US Attacks Libya

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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

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

 

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 !

This quoting is fucked up

 

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.

 

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.

 

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 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 ? Nice quotation.

Ah, the more I read from you the more I realize that you're right. Damn

 

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

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.

 

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...

 

Great news!

 

No war, no larger amount of casualties 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

 

Cheers