Member Profile

Total number of comments: 11 (since 2013-11-28 16:32:39)

Guy Incognito

Showing comments 11 - 1
Page:

  • Qaddafi Using Cluster bombs on Civilian Areas
    • "U.S. government experts believe the state of the opposition is so grave that it could take years to organize, arm and train them into a fighting force strong enough to drive Gaddafi from power and set up a working government.

      The realistic outlook, U.S. and European officials said, is for an indefinite stalemate between the rebels -- supported by NATO air power -- and Gaddafi's forces." Source

      So what's next for this disastrous 'humanitarian' war? 2 semi failed states or boots on the ground?

  • Free Libya plans Tripoli Uprising as Doha Conference Urges More Help to Civilians
    • Joe:

      I haven't seen the UN claim that 100,000 would have died. Usually when someone asks for a source online, they mean they want a link, not just your statement that the UN said this. I just did a google search using the terms "UN Libya Benghazi 100,000". No results backing your claims. But many results saying there were between 40,000 & 100,000 refugees, mostly Tunisian and African, "many fearing death at the hands of Libyan rebels who think they are mercenaries, according to a U.N. report on Wednesday." Source

    • 100,000??? Any credible source for such wild speculation?

    • The hypocrisy of this 'humanitarian' intervention is rather brazen. They choose to hold the meeting in Qatar of all places?!?! An absolute monarchy where political parties are illegal. I'm surprised that Mr Cole would bother to reference Qatar's crown prince when it comes to humanitarian matters. Perhaps if the crown prince cared about humanitarian issues Qatar would not be famous for its use of slave labourers and sexual slaves.

      Who is attending this meeting? None other than Moussa Koussa, former head if Libya's intelligence agency. Obviously Koussa has great respect for human rights......

      Also the coalition is not as stable as Mr Cole indicates.

      "France and Britain openly called on the alliance and its partners to intensify air strikes on Libyan government troops to protect civilians, prompting an unusual public retort from NATO's command that it was carrying out the military operation under the terms of the United Nations Security Council resolution that authorised force." The Age

      Finally, I would be interested to hear how bombing Sirte is legal under UNSCR 1973? Surely Qaddafi isn't threatening to massacre the civilians of his home town?

  • AU proposes Ceasefire, NATO protects Misrata, Ajdabiya
    • "The problem with having the AU mediate is that the leaders chosen are not viewed by the rebels as honest brokers."

      As opposed to how Qaddafi views the US/UK/Fr as honest brokers? If Zuma along with the AU are unacceptable, do you think the African states have any role to play in what happens in Africa? Or is it only the US/UK/Fr that should determine what is going to occur?

      The reality is that the US/UK/Fr have taken a side in a civil war. A civil war where are no 'good guys'(link to independent.co.uk). UNSCR 1973 does not mandate regime change, only a ceasefire and negotiated settlement. If Qaddafi actually follows the ceasefire and the rebels do not, it will be the rebels who are in defiance of UNSCR 1973. Is there any chance the US/UK/Fr will bomb the rebels? The US/UK/Fr will only accept regime change and are therefore acting working against what UNSCR 1973 allows.

  • Obama on Libya vs. Trump, Palin, Bachmann, Romney, Gingrich and Carrot Top
    • "If the Left opposed intervention, it de facto acquiesced in Qaddafi’s destruction of a movement embodying the aspirations of most of Libya’s workers and poor, along with large numbers of white collar middle class people."

      Just like those who opposed the invasion of Iraq. Saddam loyalists every last one of them.

      "the speech was full of genuine feeling, including empathy and outrage. It strikes me as among the better speeches President Obama has given since taking office. "

      Yes the speech clearly shows that Obama is fundamentally different to Bush. That's why Guantanamo has been closed, why the US has withdrawn from Iraq and Afghanistan and why Obama hasn't expanded the GWOT to bomb Yemen and Pakistan.

      "and has the moral vision to do the right thing even if it is unpopular."

      Yes, that is definitely Obama's reputation, making the hard and unpopular choices. I'm certainly glad he didn't cave in against the Republicans on health care and give the insurance industry a massive present. I'm also glad he didn't cave in to Wall Street and give massive cash injections to prop up a corrupt economic structure while doing virtually nothing to correct the issue. Finally, I'm glad he didn't cave in on the tax issue and refuse to extend the tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. If he hadn't shown such moral strength and fortitude he could be accused of being a more eloquent Republican.

  • Women's Rallies in Libya Protest Rape
    • Funny, both Joe and Phoenix make Craig Murray's point for him. Neither address the heart of the issue which is that by bombing Sirte the bombing campaign is clearly outside the scope of UNSCR 1973 and therefore illegal. I also haven't heard a response from Mr Cole regarding this development.

  • Rebels take Back Oil Centers as Tripoli suffers Gasoline Crisis
    • "Sirt, the town of Muammar Qaddafi’s birth, which has been a recipient of much government aid, was bombed repeatedly by United Nations allies on Sunday"

      Don't these bombing fall outside the scope of UNSCR 1973 as civilians are not being protected by bombing Sirte. Unless I am mistaken there was no danger of Qaddafi attacking his own hometown. The conflict has left the realms of protecting civilians and is now about regime change and is also now illegal.

  • An Open Letter to the Left on Libya
    • Mr Cole I think you and the 'left' view the world with vastly different assumptions. I am still shocked when I see blogs of yours buying into the idea that the US government is generally moral. Trusting the US/UK to take military action for the benefit of poor people in another country is like trusting a fox to guard the chickens. Sure, a few ferrets may be scared away, but the chickens are still on the menu.

      I found it a little weird that you hold up the Lincoln Brigade as an example of Western Intervention. Not only were members of the Brigade viewed as commies and a security risk by the US govt, but I don't think it is reasonable to compare the morally guided actions of volunteers with the actions of a state (any state). The number one lesson I took away from reading Orwell's 'Homage to Catalonia' is that the major powers (US/UK & USSR) did not care about the average person at all. The US/UK supported Franco and the USSR would rather see the Franco win than see the anarchists gain more influence than the Communists.

      I just don't see how any serious scholar of international relations can take US (or any states) pronouncments of spreading democracy seriously. Eisenhower wrote "It was generally conceded that had an election been held, Ho Chi Minh would have been elected Premier." Yet the US killed 4 million Vietnamese in order to try and stop Ho Chi Minh coming to power (and lets not forget about the countless Laotians and Cambodians killed when their countries were secretly bombed). How did the US spread democracy by supporting the Contras against the FSLN? How did the US spread democracy by backing Mubarak for 30 years? How many Catholic priests and nuns were killed by those trained explicitly to hit 'soft targets' at the School of the Americas?

  • Bahrain Demonstrators Repressed
    • Former UK ambassador Craig Murray writes in his blog:

      "A senior diplomat in a western mission to the UN in New York, who I have known over ten years and trust, has told me for sure that Hillary Clinton agreed to the cross-border use of troops to crush democracy in the Gulf, as a quid pro quo for the Arab League calling for Western intervention in Libya."
      link to craigmurray.org.uk

  • Zewail's 4 point Plan for Egypt
    • Indeed. There are 2 parties in the US, neither of which represent the average person. Corporations are free to pump as much money into political campaigns as they want. Free speech zones. Even Obama claims the right to assassinate US citizens without trial. Massive media consolidation. The military industrial complex. The corporate prison complex. The worlds highest incarceration rate. The war on drugs. The war on terror. Greatest disparity in wealth in the western world. In comparison to China or Saudi Arabia, the US may be a vibrant democracy (hardly an achievement). Compared to the western world, I think it's fair to say the US is probably the least vibrant democracy.

Showing comments 11 - 1
Page: