U.S. launches airstrikes on Libya

[Jenksismyhero]

Im sure the implication was that instead of spending $1bil on Libya, why not spend $1bil on the US.

 

correct

[Soxbadger]

The US has been accused of doing the exact same thing as the Council in Benghazi. I am not going to comment on whether it has happened because the article is entirely speculative.

 

But if the US found a list of 8,000 Soviet Operatives in the US during the Cold War, do you think that we would have round them up and interrogated them?

 

My guess is that there are abuses, but that is the reality of war. Even the US has done terrible things in that regard, but just because a few people in position of power abuse the system, does not mean that the civilians of Libya should suffer. No more than the people of the US should suffer if our troops go over the line.

 

I would hope that once Gaddafi's forces have been pushed back, international agencies could get access to these prisons and give us independent reports.

 

Right now you cant trust anything coming out of Libya, on either side.

[Balta1701]

Those are some incredibly fun edits in your Blix quotes.

 

For an example...it refers to Iraq having "Misplaced" several thousand tons of VX...it suggests that Iraq is clearly hiding anthrax...here is what Blix actually says.

 

The investigation of the destruction site could, in the best

case, allow the determination of the number of bombs destroyed at

that site.

 

It should be followed by a serious and credible effort to

determine the separate issue of how many R-400 type bombs were

produced. In this, as in other matters, inspection work is moving

on and may yield results.

 

Iraq proposed an investigation using advanced technology to

quantify the amount of unilaterally destroyed anthrax dumped at a

site.

 

However, even if the use of advanced technology could quantify

the amount of anthrax, said to be dumped at the site, the results

would still be open to interpretation.

 

Defining the quantity of anthrax destroyed must, of course, be

followed by efforts to establish what quantity was actually

produced.

 

With respect to VX, Iraq has recently suggested a similar method

to quantify a VX precursor stated to have been unilaterally

destroyed in the summer of 1991.

 

Here are Blix's exact words on Iraq's cooperation:

The Iraqi side has tried on occasion to attach

conditions, as it did regarding helicopters and U-2 planes.

 

Iraq has not, however, so far persisted in these or other

conditions for the exercise of any of our inspection rights. If

it did, we would report it.

 

It is obvious that, while the numerous initiatives, which are now

taken by the Iraqi side with a view to resolving some

long-standing open disarmament issues, can be seen as "active",

or even "proactive", these initiatives three to four months into

the new resolution cannot be said to constitute "immediate"

cooperation.

 

Nor do they necessarily cover all areas of relevance. They are

nevertheless welcome and Unmovic is responding to them in the

hope of solving presently unresolved disarmament issues.

 

He then goes on to ask for "months" to complete the work.

 

How much time would it take to resolve the key remaining

disarmament tasks?

 

While co-operation can and is to be immediate, disarmament and at

any rate the verification of it cannot be instant. Even with a

proactive Iraqi attitude, induced by continued outside pressure,

it would still take some time to verify sites and items, analyse

documents, interview relevant persons, and draw conclusions.

 

It would not take years, nor weeks, but months. Neither

governments nor inspectors would want disarmament inspection to

go on forever.

 

However, it must be remembered that in accordance with the

governing resolutions, a sustained inspection and monitoring

system is to remain in place after verified disarmament to give

confidence and to strike an alarm, if signs were seen of the

revival of any proscribed weapons programmes.

If you want to stand by and say we invaded Iraq because of bad bookkeeping in the 1980's on their part...go ahead. That just illustrates how insane the whole war was.

[StrangeSox]

Also, this nonsense about the US intelligence being the only intelligence used is bulls***. But continue your revisionist history. Most of the world thought THAT portion (WMD) of the case for war was accurate. I have no problem with you saying the pretense for war based on some Al Qaeda link was weak, but you're simply wrong here.

 

Most of the world thought the whole argument was bulls***. Years of revelations on the Bush administration's push for the Iraq war before 9/11 even occurred in addition to the massive amount of manipulation, fraud and pure bulls*** they twisted in contradiction to NSA/CIA/etc assessments showed that to be the correct position.

 

Perhaps the Bush admin. really did believe Saddam had weapons a priori, but there was never any good justification for that position. It was simply a giant case of confirmation bias to confirm what they already "knew," regardless of what the evidence actually showed.

 

[Jenksismyhero]

Those are some incredibly fun edits in your Blix quotes.

 

For an example...it refers to Iraq having "Misplaced" several thousand tons of VX...it suggests that Iraq is clearly hiding anthrax...here is what Blix actually says.

 

 

 

Here are Blix's exact words on Iraq's cooperation:

 

 

He then goes on to ask for "months" to complete the work.

 

 

If you want to stand by and say we invaded Iraq because of bad bookkeeping in the 1980's on their part...go ahead. That just illustrates how insane the whole war was.

 

Yeah, none of those quotes do anything to negate what the wiki article states. Kinda reinforces the summaries actually.

 

And second, that's your revisionist history again. The point was that Iraq violated something like 17 resolutions before the US got serious about enforcing their violations.

[StrangeSox]

Yeah, none of those quotes do anything to negate what the wiki article states. Kinda reinforces the summaries actually.

 

And second, that's your revisionist history again. The point was that Iraq violated something like 17 resolutions before the US got serious about enforcing their violations.

 

I think history has borne out how terrible of an excuse those violations were as a pretext to a massive invasion and decade-long occupation.

[Jenksismyhero]

I think history has borne out how terrible of an excuse those violations were as a pretext to a massive invasion and decade-long occupation.

 

So either resolutions are totally worthless (my point), or even if resolutions are worth something, using 17 violations of violations of said resolutions to justify enforcement action isn't appropriate?

Edited March 24, 2011 by Jenksismybitch

[StrangeSox]

So either resolutions are totally worthless (my point), or even if resolutions are worth something, using 17 violations of violations of said resolutions to justify enforcement action isn't appropriate?

 

False dichotomy.

 

Using 17 violations that weren't really affecting anyone to justify a full-scale invasion and decade-long occupation that results in hundreds of thousands dead, a significant portion of the country's infrastructure destroyed and on-going violence, not to mention the billions spent, is totally worthless.

 

Passing a resolution that results in immediate and appropriate action is not.

 

here's a completely left-slanted blog giving a summary of documents that came out last year clearly showing the Bush Admin. focusing on military action in Iraq in early 2001. The rest was just them looking for something to justify it, no matter how transparently terrible the evidence and the arguments were.

Edited March 24, 2011 by StrangeSox

[Jenksismyhero]

False dichotomy.

 

Using 17 violations that weren't really affecting anyone to justify a full-scale invasion and decade-long occupation that results in hundreds of thousands dead, a significant portion of the country's infrastructure destroyed and on-going violence, not to mention the billions spent, is totally worthless.

 

Passing a resolution that results in immediate and appropriate action is not.

 

here's a completely left-slanted blog giving a summary of documents that came out last year clearly showing the Bush Admin. focusing on military action in Iraq in early 2001. The rest was just them looking for something to justify it, no matter how transparently terrible the evidence and the arguments were.

 

Again, so resolutions are worthless. I agree.

[Balta1701]

Again, so resolutions are worthless. I agree.

They're worth exactly as much as the people pushing for them decide that they're worth.

[StrangeSox]

Huh. That's an interesting way to read a post that explicitly states not all resolutions are worthless.

 

It's also a pretty terrible conclusion in general because it assumes resolutions are only worthwhile if countries can use them as an excuse to invade, depose the existing leadership/government and subsequently occupy the country for years, even if the country violating the resolution presents no material threat or harm to the invading country.

 

It's almost as if your conclusion doesn't follow from your premises at all.

Edited March 24, 2011 by StrangeSox

[Soxbadger]

That is actually a good point.

 

The sanctions were in place to prevent Saddam from creating more WMD, it seems that he did not make more WMD, which suggests that the sanctions worked...

 

 

[bigruss]

Yes. Was there for 4 or 5 days. It's all pink. And don't photograph the police officers. They get mad.

 

The souk there is right off the main square in the center of town. Of course the main square is probably where a lot of the political gatherings are going to be, which is unfortunate. The charm there is unmistakeable - the snake charmers, the food, the souk sort of blends in the square.

 

One of the more interesting memories of there is the early morning call to prayer - the streets are deserted and then they are just jam packed all at once right when the sun comes up.

 

One thing I love about Morocco is the architecture. Marrakech, like I said, has all pink walls surrounding the old city. Back when I was there, the city was sort of just getting outside of the walled part, I'm sure it's grown well beyond it now.

 

Have fun bartering with the merchants.

Awesome!! Great to hear!! One of my fave things while traveling is just enjoying the different architecture, so Im def looking forward to visiting there!!

[Jenksismyhero]

They're worth exactly as much as the people pushing for them decide that they're worth.

 

I agree, which means that 95% of the time it's a PR stunt for countries to be able to say "ohhh! Look what we did! We passed a RESOLUTION, so they'll stop. Will place some sanctions on them. They'll stop!! Of course, if they break 17 of these resolutions, it won't matter, but we passed a RESOLUTION!"

 

The whole thing is a joke. If countries felt strong enough to go after a dictator who is ruthlessly killing his people then they can build a coalition and go for it. They don't need to waste their time with the UN.

[Jenksismyhero]

That is actually a good point.

 

The sanctions were in place to prevent Saddam from creating more WMD, it seems that he did not make more WMD, which suggests that the sanctions worked...

 

Wrong. Go read the sanctions/resolutions. That was one requirement. In addition to not building anymore, he was supposed to be open/transparent about everything and actually destroy certain weapons. The problem is we let him go for about a decade without holding him accountable for those requirements.

[Balta1701]

I agree, which means that 95% of the time it's a PR stunt for countries to be able to say "ohhh! Look what we did! We passed a RESOLUTION, so they'll stop. Will place some sanctions on them. They'll stop!! Of course, if they break 17 of these resolutions, it won't matter, but we passed a RESOLUTION!"

 

The whole thing is a joke. If countries felt strong enough to go after a dictator who is ruthlessly killing his people then they can build a coalition and go for it. They don't need to waste their time with the UN.

The UN is whatever the world decides it is. The UN has exactly as much credibility as the world decides it has. And whether you like it or not...in the 60+ years since it was created, the UN has done enough good in the world that it does have a fair amount of credibility, even with people who oppose the UN with regularity.

 

If countries decide to work outside the UN, that is their prerogative...but then other countries have a similar right to work within the UN to stop them, and to use the fact that they're working within the UN to their advantage.

 

 

[Jenksismyhero]

Huh. That's an interesting way to read a post that explicitly states not all resolutions are worthless.

 

It's also a pretty terrible conclusion in general because it assumes resolutions are only worthwhile if countries can use them as an excuse to invade, depose the existing leadership/government and subsequently occupy the country for years, even if the country violating the resolution presents no material threat or harm to the invading country.

 

It's almost as if your conclusion doesn't follow from your premises at all.

 

If you're going to argue that it's ok when resolutions are broken because no one got hurt then yeah, resolutions are pretty worthless. What's the point if that person can violate the resolution and expect no retribution? What's the point if the attitude is, well, breaking the rules didn't really hurt anyone, so we'll just let it pass, this time and the seventeenth time.

 

[Jenksismyhero]

The UN is whatever five countries decides it is. The UN has exactly as much credibility as five countries decides it has. And whether you like it or not...in the 60+ years since it was created, the UN has done enough good in the world that it does have a fair amount of credibility, even with people who oppose the UN with regularity.

 

If countries decide to work outside the UN, that is their prerogative...but then other countries have a similar right to work within the UN to stop them, and to use the fact that they're working within the UN to their advantage.

 

I fixed that for you. No one cares what anyone thinks about any given issue except for the five security council countries with veto power. And even then it usually doesn't matter. They have the money and the means to effect what the UN does, so this idea that it's some global governmental body is a joke.

[NorthSideSox72]

Does anyone actually still believe we invaded Iraq because of WMD's being present there?

 

[Balta1701]

I fixed that for you. No one cares what anyone thinks about any given issue except for the five security council countries with veto power. And even then it usually doesn't matter. They have the money and the means to effect what the UN does, so this idea that it's some global governmental body is a joke.

I think the only ones who say the UN is some sort of global governmental body are the conspiracy theorists who say that the US government is going to be replaced with an evil global government.

 

The UN is an instrument through which nations undertake complicated foreign policy and diplomatic maneuvers, and even the small nations out there have found significant benefit from its existence.

[Jenksismyhero]

Does anyone actually still believe we invaded Iraq because of WMD's being present there?

 

I don't. I just wanted to dispel the revisionist history that continues to permeate the discussion of the war.

[BigSqwert]

100,000 Libyan Casualties?

 

Laura Rozen reports on a White House briefing defending the Libyan intervention:

“

Thi

s

i

s

a limited humanitarian intervention, not war,

”

White Hou

s

e Middle Ea

s

t

s

trategi

s

t Denni

s

Ro

s

s

, National

S

ecurity Council

s

trategic planning official Dere

k

Chollet, and two military official

s

told a group of out

s

ide foreign policy expert

s

invited to a briefing at the White Hou

s

e Roo

s

evelt Room Tue

s

day.

 

“

We were loo

k

ing at

‘

S

rebrenica on

s

teroid

s

’

—

the real or imminent po

s

s

ibility that up to a 100,000 people could be ma

s

s

acred, and everyone would blame u

s

for it,

”

Ro

s

s

explained, according to one attendee, who

s

po

k

e on condition of anonymity becau

s

e the admini

s

tration i

s

trying to

k

eep it

s

con

s

ultation

s

private

…

This is an audacious claim, to put it mildly. By way of comparison, in the Kosovo conflict, so often cited as a precedent for our Libyan intervention, the Serbian ethnic cleansing campaign may have claimed 10,000 lives, while the widely-respected Iraq Body Count projects suggests that between 100,000 and 110,000 civilians have been killed in the eight years since we invaded in Iraq. Ross is suggesting, in other words, that upon taking Benghazi, Qaddafi’s forces would slaughtered ten times as many people as Slobodan Milosevic’s thugs did in Kosovo, and that they would have killed as many people in the space of a single campaign as have died in Iraq across eight years of invasion, insurgency, and sectarian civil war. I don’t want to suggest that this is impossible: If the 20th century proves anything, it’s that governments can conduct horrifyingly efficient campaigns of mass murder in relatively short periods of time. But given that the provisional casualty estimates (civilian and military) for the first month of the Libyan civil war range from 1,000 to 6,500 deaths, I would very much like to know the basis for Ross’s suggestion that Benghazi’s population would have been literally decimated had the rebellion been defeated.

 

I would also like to know if the administration is preparing similar estimates of the likely casualty rate in the event that the rebels succeeded in toppling Qaddafi. This L.A. Times account of life in the rebel capital doesn’t exactly inspire confidence in the humanitarian sensitivities of the government that we’re supporting:

…

Rebel force

s

are detaining anyone

s

u

s

pected of

s

erving or a

s

s

i

s

ting the

K

adafi regime, loc

k

ing them up in the

s

ame pri

s

on

s

once u

s

ed to detain and torture

K

adafi

’

s

opponent

s

.

 

For a month, gang

s

of young gunmen have roamed the city, rou

s

ting Libyan blac

k

s

and immigrant

s

from

s

ub-

S

aharan Africa from their home

s

and holding them for interrogation a

s

s

u

s

pected mercenarie

s

or government

s

pie

s

.

 

Over the la

s

t

s

everal day

s

, the oppo

s

ition ha

s

begun rounding up men accu

s

ed of fighting a

s

mercenarie

s

for

K

adafi

’

s

militia

s

a

s

government force

s

pu

s

hed toward Benghazi. It ha

s

launched nightly manhunt

s

for about 8,000 people named a

s

government operative

s

in

s

ecret police file

s

s

eized after internal

s

ecurity operative

s

fled in the face of the rebellion that ended

K

adafi

’

s

control of ea

s

tern Libya la

s

t month.

 

“

We

k

now who they are,

”

s

aid Abdelhafed Ghoga, the chief oppo

s

ition

s

po

k

e

s

man. He called them

“

people with blood

s

tained hand

s

”

and

“

enemie

s

of the revolution.

”

 

Any

s

u

s

pected

K

adafi loyali

s

t or

s

py who doe

s

not

s

urrender, Ghoga warned, will face revolutionary

“

ju

s

tice.

”

Ah, revolutionary justice. I’ll leave the last word to Matt Yglesias:

…

there

’

s

s

omething a bit head in the

s

and about proclaiming thi

s

a

s

imple

“

humanitarian

”

underta

k

ing.

S

howing up with bag

s

of rice in a famine zone i

s

a humanitarian underta

k

ing.

S

ending in

s

ome Marine

s

to help guard the truc

k

s

full of bag

s

of rice i

s

a plau

s

ible military element of a humanitarian underta

k

ing. What we

’

re doing i

s

providing tactical air

s

upport

to one faction in a civil war in order to help them prevail again

s

t a rival faction that ha

s

much more heavy military equipment. Thi

s

may or may not produce

s

ome net humanitarian benefit

s

in the end, but it

’

s

hard for me to

k

now how you

’

d ma

k

e an accurate foreca

s

t about that one way or another.

Edited March 25, 2011 by BigSqwert

[Soxbadger]

Wrong. Go read the sanctions/resolutions. That was one requirement. In addition to not building anymore, he was supposed to be open/transparent about everything and actually destroy certain weapons. The problem is we let him go for about a decade without holding him accountable for those requirements.

 

You cant say Im wrong when I never mentioned anything about transparency. The end goal of the sanctions were to stop the production of WMD and facilitate the destruction of WMD. The only reason for the need for transparency was that the international community didnt trust him. The mere fact he wasnt transparent, does not mean that the sanctions didnt work.

 

That NYT article is horrible, I cant believe people get paid to write that nonsense.

 

Ill add some emphasis so that people can see just how horrifically jaded this piece was:

 

that up to a 100,000 people could be massacred

 

Oh damn, 100,000 wasnt the estimate? It was the ceiling placed on the estimate?? Damn from the article youd think that the 100,000 was the floor. But the quote is clear, they said UP TO, meaning that in the absolute worse case scenario 100,000 would be the highest number. That does not mean that there was a prediction 100.000 would die, quite to the contrary it means that they predicted less than 100,000.

 

If I say some one could lose up to $100, that doesnt mean I think theyll lose 100, it just means Im giving them the worst case scenario.

 

I would very much like to know the basis for Ross’s suggestion that Benghazi’s population would have been literally decimated had the rebellion been defeated.

 

The only person who suggested this is the author, who is clearly twisting the quote to mean something that it didnt.

 

I already commented on the LA Times piece, no one responded.

 

What we’re doing is providing tactical air support to one faction in a civil war in order to help them prevail against a rival faction that has much more heavy military equipment.

 

Actually that isnt entirely true. The UN is trying to stop Gaddafi's forces from taking over cities, the UN so far has not provided tactical assistance to Revolutionaries during Revolutionary advances on Gaddafi force positions.

 

I dont mind people who have a different opinion, I just mind people who blatantly use quotes incorrectly to try and make an argument that just isnt there.

 

[BigSqwert]

*shakes head*

 

100K isn't the worst case scenario. He could conceivably kill more than that, right? 100K was used to mislead and make it sound worse than it would likely be.

Edited March 25, 2011 by BigSqwert

[Soxbadger]

Not according to Ross. According to Ross, 100k was the worst case scenario.

 

The only thing I saw misleading was the article and the headline.

 

The quote is clear:

 

We were looking at ‘Srebrenica on steroids’ —the real or imminent possibility that up to a 100,000 people could be massacred, and everyone would blame us for it."

 

The article read that sentence as if it said: AT LEAST 100k.

 

Im sorry the only person trying to mislead people is the article you quoted. When you read the quote, there is absolutely no way to come to the conclusion that 100lk was anything more than a worst case scenario estimate.

Edited March 25, 2011 by Soxbadger