    Once again the only thing you see in this conflict is US intervention while the US is a minority in this coalition. This is an United Nations intervention, not a US war.

    ..........................

    So you are SURE there is another option, but you can't even tell me what this option is...... How the hell can you say you are SURE there is another option ?

    And yes you said:
    "I think that war isn't necessary to make a change ( dictatorship to "democracy")"

    If i say i'm against authoritarian Coup d'Etat but then a couple of phrases later i say hitler is a good example of how you should take the power, then yes.

    Saying you're not pacifist and quoting Gandhi as a perfect example of how you should do things = big contradiction

    ................................... no comments

    and then you wonder why i call you a hippy....

    there's nothing to ask to a tyrant

    liberties aren't given, they must be taken (kropotkin said that)
     
  8. butcher

    butcherExperienced Member Uploader Experienced member Forum Member


    2,118

    0

    18

    Sep 8, 2009
     
    I hardly see why this makes a difference...
    Sure, the UN has been more conservative in undertaking 'nation-building' exercises, ie enforcing global capitalist hegemony, than the US. It nevertheless remains the case that the UN actively pursues an agenda of Liberal Democratic hegemony, ie integrating Libya into the global 'free market', 'free n fair' elections, et al, remain the basis for determining the success of a Libyan revolution. Arguing this intervention is legitimate on the basis that it is a UN, rather than US, intervention is Liberal cheerleading at its worst; why is a group of Capitalist countries acting in concert any better than one going it alone?

    There are kinda two things to look at when considering UN intervention methinks.
    1. Will this intervention assist in disposing a murderous tyrant?
    2. What will this regime be replaced with?

    In the first instance, obviously I think the answer has to yes. This intervention will probably alleviate a lot of suffering for the Libyan people.
    In the second, its somewhat likely that UN intervention will act as a recuperating force, undermining the more revolutionary demands and tendencies present in the Libyan 'opposition' (in the broadest sense) in favour of 'stable' political parties or persons, and probably ensuring the lucrative arms deals between the French and Libyans remain intact. It follows that the Libyan people will thus need to engage in revolutionary struggle again at a later date, this time to rid themselves of proxy colonialist functionaries rather than a despotic fuckwit.
     
  9. ungovernable

    ungovernableAutonome Staff Member Uploader Admin Team Experienced member


    4,319

    57

    24

    Aug 21, 2009
    Male, 33 years old
    Canada Canada
    It makes a difference because it totally demolish the argument that "the US are doing it for the oil". I dont understand why many people keep seeing it like another USA war while it is a UN resolution voted by many countries, including arab league, and with the agreement of libyan people.

    Where did you see that i said this intervention is legitimate on the basis that it is UN intervention rather than US ? Sorry but you are putting words into my mouth now....

    I could argue that it is legitimate because the libyan people asked for it, but not because it is coming from UN.

    This is a risk, but so far the UN are just supporting the rebels with air strikes, it is not an occupation war. They cannot control the country without an occupation war. Libya is not afghanistan or irak, at least not for now.
     
  10. butcher

    butcherExperienced Member Uploader Experienced member Forum Member


    2,118

    0

    18

    Sep 8, 2009
     
    fair enough.

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

    Umm, special forces are there...

    Moreover, of course you can control a country without an occupation...
    Nicaragua? Fuck that, most of Latin America....
    It is also worth noting (considering certain Gandhi cheerleaders...) that Gandhi's 'revolution' amounted to local parties taking over the role of ensuring British trade interests.
     
  11. ungovernable

    ungovernableAutonome Staff Member Uploader Admin Team Experienced member


    4,319

    57

    24

    Aug 21, 2009
    Male, 33 years old
    Canada Canada
    Still putting words in my mouth, or interpreting it in a wrong way.

    I never said this intervention is legitimate, i am saying that the United Nations is acting the way they should, in other words they are acting how they are supposed to following what the United Nations is supposed to stand for.

    For once, this isnt a war for oil, nor is it a war led by the US without the authorization from UN like irak and afghanistan.

    This intervention is following United Nation guidelines and international laws BUT saying if it is legitimate to act this way morally talking is a totally different debate. I'm just saying that for once, they are applying what they are supposed to stand for.

    Anyway, like i already said, you can't define the legitimateness of a war based on wether its started by the US or the UN, i agree with you on that point, and i never pretended the opposite ;)

    This is still not an occupation war. Special Forces aren't trained for occupation. It is obvious they are here only to do some commando actions, mainly in the objective of killing Gaddhafi or other leaders. Americans can't even control irak with thousands of marines so a few commandos ain't going to control the chaos in libya...

    Ok good point, but nicaragua was a Coup d'État (not sure about the english word?) and it is too late to do that in Libya.... Anyway, it doesnt have anything to do with this war ....
     
  12. Bakica

    BakicaExperienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    951

    0

    0

    Feb 21, 2010
     
    What's the diffrence between that and saying you're right ?

    Hmm, you think it's counter productive to fight against this war but you don't support any wars ? And then you tell me that you didn't say you're not sure whether you support it or not. I'm welcoming any help given by those bastards, but from the history UN was always late. In Yugoslav conflict UNPROFOR ( UN force ) was there just to observe. They did some small actions, but they didn't stop the war. They ever didn't stop any of the massacres from happening. And why ? Becouse they had no profit from it. They wanted us to finish our problems as soon as we can, so didn't have any casualties. Even today, some americans think there's still Yugoslavia in Europe. And that's just my opinion.
    There's always another way. For everything happening in our lives. "Another way" might fail, then we should use force. What UN did for me is wrong, first they were late - secound they did nothing but air support.

    Erm, sorry but this is just wrong. You're putting words in my mouth :D What I said after quoting Gandhi is "but I'm pretty sure it's impossible for that to happen today, so I hate giving examples from history, becouse we live in a diffrent age now." meaning there was a "peaceful revolution" but I'm " pretty sure it's impossible for that to happen today", so I never said it's a perfect example. You told me that there has never been a peacful revolution, I just said there was and that's all. I never said it's a way how thing should be done ( todays revoltuion).

    Hmm, I'm aware of how stupid it sounds but for me it's still an option. Forcing him to surrender, without a war, and then as mentioned above using real force. What's wrong with being a hippy :lmao: ? Nice quotation. :thumbsup:

    Ah, the more I read from you the more I realize that you're right. Damn :ecouteurs:
     
  13. butcher

    butcherExperienced Member Uploader Experienced member Forum Member


    2,118

    0

    18

    Sep 8, 2009
     
    That was exactly my point ;), I just thought some of yr posts inre: it being a UN rather than US intervention unnecessarily obfuscated matters somewhat :beer:


    we use Coup D'Etat too ;) , it's like that joke about Bush Jnr (well I heard it was a quote by him but I'm not certain): "I don't trust the French, I do like a people that don't have a word for entrepreneur".

    Anywayz, I guess my point is that it is in the interests of NATO powers for there to be a ruling elite with shared interests with their own. I bring up Nicaragua, but maybe a better example is Colombia's current role in Latin America, its not simply that the US controls Colombia, but that shared geo-political interests bring much cooperation. Further, whilst ousting Gaddafi ain't the best thing for the French (it was a v. profitable market), these things don't happen in a vacuum, and whilst air support for the rebels is 'doing the right thing', we should be mindful that such action is largely due to it being politically expedient, rather than a sign of good faith on behalf of our leaders...

    I would tend to argue that it is exactly because Iraq & Afghanistan have been such epic failures that occupation is out of the question in Libya. The Obama administration is different than Bush Jnr in its foreign policy, a shift away from the hawkish realism mixed with quasi-religious US exceptionalism of Bush towards a more 'soft power' approach (read Joseph Nye or something), 'coca cola is back in the veins of Saigon'; an emphasis on 'legitimacy', international law, at base with PR. The underlining assumptions have not changed though, an unrelenting commitment to the global 'utopia' of 'open', 'free' markets & Liberal Democratic political institutions.
     
  14. ungovernable

    ungovernableAutonome Staff Member Uploader Admin Team Experienced member


    4,319

    57

    24

    Aug 21, 2009
    Male, 33 years old
    Canada Canada
    Yes exactly. What, am i going to be forced to take sides ? You are going to tell me like georges w bush said during irak war "either you're with us or against us" ?

    I don't support war because it's a war led by UN and NATO. But i'm not fighting against it because the libyan people want it and it is the only solution that can save them

    I said i'm not sure what position to take, because like i explained i'm not supporting it but i think it would be counter productive to fight against it while we should focus on supporting libyan revolution

    Voting takes time. I believe they acted pretty fast this time.

    Once again you are mixing things up. A peacekeeping force is not the same thing that a war resolution voted by countries participating to UN.

    UN always tryed to not take sides and stay neutral, this is called non-interference principle... Same thing happenned in Rwanda and many other countries

    Saying that UN would afford to mobilize thousands of troops and material for a peacekeeping force, but that they dont want to fight because they dont care about it is very immature, illogical and ignorant reasonement. Why the fuck would they even send peacekeeping forces if they dont want to act until they can gain something out of it ?

    I'm still waiting to hear what is this "other way".... Your argumens are worth nothing if you cant back them up with real facts.

    You contradict yourself again, first you are against the war, next you say they should go farther than air support, in other words an occupation war. This is not logical reasonement, we must avoid occupation war at all cost but since the rebels lost terrain it may be necessary. I just hope they will leave Lybia as soon as Kaddhafi is dead.

    I was talking about ANARCHIST revolutions.

    India was a very particuliar situation. Today if the rebels would just do sit-ins and pacifist protest, Gaddhafi would just massacre them and the problem would be over. This is a strategy that CANNOT WORK IN LYBIA.

    HOW ?








    BTW, just wanna say once again that war disgust me and i really dont like to have to argue on how this is the only solution to save a revolution, but in history there are some very particuliar cases where you can't be against a war.... War against nazis in 1942-1945 for exemple... Or if a war happenned against people comitting genocides in Rwanda i would have "supported" it...
    If we had some anarchist societies we would have international autonomous brigades to help people in need... But for now the only ones who can help people in need are UN & NATO... Even if they are full of shit sometimes they are the only ones who can help...

    I just want to precise my positions because i would be really sickened if someone who read this topic thinks i'm a pro-war supporter or something.... I'm definatly against war and imperialism of all kind, but each situation is a different one we cant just judge all situations with an unthinked principle of opposing everything and not considering how particuliar a situation is...

    Fuck all wars, but sometimes a war is necessary to stop a bigger war. Just like sometimes, violence is necessary to stop violence (and this is why non-violent anarchists think we should react with violence agaisnt violence of the state)....
     
  15. Caps

    CapsExperienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    393

    0

    6

    Nov 3, 2010
     
    Anyone else concerned that this project is becoming a NATO controlled affair? Also interesting to see what is going on in other parts of Africa and Asia...
     
  16. ungovernable

    ungovernableAutonome Staff Member Uploader Admin Team Experienced member


    4,319

    57

    24

    Aug 21, 2009
    Male, 33 years old
    Canada Canada
    Rebels took back 2 major cities today. Gaddhafi said he would be negociating his surrendering with African Union.
    Rebels are winning. Without an occupation war. That's awesome, things are going perfectly and the United Nations probably will not have to send troops. If we can end this war and defeat Gaddhafi only with UN air support there will be no fear of an occidental control of libya anymore.
     
  17. JoeyV

    JoeyVExperienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    236

    0

    3

    Sep 23, 2010
     
    Great news!
     
  18. Bakica

    BakicaExperienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    951

    0

    0

    Feb 21, 2010
     
    No war, no larger amount of casualties :thumbsup: As I probablly told already, if only they reacted sooner and forced him in surrendering.

    Anywayz great news ! I hope he will surrender without any further incindences. Solidarity :beer:
     
  19. JoeyV

    JoeyVExperienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    236

    0

    3

    Sep 23, 2010
     
    Cheers :beer:
     
  20. SurgeryXdisaster

    SurgeryXdisasterExperienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    977

    1

    4

    Oct 8, 2009
     
    :ecouteurs: :ecouteurs:
     
Loading...