Obama Speech on Libya

[LavaDog]

Did anyone find it super ironic (I am refraining myself here) that Obama was calling Gaddafy all sorts of names and is punishing him for bombing and throwing missiles at the rebels, meanwhile he is giving the aacolades to the US military who is doing the exact same thing, jet bombing and missiles throwing at the rebels in Afghanistan?

They used to pass these out after the crap at Fallujah. It's pretty much the same.

 

[Trumble]

Did anyone find it super ironic (I am refraining myself here) that Obama was calling Gaddafy all sorts of names and is punishing him for bombing and throwing missiles at the rebels, meanwhile he is giving the aacolades to the US military who is doing the exact same thing, jet bombing and missiles throwing at the rebels in Afghanistan?

I might be super ironic if anyone other than yourself (and maybe Hugo Chavez?) still recognised Gaddafi as the legitimate authority in Libya. As it is, just another example of, as Verdetequiero so excellently put it, "the urge to dog whistle the Muslim vs the infidel crusader meme".

Same question I asked before. What do YOU think should happen in Libya? Contrary to your ramblings about 'invasion' the US, Britain, France, Italy etc would be absolutely delighted if those muslim countries (i.e. most of them, now) stepped up to the plate and enforced the no-fly zone and took out Gaddafi's artillery raining shells on civilians themselves. It's expensive in these days of austerity. But where are they? Or would you prefer Gaddafi was just left to get on with it and regain control by slaughtering anybody opposed to him?

 

[Pygoscelis]

This is where I get confused with this. Maybe you can clear it up for me. Didn't western oil companies already have a bunch of sweet deals in Libya under Gadafi? Wouldn't a regime change be risking the sweet deals there already had? There seems to me to be no guarantee that the next regime will be any more in the pocket of western oil companies than Gadafi was.

Also, if the oil company deals are with China or France or the UK, and the US moves in and takes them over through the regime change, woudln't that create a rift with China, France or the UK?

I don't claim to know a whole lot about Lybian oil. So maybe somebody here does and can clarify?

 

[Pygoscelis]

Obama's reaction to this whole thing is a good case in point of what Trumble is saying above. Obama initially resisted and people screamed out about it, that he wasn't helping and should be. Then he started to help a little bit, while bending over backwards to NOT actually invade or take over, and people call him a war monger. He really was in a no-win position. And it is also a good point that the arab nations didn't step up to the plate. They have armies and planes etc, but they explicitly called out to the west. They did. You can look it up.

 

[Zafran]

Obama's reaction to this whole thing is a good case in point of what Trumble is saying above. Obama initially resisted and people screamed out about it, that he wasn't helping and should be. Then he started to help a little bit, while bending over backwards to NOT actually invade or take over, and people call him a war monger. He really was in a no-win position. And it is also a good point that the arab nations didn't step up to the plate. They have armies and planes etc, but they explicitly called out to the west. They did. You can look it up.

A lot of people have been calling out for the US to intervene in sudan as well, God knows how many people are dying there and have died - but you see theres no oil unlike Libya. Face it people the Uk, US, France and co dont give a crap about the mid east - Theres no romantic pitcure of saving the rebels here - the oils calling out we need to save it and if that means saving a few rebels here and there no problem.......makes us look better.

To trumble - the whole point the other regimes in the mid east are not helping in enforcing the no fly zone is because they are scared that if they join in with the US, UK, France and co they will be seen as siding with the west and therefore lose support from there population - with the atmosphere in the mid east right now I dont think the mid east regimes can risk that.

 

[Zafran]

This is where I get confused with this. Maybe you can clear it up for me. Didn't western oil companies already have a bunch of sweet deals in Libya under Gadafi? Wouldn't a regime change be risking the sweet deals there already had? There seems to me to be no guarantee that the next regime will be any more in the pocket of western oil companies than Gadafi was.

Also, if the oil company deals are with China or France or the UK, and the US moves in and takes them over through the regime change, woudln't that create a rift with China, France or the UK?

I don't claim to know a whole lot about Lybian oil. So maybe somebody here does and can clarify?

I know the UK did - but soon as Gaddafi started to kill people its a perfect time to go in there take it - under the excuse we're saving the rebels.

 

[سيف الله]

Salaam

Check this out, has subtitles

Shows why hes not like by other Middle Eastern rulers.

 

[Ramadhan]

I might be super ironic if anyone other than yourself (and maybe Hugo Chavez?) still recognised Gaddafi as the legitimate authority in Libya.

Did I even say Gaddafi is the legitimate authority in Libya?

I said "Libya is a sovereign, independent country"

Are you THAT dense not to notice the basic difference?

 

[Ramadhan]

Just from my observation, I find it interesting that atheists at least in this forum believe that US motive in Libya (and Iraq and Afghanistan) is purely altruism to save the citizens of those countries from the evil of dictatorships.

By the way, could you also tell your western governments to save the people of North Korea, Myanmar, Cote D'voire, uzbekistan, azerbaijan, and other assorted sub saharan countries?

Of course, The US is not in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya because they are muslim countries, have tons of oil or strategically located. No no no... it's because the amreekans are genuinely concerned with the general welfare of the afghanis, iraqis and libyans.

Don't believe me?
Just ask the flying spaghetti monsters.

 

[Verdetequiero]

One of the more common errors I see my fellow-travellers make is the desire to find conspiratorial and malevolent motives behind the aggression of the empire, and while it is true that some wars and some campaigns and some interventions are indeed moved by design, it is equally and likewise true that many of its actions really are dumb and reflexive. I mean, the old Albrightian axiom is the most accurate insight into the relevant mindset: what is the point of having this magnificent military if you're not going to use it? And these things do not have to exist in mutual exclusion. The US invasion of Iraq can be a viciously deliberate expansion of the global garrison while the Afghan invasion can be a war of retribution that metastasized into a cryptocolonial exercise of semipermanent occupation while the Libya kintomagnetoelectrodynamicalimited military prestochangeo whathaveyou can be a hastily conceived exercise in happytime goodluck bombing. At the same time! There is no reason at all to presume that some cabal of Illuminati are actually directing all of these things along a single axis of intention toward a singular evil end. There is a certain "exceptionalism" in the imputation of omnicompetence or even consistent design--and this is not to say that America can never be malevolent, but that it is just as likely merely malicious, and that its rulers really do believe in bombs for peace even as they believe in bombs for democracy and bombs for American material interest and bombs for first-dibs-on-oil and bombs for The Women. They believe in bombs for everything as surely as Joanne down in the copyroom believes in the universal curative powers of fish oil or vitamin C.

I think this blog post from WhoisIOZ sums up everything quiet nicely.

 

[Little_Lion]

Don't believe me?
Just ask the flying spaghetti monsters.

*slams fist on the table* I'm telling you, the decline of conditions in Libya is directly related to the decline in the population of pirates! Just like global warming, which is directly caused by a lack of pirates!

(For anyone not getting the references, just look up Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.)

 

[titus]

So for the people claiming this is about oil, can you explain what is going to happen with the oil that will make things better for the "West"?

Are they going to take the oil without paying for it? Are they going to be given the oil for free? Are they going to force Libya to charge them below market value for it?

Please enlighten me as to what is going to happen to make this worthwhile from an economic standpoint in regards to oil

 

[Trumble]

Did I even say Gaddafi is the legitimate authority in Libya?

I said "Libya is a sovereign, independent country"

Are you THAT dense not to notice the basic difference?

No. You, though, are getting so carried away with your incoherent rants you just are contradicting yourself. If Gaddafi no longer represents the legimate authority in Libya, how does attacking his forces represent attacking the 'sovereign state of Libya'?!

Again, what do YOU want to see happen in Libya now?

BTW,

By the way, could you also tell your western governments to save the people of North Korea, Myanmar, Cote D'voire, uzbekistan, azerbaijan, and other assorted sub saharan countries?

North Korea - would need the support of China (which would not be forthcoming) to be practical, even if they weren't psychopathic nutters quite happy to lob a nuke onto Seoul.

Myanmar - again would probably need the support of China. Would have certainly involved ground troops in Vietnam type numbers, which were simply not available. Logistics and terrain very difficult.

Uzbekistan - human rights situation slowing improving. Legitimate authority not disputed, if not liked. Military intervention logistically difficult, Russian support probably needed. No black gold. Lots of the boring gold gold, though.

Azerbeijan - In relation to Nagorno-Karabakh, it is virtually impossible to see what intervention could be made. Again, without Russian support (and they were a bit busy at the time) logistics would have been extremely difficult, and as there were essentially two guerilla armies fighting it out in the mountains any sort of no-fly zone or such would have been pointless.

Cote D'Ivoire. Intervention impossible unless ground troops are used. Had you actually read the article you linked to you might have grasped that Obama is not willing to do that, just the same as is the case in Libya. He simply dfoesnt have the troops available, and their use would be politically unacceptable.

 

[Argamemnon]

Libya's Upheaval Being Orchestrated From Washington By Us Agent

Libya: The Rest of the Story
Libyan opposition literally running protests from Washington.
by Tony Cartalucci

When Qaddafi's son, Saif al-Islam, accused foreigners and opposition groups of fomenting unrest within Libya, it appears no truer words have been spoken. It is not surprising BBC and the rest of the corporate owned media went through extensive measures to discredit his speech.

Unbelievable revelations have been discovered regarding the unrest in Libya. The leader of Libya's opposition group organizing the protests both inside and outside of Libya, is currently in Washington D.C. as he and his organization direct the upheaval and bedlam consuming the North African nation.

An interview with Ibrahim Sahad of the National Front for the Salvation of Libya (NFSL) on ABC Australia, features every talking point covered by the mainstream corporate media from over the past week, all with the White House and Washington Monument looming over him in the background.

Ibrahim Sahad and his NFLS formed the National Conference of the Libyan Opposition (NCLO) in London in 2005. This group specifically went out of its way to appear not to be influenced or supported by the United States. Perhaps to cement this notion, Huffington Post featured documents released by the NCLO in a wikileaks-esque move to pin US support on Qaddafi. Of course, as with all the unrest in the Middle East, as the facts trickle out we find out this is not to avoid confusion, it is to avoid the truth.

The Sahad's NCLO began organizing the February 17th "Day of Rage" right on cue as Egypt fell so the mainstream media apparatus could swing around and put the focus on Libya. Conveniently, the media needs only move from Cairo to Egypt's western border and wait for Sahad's men on the ground to secure them a base of operations, presumably in Libya's eastern city of Benghazi. Qaddafi apparently understands the role of NGOs and the foreign media, which is why they are not in the streets of Libya's cities, and coverage has been admittedly daunting.

It turns out that both the corporate owned news and the US State Department/corporate funded Movements.org are getting their reports entirely from Sahad's NCLO in Washington, who claims to be in contact with "first hand" reports out of Libya. Other NFSL members including one in Dubai, are also supplying the media with this "first hand" information. These reports have become the basis for accusations of "genocide", the convening of the UNSC, economic sanctions, threats directed toward Libyan security forces that attempt to quell protesters, and NATO enforced no-fly zones.

The Neo-Con infested National Endowment for Democracy and its army of US funded NGOs recently made an official statement urging the US and EU to confront the Libyan "massacres" in the UNSC and Human Rights Council. This is still amidst reports BBC admits are "impossible to verify," based on information coming from Movements.org and a Washington based Libyan protester leader.

It should also be noted that a Ghonim-esque Libyan blogger is being reported by US corporate funded Movements.org as a "Twitter user to follow." He goes by the name "EnoughGaddafi" and is the webmaster of LibyaFeb17.com. EnoughGaddafi's work can also be found archived on Washington based Ibrahim Sahad's NFSL site (EnoughGaddafi.com was hacked according to Movements.org).

Again we are told the protests are spontaneous, inspired by the Tunisian and Egyptian uprisings. Again we are told it is the youth yearning for freedom and "democracy." But when we look behind the curtain, we see yet another old man from Washington pulling the levers, blowing the smoke, and flashing the lights.

If you are religious, pray for the people in the streets of Libya, many of whom may be merely swept up in this cruel hoax. The US and their stooges will only be disheartened if their plot doesn't succeed. The rivers of blood that will flow to ensure that it does is never entered into their calculations.

When your US State Department sponsored "liberation" comes to you, you will hope others elsewhere will stand in solidarity with the truth, not the emotions of an engineered hoax. You will hope others take it upon themselves to speak the truth amongst the deafening din of corporate media propaganda. So spread the word, wake your neighbors up, and most importantly, boycott the corporations whose greed drives this agenda and whose members are planning and carrying it out.

Do it for the Libyans, the Egyptians, the Tunisians, and do it for yourself. The conflagration is consuming the Middle East and North Africa now, it may consume you next.

Corporate memberships and supporters of the the Anglo-American globalist agenda:

CFR Corporate Membership:
http://www.cfr.org/about/corporate/roster.html

Chatham House Major Corporate Membership:
http://www.chathamhouse.org.uk/membership/corporate/major_corporate_members_list/

Chatham House Standard Corporate Membership:
http://www.chathamhouse.org.uk/membership/corporate/corporate_members_list/

International Crisis Group Supporters:
http://www.crisisgroup.org/en/support/who-supports.aspx

Movements.org Supporters:
http://www.movements.org/pages/supporters

Source: http://landdestroyer.blogspot.com/20...-of-story.html

 

[Argamemnon]

The links below provide incontrovertible evidence exposing how the US is orchestrating the chaos, a new front in its GWOT, to salvage its doomed global hegemony.

Collection of Digests 1/28/11 - 2/28/11 US New Soft-Hard Warfront in "No.Africa-MidEast / MENA" http://www.burbankdigest.com/node/340

1/28/11 US Behind Uprisings: Major Soft Power Front in Global World War http://www.burbankdigest.com/node/333

1/29 Documents Expose US behind 'pro-democracy activists' in New War Front http://www.burbankdigest.com/node/333

2/4/11 Egypt: US Mission Accomplished? http://www.burbankdigest.com/node/334

2/11 U.S. Declares Freedom: Egypt's 'New' Military Dictatorship http://www.burbankdigest.com/node/335

2/13 Egypt: Transparent Trappings:Creative Destruction for a ’Greater Middle East' & Beyond http://www.burbankdigest.com/node/336

2/20 Removing Room for Doubt http://www.burbankdigest.com/node/337

2/21/11 Behind the Offensive Across North Africa and Middle East http://www.burbankdigest.com/node/339

2/28/11 Libya: US Soft War Preps for Military Moves: African & Arab Surrogates Assist http://www.burbankdigest.com/node/338

[duplication of node #333; #338 & 339 posted out of chronological order]

 

[Pygoscelis]

Sometimes I can't tell parody from serious posts.

 

[Zafran]

So for the people claiming this is about oil, can you explain what is going to happen with the oil that will make things better for the "West"?

Are they going to take the oil without paying for it? Are they going to be given the oil for free? Are they going to force Libya to charge them below market value for it?

Please enlighten me as to what is going to happen to make this worthwhile from an economic standpoint in regards to oil

If Gaddafi stays in power us guys in the west might not get the oil therfore shooting the price of oil sky high as there will be a restriction in supply.

But if we take him out (in the pre text of supporting the rebels of course) it would give us a big chance of opening up the supply of oil by siding with the new regime (who ever they might be is of no concern) - Thats should reduce the price of oil - cheaper oil for us guys.

I love when a plan comes togather dont you.:shade:

 

[Verdetequiero]

Yea that plan is going well.

 

[Trumble]

Sometimes I can't tell parody from serious posts.

Bizarre, isn't it?

If Gaddafi stays in power us guys in the west might not get the oil therfore shooting the price of oil sky high as there will be a restriction in supply.

But if we take him out (in the pre text of supporting the rebels of course) it would give us a big chance of opening up the supply of oil by siding with the new regime (who ever they might be is of no concern) - Thats should reduce the price of oil - cheaper oil for us guys.

I love when a plan comes togather dont you.:shade:

Apart from the obvious flaw that as Gaddafi was quite happy to sell us oil anyway, surely 'the plan' with taht object should have been supporting him and not the rebels? Not to mention that there would be no restriction in supply, and only a minor price increase. The Saudis and others would just increase production to manage the supply; that's what OPEC is for. Likewise, if/when Gaddafi goes that price reduction won't be happening either!

 

[Maryan0]

If Gaddafi stays in power us guys in the west might not get the oil therfore shooting the price of oil sky high as there will be a restriction in supply.

But if we take him out (in the pre text of supporting the rebels of course) it would give us a big chance of opening up the supply of oil by siding with the new regime (who ever they might be is of no concern) - Thats should reduce the price of oil - cheaper oil for us guys.

I love when a plan comes togather dont you.:shade:

...As well as getting rid of Khaddafi and helping to bring to power someone more friendly (friendlier than Khaddafi) to western interests. Trying to Make friends with the people all over the Arab world by helping to take out one dictator with the intent that maybe the people will forget they supported these dictators for decades etc. But judging by recent events I don't think all is going according to plan.

Sometimes I can't tell parody from serious posts.

I can understand your confusion. ^o)
Salam