Sunday 13 March 2011

Why Libya?

In one country, the people rise up against a ruthless regime and the West is itching to join in with no-fly zones and arming the rebels. In a neighbouring country the people rise up against a ruthless regime and the West goes all quiet. So what is different between Libya and Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Tunisia, Egypt, Bahrain or Algeria?
The Libyan regime is killing civilians who dare try to depose it, but so did the Tunisian, Egyptian and Yemenese Governments.
Maybe it is the numbers involved, the number of dead Libyans is put around 6000 while in Egypt it was 384, 230 in Tunisia and 40 and rising in Yemen. Is there a magic number of dead where the West will tolerate a certain number of civilian deaths but when the number is reached, start to consider things unacceptable?
Is Gaddafi's regime less democratic than those around him? In the World Democracy League Table, Libya are bundled into the 4th Division with Iran, Yemen, Syria, Iraq, Algeria, Morocco, Egypt, Oman, Jordon and UAE.
In the Corruption League Table Libya are above Yemen and share the same rating as Iran. If corruption and lack of Democracy is the trigger, than we should be looking at places like Uzbekistan who are below Gaddafi's regime in both tables.
The Moroccans have been suppressing and killing civilians in the Western Sahara since 1979, the Israelis have been suppressing and killing civilians in Palestine since 1948, the leaked American embassy cable point the finger at Saudi Arabia as the largest donor of funds to Al Queada along with Qatar and Kuwait.
Up until a few weeks ago, Libya was one of those those countries in the region friendly to the West, keeping the oil and gas flowing our way and paying billions for our weapons.
Somewhere along the line, Gadaffi moved from a tolerated friend to a must-be-removed foe although it is hard to work out when he moved from one to another and why he, and not others, are now in that particular column.
David Cameron and French President Sarkozy are the main pushers for a no-fly-zone above Libya, even when the Americans are pausing for thought about another military adventure. A no-fly-zone would include air strikes on radar and anti-aircraft positions and with them civilian deaths, the very reason David Cameron is calling for military action on Libya.
David Cameron is looking for a distraction and he thinks he has found one because as Margaret Thatcher will tell you, a good, quick successful war is a vote winner at home.
Not sure how he can explain how our bankrupt government who have slashed everything to the bone in order to save money, has enough stashed away somewhere to wage yet another inappropriate and avoidable war.

10 comments:

Anonymous said...

Lucy,

it seems to me that you answered your first question. you addressed several germane points and no logic prevails. thus, there must be things we don't know. this is a point i've tried to make for about 9 years now. our governments know things we will never know. for example, i met a man recently whose wife was a cia agent. according to him she died from cancer she got being exposed to wmd's in iraq.

concerning military action when the nation is bankrupt. i think the usa spents too much on the military by a lot. i don't know about the uk. i want military spending cut in the usa. but we need a military and so does the uk.

we don't need to provide social services to the millions of illegal aliens that pour into america from the south.

we don't need to compensate (pay and benefits) our federal employees better than the private sector. consider this example, us postal workers are known for poor, crabby service. the post office loses canot pay for itself. but UPS and fedex are known for good service and they make a profit... why do these federal workers deserve better compensation?

we don't need to provide "free" health care to every american - the doctors, hospitals, and pharma industry really rope-a-doped us over the last 30 years.

q

Cheezy said...

"i met a man recently whose wife was a cia agent. according to him she died from cancer she got being exposed to wmd's in iraq."

That sounds intriguing, Q. I assume your friend is aware that the west made heavy use of depleted uranium in Iraq, during both the first Gulf War and the invasion in 2003. When did she get the cancer? The typical incubation period of depleted uranium is 5 to 6 years. Consequently there was a spike in recorded cancer cases in 1996-7 and 2008-9. Even apart from these periods, cancer spreads like wildfire in Iraq. There's been a huge spike in birth defects too, particularly neurological and spinals ones (typical of uranium)...

I’m not saying that your friend’s wife didn’t get cancer by accidentally putting her foot in a tub of sarin that Saddam was keeping for special occasions... (as I totally agree with your general point that governments like to keep us in the dark about matters of critical national security)... just that, when you go to Iraq these days, getting cancer is just one of the many risks that you run.

Our glorious leaders and the MSM don't like to report this sort of thing, of course, but veterans groups are well aware of it.

"David Cameron is looking for a distraction and he thinks he has found one because as Margaret Thatcher will tell you, a good, quick successful war is a vote winner at home."

I stand to be corrected, but I seriously doubt Cameron would see this as a potentially great election strategy, Lucy. I think Joe Public is much more jaded and cynical about this tactic than he was in '82. Even wars that we’re informed that we ‘won’ are pretty damn unpopular.

Cheezy said...

Oops, my first attempt to comment seems to have been eaten. I’ll try again:

”i met a man recently whose wife was a cia agent. according to him she died from cancer she got being exposed to wmd's in iraq.”

This sounds intriguing, Q. However, I’m wonderng if this guy realises that the west used large amounts of depleted uranium in Iraq both during the first Gulf War and since the invasion of 2003. And when did she get this cancer, do you know? The incubation period for depleted uranium is around 5 years, so you can see a big increase in Iraqis (and foreigners who merely ‘visited’) contracting tumours (often brain tumours) from 1996 and 2008 and onwards. Apart from depleted uranium, there have also been other potentially damaging toxins used e.g. white phosphorous. Birth defects have also shot up at an alarming rate, especially in places that saw a lot of combat like Fallujah.

I’m not saying that your friend’s wife’s cancer wasn’t caused by stepping in a bucket of sarin that Saddam was keeping for special occasions; I’m just saying that it must be very difficult to tell the exact cause, bearing in mind that encountering aggressive carcinogens – mainly ones bought with our tax money – is but one of the many pleasures that awaits those who serve in Iraq.

Our glorious leaders and their chums in the media don’t like talking about this issue; however it’s (understandably) a burning issue for veterans.

”David Cameron is looking for a distraction and he thinks he has found one because as Margaret Thatcher will tell you, a good, quick successful war is a vote winner at home.”

You know, I stand to be corrected but I seriously doubt this, Lucy. Cameron must know that people are much more cynical and aware about this tactic than they were in ’82. Most people are heartily sick of war now, even ones we’re told we’re ‘winning’.

Cheezy said...

Oops, my first attempt to comment seems to have been eaten... I’ll try again:

”i met a man recently whose wife was a cia agent. according to him she died from cancer she got being exposed to wmd's in iraq.”

This sounds intriguing, Q. However, I’m wondering if this guy realises that the west used large amounts of depleted uranium in Iraq both during the first Gulf War and since the invasion of 2003. And when did she get this cancer, do you know? The incubation period for depleted uranium is around 5 years, so you can see a big increase in Iraqis (and foreigners who merely ‘visited’) contracting tumours (often brain tumours) from 1996 and 2008 and onwards. Even apart from depleted uranium, there have also been a lot other potentially damaging toxins used in Iraq e.g. white phosphorous. Also, birth defects have also shot up at an alarming rate, especially in places that saw a lot of combat, like Fallujah.

I’m not saying that your friend’s wife’s cancer wasn’t caused by stepping in a bucket of sarin that Saddam was keeping for special occasions; I’m just saying that it must be very difficult to tell the exact cause, bearing in mind that encountering aggressive carcinogens – mainly ones bought with our tax money – is but one of the many pleasures that awaits those who serve in Iraq.

Our glorious leaders and their chums in the media don’t like talking about this issue; however it’s (understandably) a burning issue for veterans.

”David Cameron is looking for a distraction and he thinks he has found one because as Margaret Thatcher will tell you, a good, quick successful war is a vote winner at home.”

I stand to be corrected, but I seriously doubt this, Lucy. Cameron must know that people are much more cynical and aware about this tactic than they were in ’82. Most people are heartily sick of war now, even ones that we’re told we’re ‘winning’.

Cheezy said...

Oops, my first attempt to comment seems to have been eaten… I’ll try again:

”i met a man recently whose wife was a cia agent. according to him she died from cancer she got being exposed to wmd's in iraq.”

This sounds intriguing, Q. However, I’m wondering if this guy realises that the west used large amounts of depleted uranium in Iraq both during the first Gulf War and since the invasion of 2003. And when did she get this cancer, do you know? The incubation period for depleted uranium is around 5 years, so you can see a big increase in Iraqis (and foreigners who merely ‘visited’) contracting tumours (often brain tumours) from 1996 and 2008 and onwards. Apart from depleted uranium, there have also been other potentially damaging toxins used e.g. white phosphorous. Birth defects have also shot up at an alarming rate, especially in places that saw a lot of combat, like Fallujah.

I’m not saying that your friend’s wife’s cancer wasn’t caused by stepping in a bucket of sarin that Saddam was keeping for special occasions; I’m just saying that it must be very difficult to tell the exact cause, bearing in mind that encountering aggressive carcinogens – mainly ones bought with our tax money – is but one of the many pleasures that awaits those who serve in Iraq.

Our glorious leaders and their chums in the media don’t like talking about this issue; however it’s (understandably) a burning issue for veterans.

”David Cameron is looking for a distraction and he thinks he has found one because as Margaret Thatcher will tell you, a good, quick successful war is a vote winner at home.”

You know, I seriously doubt this, Lucy. Cameron must know that people are much more cynical and aware about this tactic than they were in ’82… Most people are heartily sick of war now, even ones we’re told we’re ‘winning’.

Anonymous said...

cheezy,

based on what this guy did in the NSA and national intell (senior levels at both) i'd say he knows a lot about what we did in iraq.

he didn't say it unequivally. his actual quote was more like "we think her cancer was caused by exposure to wmd's in iraq". mind you, he has a phd in a medical field, so does his brother (in fact his brother is known world wide for his medical expertise), and so does his sister... quite a family.

my point wasn't about the cause of the cancer, my point was I don't remember anybody saying they actually found wmd materials in iraq - until now.

q

Cheezy said...

Hmmmm, sounds to me a bit like chucking a load of broken glass onto a football field* and then complaining when you then play a game on it and get cut.

*except that broken glass, unlike depleted uranium, doesn't cause injuries and birth defects like this.

Also, any ideas why the US government would want to keep the most embarrassing intelligence failure in their history a secret from us? When popping up and saying "Oh look! Here they are!" would have spared some blushes...?

I know your general point is that the government generally like to keep us in the dark about things, (which is a point I absolutely agree with) but c'mon, hit me with your theory about this; it would be fun to speculate.

Cheezy said...

I think I meant to say something like:

"any ideas why the US government would want to keep the solution to the most embarrassing intelligence failure in their history a secret from us?"

But anyway... back to Libya... I see that just this morning the US is pushing the UN to authorise not just a no-fly zone over Libya, but also the use of air strikes to strafe Gaddafi's troops... Jesus H Christ on a bike... Two clusterfucks in the middle east is apparently not enough...

Anonymous said...

chezzy,
i cant explain it. that is one reason why i shared it. i hesitated to share it, i promise you that.

- maybe the wmd material came from the USA
- maybe it was such a small amount that it cant be claimed - but is still lethal to an unprotected individual
- maybe we are protecting another head of state (russian or chinese) in return for some concession or action
- maybe it made its way into iraq AFTER we invaded

. . .

The lybian thing is hard to grasp as well. my grandmother used to say "if you lie down with dawgs you get fleas".

after ww2 we took over many responsibilities that the brits and french no longer had the resources to support. in the process, and over the years we made deals with the devil's minions so we could control global pinch points, oil, and transportation routes.

now we find ourselves between a rock and a hard place. we can do what is right, or we can do what is practical. in the end americans are practical people and to us practical evolves around economics. of course, as a people we are short term thinkers and we like immediate results (rewards i should say...).

q

Cheezy said...

Fair enough. Just thought it was worth asking. I feel extremely sorry for anyone who gets cancer, and for their loved ones, but I do think there are a lot of things you can do to lower the risk. I'm not a model in this regard, and still sneak the odd ciggie (even though I've officially given up) and do other potentially unhealthy things... but even I would never consider raising the risk exponentially by going to certain places in Iraq.