They just don't get it...

[green-man-2010.livejournal.com]

It turns out that a British diplomat turned up at the border and asked to be taken to rebel commanders in Libya. he had with him a detail from the SAS, a crack British Special Forces outfit, similar to the American Delta Force, only with stiffer upper lips and no chewing gum to hand out.

Anyways, the Libyan commanders didn't ask for, and didn't want any forign troops involved in what they see as 'their' struggle against Gaddaffi. So they captured the SAS guys and threw them into the brig, only releasing them unharmed once they had got the british diplomat out of their country.

http://news.antiwar.com/2011/03/05/libyan-rebels-capture-british-sas-unit/

So, there you have it. The Libyans are asking for a UN backed intervention in their struggle.
They want the UN , not the UK or the USA to send in any ground troops.

Seeing as if the rebels win, they are going to have to go to their own people and say that' we are not the sellouts to Western Powers like Gaddaffi was ( remember that the jets and tanks he is currently using to murder his own people were supplied by the same people who want to start an invasion) - well , i think it is only fair that they should be the ones who set the terms on how Gaddaffi is otten rid of. Ok, he has to go, nd his own people are the ones to take him down.

Ii don't see the military dictators and undemocratic despots who rule Arab League countries being very enthusiastic about establishing a bit more democracy in the world , somehow - esp. in a place like Libya.

And that leaves the UN. So, what is the UN for? UK/USA forces have basically been acting like the military wing of their countries corporate interests of late. i don't blame the Libyans for telling the SAS that they were unwelcome.

I do think that the Libyans have every right to appeal to the international community, via the UN , which pledges itself to uphold human rights , to which they belong , to give them a hand by way of enforcing a no fly zone and supporting the Libyan Ground forces with airstrikes on Gaddaffis mercenaries, together with his tanks and artillery.

I am suprised that the UK Government didn't get it that the age of gunboat diplomacy is over, but what else can we expect of ex public schoolboys like 'Call Me Dave'? Cameron and his cronies in the British foriegn office 'just don't get it' - but I hope that someone out there in the wider world does, and does what the rebels are begging the international community to give them without delay.

But if you disagree with the idea of airstrikes, and the Libyans are not going to co operate with any foriegn troops that they regard as 'invaders', then what role or position do we want the UN to adopt here? It has been said in this community that ' this is not what the UN is for - well, ok, what should it be doing instead?

Comments

[farchivist.livejournal.com]

This goes to how unserious the opposition to Gaddafi is. If the rebels don't want US and UK on the ground, they are going to end up as dead as Hama. It's their call, but it seems a waste and a shame.

I can see why they would prefer not to have such assistance. If I were in such a situation in a non-US/European country, what would be going through my head when diplomat/SAS (or diplomat/Special Forces from the USA) shows up is "Great. So they're going to 'help' us overthrow the Asshole and then they're going to bring in Haliburton, Xe, and all these other corporate fucks who're going to screw us over. And they'll stay for years and any time we want to have an election or rule over ourselves I'll need to be going on my knees before the American/British ambassador and schlorp on their cock to get permission, like they had to in Iraq and Afghanistan. How about...NO."

I mean, why exchange one master for another?

[policraticus.livejournal.com]

You think they will be less beholden if the only assistance they get from the US/UK and France is tens of millions of dollars worth of bombing that will obliterate what little infrastructure Libya still has?

LOL. Naive to the end. They don't have to worry though, since the bombing isn't going to save them.

Why accept the vile American help? Because the US/UK are unlikely to toss you into a hole, torture you with a vengence and then line you up against a wall and shoot you, your family and your tribe.

[farchivist.livejournal.com]

You think they will be less beholden if the only assistance they get from the US/UK and France is tens of millions of dollars worth of bombing that will obliterate what little infrastructure Libya still has?

I think that if they want/require help, it should be done properly via the UN. Really, the only reason our troops should go anywhere under the US flag is if we're going to take over and proclaim it ours or if we have treaty obligations. If we're going to go into Libya, fine, but it'd better be as the 53rd state, right after Iraq and Afghanistan become the 51st and 52nd. If we want to play American Empire, then we need to be American Empire. Also, we have more important things in our own hemisphere to worry about, like Costa Rica and Mexico.

Why accept the vile American help? Because the US/UK are unlikely to toss you into a hole, torture you with a vengence and then line you up against a wall and shoot you, your family and your tribe.

Nah, we just sell you out to whoever the modern version of the United Fruit Company is and boss your new "democratic" puppet government around. You'll only get waterboarded or Gitmotized if you're against our new selected regime.

C'mon, at least we can be done with the stupid idealism schtick and call our imperialism what it is. Be honest about it.

[policraticus.livejournal.com]

If what we're doing is "imperialist," then where are our galleons laden with treasure? Why isn't gasoline 50¢ a gallon? Where are our triumphs? Why aren't we strangling our captives on the steps of the Capitol?

Surely this is the strangest imperialism of all time.

[farchivist.livejournal.com]

Not really. The problem is assuming that the government or the citizenry will be the beneficiaries of the imperialism. They're not; that's not the object.

But I'll tell you what; corporate profits were phenomenal last year. Look at Haliburton; they own half the world's oilfields now and dominate Basra. It's fantastic. We in Corp Land are all doing stellar.

I like to quote General Smedley Butler on this: I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested. Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.

Gorgeous, isn't it?

[green-man-2010.livejournal.com]

thanks for that quote. that was brilliant, and why I applaud the Libyan s for stuffing the SAS onto the next plane out.

[whoasksfinds.livejournal.com]

so we went in to give the oil feilds to a democratic iraqi government that could choose to open their development up to international bidding, most of which did not go to american companies?

thats an interesting brand of imperialism.

[policraticus.livejournal.com]

I stopped reading at General Smedly Butler.

[green-man-2010.livejournal.com]

I am wondering why - this guy started to get interesting .

[policraticus.livejournal.com]

He died in 1940 and wrote that in 1934 about wars he fought 25 years before that. In some cases, he had a fair point to make. But that was about a pre-WWII world. Indeed, it was thinking along Smedly's line, thinking deeply influenced by the horror and senselessness of WWI, that made WWII possible.

Smedly was also something of a crank, a fervent supporter of the Volstead Act and a conspiracy theorist of the first order. But that is another story.

[farchivist.livejournal.com]

Do you disagree with the decorated patriot?

[policraticus.livejournal.com]

I disagree with equating all war to the Honduran police action of 1912, yes. Gen. Butler was a man of supreme courage, but his judgment in this case is distorted because of his particular frame of reference.

Gen. Butler was also eager for the Philadelphia police to kill more bandits in shootouts and was disappointed when it was represented to him that the court system frowned on just gunning down suspects. He was also a fanatical supporter of the Volstead Act.

Do you agree with decorated patriot?

[debergerac.livejournal.com]

i stopped reading at halliburton.

[farchivist.livejournal.com]

*laughs* You mean you really don't know? The oil fields have primarily gone to Chevron and Shell, with the French company Total only getting some of the oil fields. The majority have gone to American corporations. Halliburton got the contract to manage the oil infrastructure. I'd say Halliburton, Chevron, and Shell profiting would be American corporations profiting, don't you?

[whoasksfinds.livejournal.com]

you're either lying, or just misinformed. (http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/12/12/us-iraq-usa-oil-idUSTRE5BB18Q20091212)

[farchivist.livejournal.com]

Old news, man, old news. You gotta keep up. (http://www.iraq-businessnews.com/2011/02/21/shell-confirms-participation-in-basra-oil-gas-2011/) You missed the entirety of the results of the Basra Oil & Gas Conference 2011 (http://www.iraq-businessnews.com/2011/01/26/ibn-to-sponsor-basra-oil-gas-2011/).

[debergerac.livejournal.com]

Look at Haliburton; they own half the world's oilfields now

they do? i didn't know they owned any oilfields.

[farchivist.livejournal.com]

Oh yes. Just look them up on Wikipedia, follow the reference links. The list of their subsidiaries is impressive.

[debergerac.livejournal.com]

so they have a lot of subsidiaries and a global presence? so does the even bigger schlumberger.

halliburton provide oilfield services and construction. they don't own oilfields.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

There *were* people in the Bush Administration who made personal profit off the attempts to rebuild Iraq. I'm sure that wasn't the entirety of the motivation to invade in 2003, but you've more faith in humankind than Minto does if you believe that had nothing to do with the invasion of 2003.

[policraticus.livejournal.com]

There was a lot more money to be made by not invading than there was in invading. Just ask the French.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Oh, you mean their President soon to be on trial for corruption?

[policraticus.livejournal.com]

Isn't Chirac already under investigation? If we are to believe Gaddafi's son (a big IF) Sarkozy was bankrolled by Libya. If that is the case at least he had the decency not to stay bought, unlike the Germans and the French back in 2003.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Actually the strangest imperialism of all time was the "Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere." Which was naked Japanese aggression intended to control as much of Asia and the Pacific as they possibly could, which came closer to succeeding than would have remotely looked possible, and which was disguised as Pan-Asian democracy (conveniently led by Japanese generals and civilians for Japanese interests). Ironically that very nature of that imperialism put guys like Sukarno and Ho Chih Minh in a hell of a fix......

[green-man-2010.livejournal.com]

well said.