Libya 14

August 9th Cynthia McKinney Event Report  

On August 9th, 2011, about 275 people, young and old and significant number of different nationalities came together at the Heritage Hall in Vancouver, Canada, for a special event, 'Report from Libya: Impact of US War in Africa.' It was a chance to hear from Cynthia McKinney, former US Congresswoman and 2008 Green Party Presidential candidate, about a recent fact-finding delegation which she led in Libya during the NATO bombing campaign on that country. Organized locally by Mobilization Against War and Occupation (MAWO), this event was part of a twenty-city tour across North America organized and coordinated by the International Action Center (IAC) featuring Cynthia's testimony and experience. As the only Canadian stop in the tour, it was a huge success in bringing Libya forward as an issue for the anti-war movement in Canada.

The evening was opened up by the MC, MAWO's spokesperson Janine Solanki, who welcomed everyone and stressed the importance of Cynthia's tour and public discourse about the current situation in Libya. She welcomed Cynthia up to the stage where she was received with a standing ovation from the crowd.

The event began with a traditional Indigenous welcoming by Coast Salish elder and media and social justice activist, Kelly White. She sang and drummed a welcoming song, and then honoured Cynthia with a traditional starblanket she had made to recognize her dedication and fight for social justice.

The ceremony was followed by video footage of Cynthia's fact-finding trip to Libya. It included interviews with students whose university had been bombed by NATO, an Imam who was the sole survivor of a NATO attack, as well as an interview on Russian Television (RT) with Sara Flounders, co-director of the IAC, on the recent developments in Libya.

Following the video footage, Cynthia spoke with great passion and dynamism as she shared her experiences in Libya. Her first hand accounts contradicted the lies spread in mainstream media, and expressed the spirit of resistance that Libyan people are showing in the face of NATO attacks.

After Cynthia spoke, questions were taken and Cynthia elaborated on what the West has to gain in attacking Libya, why the US government is spending money on war instead of human needs at home and how we can work to stop the bombing of Libya. One of the comments from the audience was also a heartfelt “please run for President again.”

Before the event ended, Cynthia was asked to promise to return to Vancouver, as the demand to hear her speak on this issue was more than this one event. The event ended with another standing ovation, and many people gathered to thank Cynthia and speak more with her.

Alongside this speaking engagement, many thousands more heard Cynthia's message with six media agencies that interviewed Cynthia and covered the event, including local news radio, a provincial TV station, international coverage from Iran's Press TV (for the Press TV news clip click http://www.presstv.ir/detail/193379.html or http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i4FgsuHT5Fg ), as well as print and other radio coverage.

As the number of bombs dropped by Canada, the US, and NATO over Libya increase, events like this one are crucial for understanding and building opposition to the attacks that are undermining the Libyan people's self-determination. The rest of Cynthia's tour throughout the US is a great contribution to this fight and in Canada and internationally we must work together to further advance this struggle against war and occupation.   To view photos of the event click: http://www.mawovancouver.org/reports/110809cynthiamckinneyforum.html

M. Spector wrote:

[url=http://socialistworker.org/2011/07/12/disservice-to-the-antiwar-fight]Not everybody is thrilled with Cynthia McKinney's uncritical support for the Qaddafi regime.[/url]

..i've read this piece quickly and it raises serious questions. i will look into it further.

..i think that when we talk about the peace movement we talk about ourselves. i'm talking like this board is part of the peace movement. so i don't agree that we all have chosen sides.

..some early thoughts..elements of answer is promoting what i'm seeing as old style campaigning. pyramid shaped and top down. i call this old because..and this will be of no surprise coming from me..because it is going to be replaced with assemblies as a more effective way of making change. 

eta..in the mean time answer is an ally against war. 

NDPP wrote:

As Canadians, surely the overriding priority now should be OUR GENERAL'S warcrimes - NOT parsing Cynthia Mckinney's 'neutrality'?

Yes, it's important for Canadians to focus on our own country's perfidy in Libya in order to build the anti-war movement.

But Cynthia McKinney came to Canada and made speeches supporting Qaddafi. This is not going to help build an anti-war movement here or anywhere else. I think it's important to "parse" what she says and draw the necessary lessons from it for our own anti-war organizing and propaganda.

There's no reason why Canadians who oppose the Qaddafi regime should be discouraged from joining the anti-Libya-war movement.

Frmrsldr wrote:

socialistworker.org supports the Libyan Transitional National Council and the rebels

M. Spector wrote:

No, they are subltle enough to distinguish between the genuine rebels and the U.S.-backed stooges of the TNC:

Quote:

Of course, there are anti-Qaddafi figures and organizations in Libya [b]with longstanding connections to the U.S.[/b], and a number of them are now represented on the Transitional National Council, which has claimed to speak for the whole opposition in Libya.

There's nothing subtle about that statement. All socialistworker.org is doing is tossing a bone to ANSWER agreeing with them that yes, there are some anti-Gadhafi figures and organizations with longstanding connections to the U.S. that are in the Transitional National Council.

As for who the "good" rebels are that socialistworker.org supports, here's what they have to say:

socialistworker.org wrote:

... In Libya, people fed up with the lack of democracy and profound inequality took to the streets to show their opposition to the status quo--...

But to ANSWER, the Libyan rebels were all CIA stooges, motivated not by a desire for freedom and democracy, but to do the bidding of the U.S. and other Western governments.

This is typical of people who are not Libyan and/or who have not spent a long time living in Libya. Apart from making a broad and vague generalization that the rebels (they support) are people who want democracy, equality and the reduction/elimination of poverty, they have no idea who the rebels are. The Transitional National Council - or at least some rebel groups (Western media is not sure which) - sport the pre-Gadhafi Libyan flag, back when Libya had a monarchy as its head of state.

For all its bumbling and ineptitude, the U.S. and NATO probably have a better idea who the different rebel groups are than socialistworker.org.

socialistworker.org wrote:

The West wants a regime to replace Qaddafi that will be amenable to striking deals with Washington--as well as a reliably pro-U.S. government as a beachhead in the midst of the upheavals in the Arab world. Diplomatic and political attempts to shape the anti-Qaddafi opposition are every bit as important to this goal as the NATO bombing campaign. Opponents of the U.S. war machine must oppose every aspect of Western intervention.

Socialistworker.org contradicts its own statement [bolded portion.] Just like the U.S., NATO and ANSWER, socialistworker.org has picked a side and displays a tendency to want to influence who comes to power in Libya should Libyan government (Gadhafi) forces be defeated and Gadhafi and his government be ousted.

War is a lie.

War is not noble.

War is not fought for generous or humanitarian reasons.

Humanitarian aid is not delivered in the form of dropping bombs on people.

What goes on in Libya is no one's business but the Libyans.

End The War on Libya NOW!

M. Spector wrote:

You are desperate to find contradictions where they do not exist. A socialist organization supports an uprising against an oppressive regime and you accuse them of having "picked a side"!

Somehow this is supposed to be contradictory with their opposition to "every aspect of Western intervention"?

Desperation has got nothing to do with it. The contradiction is obvious. Doesn't "oppose every aspect of ... intervention" mean opposing intervention itself?

Doesn't being a pacifist and/or antiwar/anti-interventionist mean opposing war and intervention?

So, yes. If one lends support to an uprising (or support the government) doesn't it follow that one has picked a side and is displaying a tendency supportive of war and intervention?

I call things as I see them.

I support/don't support groups or arguments based on their merit, not solely on whether they have "socialist" or "Marxist" in their name.

M. Spector wrote:

It must be nice to feel so righteous that you can dismiss your allies in the fight against NATO interference by lumping them together with NATO itself as the bad guys!

I'm not saying that socialistworker.org are the "bad guys," just their support of (some of) the rebels and war/intervention in Libya is a bad/contradictory/mistaken idea - the same as ANSWER's support of Gadhafi and the implied tendency to support war and intervention in this case as well.

How does socialistworker.org's getting into a petty doctrinal hairsplitting squabble with their ANSWER ally over which side to pick in the Libyan war help the cause of peace, antiwar/anti-intervention?

The strongest moral position and the one that will keep the left united is to adhere to a strictly pacifist and/or antiwar/anti-intervention position.

Our efforts should be solely directed against the U.S. and NATO war on Libya and those who support it - not against ourselves.

Let the Libyans decide for themselves who they support and oppose and what direction they wish to take their country and society.

It's not up to us/none of our business to interfere in their affairs and attempt to influence things the way we would like them to be.

We shouldn't be supporting war and intervention in Libya.

End The War on Libya NOW!

And how many civilians who don't support either side are going to be murdered?  Your post makes Zawiya sound like Stalingad.  

The city has Gadhaffi's last oil refinery. He can't get fuel from the East or West and there's a naval blockade to the North. If NATO bombs the refinery Gadhaffi will have only as long as his fuel lasts, and with modern mechanized warfare that won't be for very long. Tripoli could fall in a month. Of course Gadhaffi could just fly away before that; it doesn't have to pass.

WilderMore wrote:

The city has Gadhaffi's last oil refinery. He can't get fuel from the East or West and there's a naval blockade to the North. If NATO bombs the refinery Gadhaffi will have only as long as his fuel lasts, and with modern mechanized warfare that won't be for very long. Tripoli could fall in a month. Of course Gadhaffi could just fly away before that; it doesn't have to pass.

 

 

And I'm sure you'll be around to express dismay when the post Gadhaffi regime (if they do indeed succeed) almost certaintly turns out to be worse.  But Oc it was never really about 'freeing' the Libyan 'people' was it?  It was only about our team winning another one for the Gipper.  And the oil barons who still run our dinosaur economy.

I don't know how you've survived here this long WilderMore.

I don't equate support with intervention. You have me confused with Frmrsldr.

M. Spector wrote:

I don't equate support with intervention. You have me confused with Frmrsldr.

Okay, good, I wasn't sure you were being ironic.

I suppose the confusion turns on the word "support".

I can say that I support those rebels (wherever they are in that chaotic slaughterhouse)  who do not intentionally commit war crimes and are motivated by a desire for an independent, more democratically elected, egalitarian country.

My "support" however, really amounts to little more than an ineffectual wish list.

Does your support constitute more?

Northern Shoveler wrote:

WilderMore wrote:

set up torture and rape prisons, sponsor international terrorism? 

You mean like America and the UK? 

Just like them. Obama should be next on the overthrow list. Do you agree with me?

Right now there are allegedly "two sides" but when Quaddaffi and his many supporters are quashed, there could be many more sides--with the competing oil interests, domestic and foreign, tribal, and religious.
Any money on who will prevail?
My guess is when all the bodies are buried, few Libyans (if it is still one country)will have any say  over oil resources.

Quote:

New York Times
Published: August 13, 2011

TRIPOLI, Libya — Saddled with infighting and undermined by the occasionally ruthless and undisciplined behavior of its fighters, the six-month-old rebel uprising against Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi is showing signs of sliding from a struggle to overthrow an autocrat into a murkier contest between factions and tribes....

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/14/world/africa/14libya.html?_r=3&pagewan...

Frmrsldr wrote:

The contradiction is obvious. Doesn't "oppose every aspect of ... intervention" mean opposing intervention itself?

M. Spector wrote:

Um, duh! Yes, and they do oppose the intervention itself.

Um, duh! No, they do not oppose the intervention:

socialistworker.org. wrote:

In reality, the rebellion in Libya was inspired by the mass democratic revolutions in its two neighbors along the Mediterranean coast, Tunisia and Egypt. In Libya, people fed up with the lack of democracy and profound inequality took to the streets to show their opposition to the status quo--...

The reason the uprising in Libya shared so many features of the uprisings in Tunisia, Egypt and elsewhere is because they were all driven by the same underlying conditions of poverty, oppression and political repression....

Of course, there are anti-Qaddafi figures and organizations in Libya with longstanding connections to the U.S., and a number of them are now represented on the Transitional National Council, which has claimed to speak for the whole opposition in Libya. But there are at least as many stories and examples from early on in the rebellion to show the opposite--for example, when rebels promptly evicted British MI6 agents they discovered inside Libya.

One of the primary aims of the Western intervention has been to shift the balance within the opposition to those who can be relied on to protect U.S. and European interests. U.S. officials have actively promoted not only those who were on the CIA payroll for years, but military officials who until just months ago were part of Qaddafi's regime.

The West wants a regime to replace Qaddafi that will be amenable to striking deals with Washington--as well as a reliably pro-U.S. government as a beachhead in the midst of the upheavals in the Arab world. Diplomatic and political attempts to shape the anti-Qaddafi opposition are every bit as important to this goal as the NATO bombing campaign. Opponents of the U.S. war machine must oppose every aspect of Western intervention.

Socialistworker.org begins by describing the rebellion as being like those in Tunisia and Egypt and describing the rebels as "people who support democracy and equality and who are opposed to profound poverty in Libya." These claims are not at all certain (by their own admittance, "there are anti-Gadhafi figures and organizations with longstanding connections to the U.S., and a number of them are now represented on the Transitional National Council.) In addition there are monarchists, supporters of Al-Qaeda, those who support democracy and who knows what else represented on the Council. As for the people suffering from oppression, inequality and profound poverty, Libya has the highest standard of living in Africa. I have not heard of widespread allegations that the Gadhafi government is corrupt and that large numbers of government members became extremely wealthy through ill-gotten gains at the expense of the people. Libya has universal healthcare that is better than Canada's. Libya offers free universal post-secondary education to all Libyans. Then socialistworker.org points out that the "primary aim of U.S. and Western intervention is to shift the balance within the opposition to those with longstanding connections to the U.S.; those who have been on the CIA payroll for years." Socialistworker.org informs us that diplomatic and political attempts to shape the anti-Gadhafi opposition are every bit as important as the NATO bombing campaign. The next immediate sentence that follows connects U.S. and Western "shaping" of the anti-Gadhafi opposition with socialistworker.org's urging us to oppose these diplomatic and political efforts of "shaping" the anti-Gadhafi opposition by doing a little supporting and "shaping" of the "good" (those socialistworker.org describes as "people who support democracy and equality and who are opposed to profound poverty in Libya.") anti-Gadhafi opposition ourselves.

ANSWER advocates the status quo: Leave the Gadhafi government in office. The war on Libya is about regime change. Gadhafi was in power before the U.S. and NATO intervention, so to argue for the status quo or leaving the (Gadhafi) government of Libya in power is to argue against intervention and regime change.

So let's go down the Check List:

ANSWER supports the status quo in Libya. This means supporting letting the Gadhafi government to remain in power: Check.

ANSWER by supporting the status quo pre antebellum, is opposed to intervention in Libya: Check.

The U.S. and NATO support the rebellion and the rebels in Libya: Check.

Socialistworker.org supports the rebellion and some (the "good") rebels in Libya: Check.

The U.S. and NATO support regime change in Libya: Check.

Socialistworker.org supports regime change in Libya: Check.

The U.S. and NATO support intervention in Libya: Check.

Socialistworker.org supports intervention in Libya: Check.

When it comes to translating thoughts, words, beliefs and principles into tangible action, the U.S. and NATO are one up on socialistworker.org.

Socialistworker.org agrees with the U.S. government and NATO and argues in favor of the Libyan uprising, supporting the rebels and intervention. They just quibble with the U.S. and NATO over who among the rebels should be supported and the nature of the intervention. Socialistworker.org argues that if they were in a position of power then they would be "shaping" the anti-Gadhafi opposition by supporting only the "good" opposition or rebels.

How are you going to pick and choose among the rebels? How are you going to support some and not others?

It's like that phrase "Only a little pregnant."

The anti-Gadhafi opposition/rebels have their governmental representatives - the Transitional National Council. By socialistworker.org's own admittance, there are those who have longstanding ties with the U.S. and Western countries and who have been on the CIA payroll on the Council. By way of logical extension, there are also others on the Council: Those who are monarchists, pro Al-Qaeda and pro democracy, etc., some of whom socialistworker.org support.

The U.S., U.K., France, Italy and Canada have extended diplomatic recognition to the Tansitional National Council - the representative government of the anti-Gadhafi opposition/rebels.

Socialistworker.org should support this recognition - as their rallying cry is for diplomatic and political "shaping" or intervention in Libya.

Where is the support by socialistworker.org for the Libyan workers exploited by the Gadhafi oligarchs? They sound more like the bleeding heart liberal humanitarian war/regime change interventionist bomberati you describe.

Regime change through direct intervention is illegal. We have no right to force, "shape" or intervene in the affairs of another country to effect regime change, no matter how much we may dislike the government or what they do.

What goes on in Libya is no one's business but the Libyans.

It is up to the Libyans who they support and who they oppose.

It is up to the Libyans whether they support their government or oppose it.

The future of Libya and its people and their government and society is up to them.

Not us.

In this case, intervention=imperialism.

Frmrsldr wrote:

If one lends support to an uprising (or support the government) doesn't it follow that one has picked a side and is displaying a tendency supportive of war and intervention?

M.Spector wrote:

I support the Arab Spring movements in Egypt, Tunisia, and elsewhere. I guess that makes me "supportive of war and intervention"!  on principle.

No it doesn't.

The uprising in Libya is not like the "Arab Spring" movements in Egypt, Tunisia and Syria. In Egypt, Tunisia and Syria, although the police and military fired upon and killed and injured protesters, the protesters in these countries did not/are not arm(ing) themselves, fight(ing) back with violence and (are) kill(ing) and injure/injuring police and soldiers. Egypt, Tunisa and Syria were/are not civil wars. The U.S. and NATO did not/have not (yet) intervened in Egypt, Tunisia and Syria.

In contrast, in Libya the protesters became rebels by arming themselves, returning violence with violence by killing and injuring police and soldiers. What started out as a (possible) "Arab Spring" uprising is now a civil war where the U.S. and NATO picked a side and are waging a War of Aggression and intervention. So it's not at all certain that the "Arab Spring" continues in Libya, if it ever existed there to begin with.

When it comes to the conditions of despotism, oppression, inequality and profound poverty that appear to exist in Tunisia, Egypt and Syria, it is not at all certain that they exist to the same extent and that is the reason why the uprising began in Libya, that socialistworker.org takes as a given to justify supporting the uprising, the rebels and intervention in Libya.

Frmrsldr wrote:

Socialistworker.org begins by describing the rebellion as being like those in Tunisia and Egypt and describing the rebels as "people who support democracy and equality and who are opposed to profound poverty in Libya." These claims are not at all certain (by their own admittance, "there are anti-Gadhafi figures and organizations with longstanding connections to the U.S., and a number of them are now represented on the Transitional National Council.)

Socialistworker.org is absolutely correct in its description. The rebellion was inspired by the mass democratic revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt (perhaps you just think it was a huge coincidence). It was not started by the bourgeois, pro-imperialist elements that comprise the TNC. Western intervention was successful in promoting those elements to the fore, in furtherance of what socialistworker.org says are the "primary aims of the Western intervention ... to shift the balance within the opposition to those who can be relied on to protect U.S. and European interests....Diplomatic and political attempts to shape the anti-Qaddafi opposition are every bit as important to this goal as the NATO bombing campaign."

Quote:

In addition there are monarchists, supporters of Al-Qaeda, those who support democracy and who knows what else represented on the Council.

You simplistically equate the rebellion in Libya with the TNC, simply because they have the biggest weapons and the backing of the imperialists. There are radical forces in Libya that don't support the TNC, but they have been marginalized thanks to Western intervention and suppression and co-optation by the TNC. The Western propaganda campaign has certainly succeeded in shaping your view of the Libyan crisis.

Quote:

As for the people suffering from oppression, inequality and profound poverty, Libya has the highest standard of living in Africa. I have not heard of widespread allegations that the Gadhafi government is corrupt and that large numbers of government members became extremely wealthy through ill-gotten gains at the expense of the people. Libya has universal healthcare that is better than Canada's. Libya offers free universal post-secondary education to all Libyans.

Thus you have swallowed the Cythia McKinney pro-Qaddafi propaganda. Apparently the people of Libya have nothing to complain about. So whatever happened to "not picking sides"?

Quote:

ANSWER advocates the status quo: Leave the Gadhafi government in office. The war on Libya is about regime change. Gadhafi was in power before the U.S. and NATO intervention, so to argue for the status quo or leaving the (Gadhafi) government of Libya in power is to argue against intervention and regime change.

Yeah, that's fine if you're a Qaddafi fan like you or McKinney. You want the imperialists to go away so that Qaddafi can crush the rebellion. I want the imperialists to go away so that the rebellion can succeed and the Libyan people can decide for themselves what kind of government they want. I doubt it will be the TNC - at least, not for long.

Quote:

The U.S. and NATO support the rebellion and the rebels in Libya: Check.

Socialistworker.org supports the rebellion and some (the "good") rebels in Libya: Check.

Wrong. The U.S. and NATO support the "bad" rebels in Libya - the ones that call themselves the TNC.

Also, by making these parallel statements you seek to equate the diplomatic and military "support" of the mightiest military machine on earth with the political "support" of a small, powerless political group in the United States. There is no comparison.

Quote:

Socialistworker.org agrees with the U.S. government and NATO and argues in favor of the Libyan uprising, supporting the rebels and intervention.

Now you're not just being disingenuous, you're resorting to outright lies.

Quote:

Socialistworker.org argues that if they were in a position of power then they would be "shaping" the anti-Gadhafi opposition by supporting only the "good" opposition or rebels.

You're making up more shit.

Quote:

The anti-Gadhafi opposition/rebels have their governmental representatives - the Transitional National Council. By socialistworker.org's own admittance, there are those who have longstanding ties with the U.S. and Western countries and who have been on the CIA payroll on the Council. By way of logical extension, there are also others on the Council: Those who are monarchists, pro Al-Qaeda and pro democracy, etc., some of whom socialistworker.org support.

More made-up shit. Socialistworker.org does not support the TNC.

Quote:

Socialistworker.org should support this recognition - as their rallying cry is for diplomatic and political "shaping" or intervention in Libya.

More made-up shit. Their "rallying cry" is nothing of the sort. They call for NATO and US hands off Libya.

Quote:

Where is the support by socialistworker.org for the Libyan workers exploited by the Gadhafi oligarchs?

Ha! You mean the oligarchs that don't exist, according to you and McKinney?

Quote:

The uprising in Libya is not like the "Arab Spring" movements in Egypt, Tunisia and Syria. In Egypt, Tunisia and Syria, although the police and military fired upon and killed and injured protesters, the protesters in these countries did not/are not arm(ing) themselves, fight(ing) back with violence and (are) kill(ing) and injure/injuring police and soldiers. Egypt, Tunisa and Syria were/are not civil wars.

So to you, tactics mean everything and politics mean nothing; rebellion against autocracy is okay, as long as you don't actually fight back against repression. I guess we know which side you have "picked".

contrarianna wrote:

"Support" for "the rebels" is de facto support for NATO intervention and its imperial goals.
That's because whatever faction of "the rebels" (hardly a coherent and democratic resistance) triumphs, it will do so with NATO support.

The "Arab Spring" uprising in Libya - and at this point, the more I learn the more I realize how little I know about what's going on in Libya; the situation is murkier and a lot less clear that I originally thought - and at best I'm only convinced 50-50 per cent that the "Arab Spring" ever did exist in Libya - but if the "Arab Spring" uprising had existed in Libya, it has been forever tainted by the U.S. and NATO's war and intervention.

Fred Weston wrote:

That is why the workers and youth of the world, struggling against their own capitalist classes, must oppose this imperialist aggression of Libya. The task of overthrowing Gaddafi belongs to the people of Libya and to no one else.

http://www.marxist.com/support-libyan-revolution-oppose-imperialist-aggr...

This is what I have been saying all along.

Assuming that is, the majority of Libyans want to overthrow Gadhafi in the first place.

Whatever the majority of Libyans want it is up to them to decide.

Not us.

What, did we run out of weddings to bomb in Afghanistan?

Is that why we're waging war on Libya?

Speaking of like Afghanistan:

Abdel Bari Atwan wrote:

The west is losing faith in the Transitional National Council (TNC), which seems incapable of uniting and controlling the diverse elements within the rebellion, which not only can't get along but appear to be on the brink of fighting each other. The Islamist element among the rebel forces is strong, well-armed (thanks to raids on the regime's munitions dumps) and implacably opposed to NATO. The main Islamist militia - the Abu Ubaidah bin Jarrah Brigade - has refused to fight under the "infidel" banner against Gaddafi's forces but maintains "internal security".

... Under pressure from the powerful Obeidi tribe, to whom Younis's family belong, as well as from the February 17 Coalition (a group of legal professionals who are concerned about the growing influence of the Islamists), TNC chair, Abdel Mustafa Jalil, sacked the entire cabinet last week with the exception of the prime minister, Mahmoud Jibril.

The move was also intended to assuage mounting alarm among the TNC's backers. While the leaders of the US, Britain and France were aware of an Islamist element within the rebel forces, they thought it was containable. The worry now is that it will prevail in a full-blown civil (and tribal) conflict between the secular rebels and Islamist groups, some of whom have close ties to al-Qaida.

Despite their justified concerns about the TNC, Britain, the US and 28 other nations have recognized it as the legitimate government of Libya. Last week, despite the ongoing absence of a cabinet, the TNC were invited to take over the Libyan embassies in London and Washington [and Ottawa] ... An increasingly persistent theme, in a bid to combat the Islamist influence, involves an accomodation between Gaddafi and the rebels, potentially leading to a unity government. Gaddafi representatives met with TNC delegates on the Tunisian island of Djerba last weekend and were joined on Monday by UN secretary-general Ban Ki-Moon's Libya envoy - an indication that this is a preferred scenario. French president Nicolas Sarkozy is, reportedly, organising a Paris conference between the two sides for next month.

... Libya is in danger of ending up with a Nato-backed, weak and undemocratic central government led by a compliant president besieged by Islamist militants. Just like Afghanistan.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/aug/17/libya-the-next-afgha...

(Bolding not in the original.)

"French president Nicolas Sarkozy is, reportedly, organising a Paris conference between the two sides for next month."

What a hypocrite. He was the earliest and strongest force behind UNSCR 1973 - the "No-Fly Zone Resolution." France was the first country to bomb Libya.

Like I said, things are murky and there is a decided lack of clarity about what is going on in Libya. Most outsiders don't have a clue.

This is what happens when our governments wage Wars of Aggression and intervention and attempt regime change in other countries: You are never able to control things and achieve the outcome YOU want.

The affairs of other countries and peoples is just that -

Their affairs.

Not ours.

M. Spector wrote:

Socialistworker.org is absolutely correct in its description. The rebellion was inspired by the mass democratic revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt (perhaps you just think it was a huge coincidence).

The rebellion, later national (civil) war in and finally international war on Libya could very well be a coincidence to the revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt.

The claim that the revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt occurred in close proximity in time and geographic location to Libya establishes only that and nothing else. Such a claim does not provide us with enough information to definitively conclude that the revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt caused, were identical to or were very or even remotely similar to the rebellion in Libya. All countries are different. No one country is identical to another. What occurs in one country is never identically reproduced in another.

M. Spector wrote:

It was not started by the bourgeois, pro-imperialist elements that comprise the TNC. Western intervention was successful in promoting those elements to the fore,...

Of course it wasn't.

At first the people peacefully protested. Then Libyan soldiers and police fired upon the people. The people convinced a number of Libyan Army units, soldiers and officers to join them. A number of Libyan Army units, soldiers and officers joined the people, armed them, then a civil war broke out between the rebels and government (Gadhafi) forces.

The civil war settled into a stalemate where roughly Gadhafi controls western Libya (mostly Tripolitania) with Tripoli the capital and the rebels control eastern Libya (mostly Cyrenaica) with the traditional capital of Benghazi as capital of this region.

As the stalemate dragged on, the eastern rebels formed a transitional opposition "national" government: the Transitional National Council (TNC.)

So,

M. Spector wrote:

You simplistically equate the rebellion in Libya with the TNC,...

Wrong.

M. Spector wrote:

... they [the TNC] have the biggest weapons...

Wrong. Libyan government (Gadhafi) forces have the biggest, "bestest" more modern weapons.

The TNC is the government of the rebels in eastern Libya not its militia or military. The TNC does not have weapons, they do not fight. They carry out the daily governance of the eastern Libyan region.

As far as I've seen, all rebel forces that I know of are armed with weapons given to them by former Libyan regular Army soldiers. Over the years, fearing a military coup he used to depose Libyan king Idris, Gadhafi starved his regular forces of modern weapons and supplied them instead to more loyal elite guards units.

The weapons of the rebels consist of Soviet Cold War vintage weapons, jury-rigged 'Saturday night specials' attached to Toyota pickup trucks - usually machineguns and Grad rockets. Rebels are also using bolt-action Mannlicher Carcano Italiano rifles used by the Italians when Libya was an Italian colony and during WW2.

Check through the Libya threads, our friend Bec.De.Corbin provides information on the weapons used by the rebels.

With the naval blockade and in violation of UNSCR 1973, the U.S. and NATO have made all of Libyan airspace a No-Fly Zone. I have not heard of either rebels or Gadhafi forces being supplied with new foreign arms.

Frmrsldr wrote:

As for the people suffering from oppression, inequality and profound poverty, Libya has the highest standard of living in Africa. I have not heard of widespread allegations that the Gadhafi government is corrupt and that large numbers of government members became extremely wealthy through ill-gotten gains at the expense of the people. Libya has universal healthcare that is better than Canada's. Libya offers free universal post-secondary education to all Libyans.

M. Spector wrote:

Thus you have swallowed the Cythia McKinney pro-Qaddafi propaganda. Apparently the people of Libya have nothing to complain about.

I have no idea what Cynthia McKinney's and ANSWERS' entire views on Libya are.

I do know that socialistworker.org pulls this phrase of "profound poverty" and inequality in Libya out of the air without providing any credible evidence to back their assertions. Assertions that they expect us to accept as a given.

I have heard of no widespread complaints of Libyan government corruption.

If there was, don't you think the Gadhafi-hating U.S. government, CIA and Fawning Corporate Media would have informed us of this a long time ago?

The only thing I've heard of was Gadhafi's quirk of having a penchant for surrounding himself with a bevy of buxom blond nurses and personal bodyguards in the pre Libya war days.

I challenge you to provide me with some credible information (with links) where the Gadhafi government has been corrupt like our little puppet Karzai government we are propping up in Afghanistan.

Frmrsldr wrote:

ANSWER advocates the status quo: Leave the Gadhafi government in office. The war on Libya is about regime change. Gadhafi was in power before the U.S. and NATO intervention, so to argue for the status quo or leaving the (Gadhafi) government of Libya in power is to argue against intervention and regime change.

M. Spector wrote:

Yeah, that's fine if you're a Qaddafi fan like you or McKinney. You want the imperialists to go away so that Qaddafi can crush the rebellion. I want the imperialists to go away so that the rebellion can succeed and the Libyan people can decide for themselves what kind of government they want.

Wrong.

Think back to the previous Libya threads.

Who was it who first referred to the Libyan revolutionaries/people as "Libertarias"?

Who coined the quote "Viva La Revolucion Libertaria!"?

M. Spector wrote:

I doubt it will be the TNC - at least, not for long.

I entirely agree with you.

I doubt the TNC will be around for long either.

Hence the name they have chosen for themselves: The Transitional National Council.

Frmrsldr wrote:

The U.S. and NATO support the rebellion and the rebels in Libya: Check.

Socialistworker.org supports the rebellion and some (the "good") rebels in Libya: Check.

M. Spector wrote:

Wrong. The U.S. and NATO support the "bad" rebels in Libya - the ones that call themselves the TNC. ...There are radical forces in Libya that don't support the TNC, but they have been marginalized thanks to Western intervention and suppression and co-optation by the TNC....

The TNC is the "government" that represents the rebels. By socialistworker.org's own admittance, there are some in the TNC who have long connections with the U.S. and Western countries; some who have been on the CIA payroll, some former Generals in Gadhafi's Army and former members of his government and the pro-democracy people they refer to.

What is the failproof test socialistworker.org uses to determine who is a "bad" rebel and who is a "good" rebel? Is it like U.S. Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart in a First Amendment case involving free speech and pornography when he described his threshold test for pornography as, "I will know it [pornography] when I see it." - socialistworker.org will know who a "good" rebel is when they see one?

Frmrsldr wrote:

The anti-Gadhafi opposition/rebels have their governmental representatives - the Transitional National Council. By socialistworker.org's own admittance, there are those who have longstanding ties with the U.S. and Western countries and who have been on the CIA payroll on the Council. By way of logical extension, there are also others on the Council: Those who are monarchists, pro Al-Qaeda and pro democracy, etc., some of whom socialistworker.org support.

M. Spector wrote:

More made-up shit. Socialistworker.org does not support the TNC.

socialistworker.org wrote:

Of course, there are anti-Qaddafi figures and organizations in Libya with longstanding connections to the U.S., and a number of them are now represented on the Transitional National Council, which has claimed to speak for the whole opposition in Libya. But there are at least as many stories and examples from early on in the rebellion to show the opposite [Frmrsldr's note: the TNC doesn't solely consist of figures and organizations with longstanding connections to the U.S.]--for example, when rebels promptly evicted British MI6 agents they discovered inside Libya.

This is hardly a statement by socialistworker.org that it does not support the TNC.

Frmrsldr wrote:

Where is the support by socialistworker.org for the Libyan workers exploited by the Gadhafi oligarchs?

M. Spector wrote:

Ha! You mean the oligarchs that don't exist, according to you...?

No.

I mean for a group that calls itself "socialistworker" why is there not a single mention in the article about the Libyan workers or proletariat being exploited by oligarchs?

Instead we read about democracy and equality described in the way bourgeois liberal intellectuals do. Makes socialistworker.org sound like a bunch of soldout social democrats.

Frmrsldr wrote:

Socialistworker.org should support this recognition - as their rallying cry is for diplomatic and political "shaping" or intervention in Libya.

M. Spector wrote:

More made-up shit. Their "rallying cry" is nothing of the sort. They call for NATO and US hands off Libya.

Responding to the bolded portion:

It says that absolutely nowhere in that article:

socialistworker.org wrote:

The West wants a regime to replace Qaddafi that will be amenable to striking deals with Washington--as well as a reliably pro-U.S. government as a beachhead in the midst of the upheavals in the Arab world. Diplomatic and political attempts to shape the anti-Qaddafi opposition are every bit as important to this goal as the NATO bombing campaign. Opponents of the U.S. war machine must oppose every aspect of Western intervention.

... In San Francisco, Libyan opponents of Qaddafi were allowed into the [ANSWER sponsored] event,... [A] Libyan activist Hoda Emneina, who supports intervention, spoke next,...

It states opposing every aspect of intervention, but makes no actual statement about opposing intervention itself.

Frmrsldr wrote:

The uprising in Libya is not like the "Arab Spring" movements in Egypt, Tunisia and Syria. In Egypt, Tunisia and Syria, although the police and military fired upon and killed and injured protesters, the protesters in these countries did not/are not arm(ing) themselves, fight(ing) back with violence and (are) kill(ing) and injure/injuring police and soldiers. Egypt, Tunisa and Syria were/are not civil wars.

M. Spector wrote:

So to you, tactics mean everything and politics mean nothing; rebellion against autocracy is okay, as long as you don't actually fight back against repression. I guess we know which side you have "picked".

So to you, "fighting back" of necessity means people killing police and soldiers and civil war.

So to you, "politics" of necessity means people killing police and soldiers and civil war.

So to you, there was no "fight back" against repression and no "politics" in Tunisia, Egypt and Syria.

But didn't you argue above that the uprising in Libya is part of the Arab Spring movement that is sweeping the Middle East?

Notice (so far) that it is the country where the people have fought back by killing police and soldiers and where there is a civil war that has attracted U.S. and NATO war and intervention.

I guess we know which side you have "picked."

M. Spector wrote:

Frmrsldr wrote:

Fred Weston wrote:

That is why the workers and youth of the world, struggling against their own capitalist classes, must oppose this imperialist aggression of Libya. The task of overthrowing Gaddafi belongs to the people of Libya and to no one else.

http://www.marxist.com/support-libyan-revolution-oppose-imperialist-aggr...

This is what I have been saying all along.

You are obviously a very confused individual.

Now you are endorsing the position of an organization that [b]supports the Libyan revolution[/b] and sees the overthrow of Qaddafi as a "task" of the Libyan people.

This is exactly the same position that you denounced upthread when it was taken by Socialist Worker - and me - because we were "picking sides". It's also diametrically opposite to Cynthia McKinney's uncritical support for the Qaddafi regime - a regime you sought to heap praise upon as a model of social democracy.

[Edited for clarity]

No you're the one who's a very confused individual.

I have never "sought to heap praise upon the Qaddafi regime as a model of social democracy."

I have always argued against the U.S. and NATO's war and intervention and regime change in Libya.

Socialistworker.org opposes supporting the "bad" rebels and supports the "good" rebels which may and in fact, has entailed supporting war and intervention in Libya.

Wars of Aggression, foreign military intervention and regime change are illegal.

Yet this is what socialistworker.org supports.

Socialistworker.org has a conflict of values. The values that are in conflict are peace, antiwar/anti-intervention and "democracy" which socialistworker.org defines as "democratic discussion" or the American value of freedom of speech and assembly as expressed in the First Amendment.

socialistworker.org wrote:

This message [of ANSWER] does a disservice to the antiwar movement by associating opponents of the U.S. war machine with a regime that, while it is under attack by the West today, was a valued ally in the "war on terror" only a few months ago, and that has a terrible record of political repression and human rights abuses. [Frmrsldr's note: What ethical blindness. Gadhafi is not a stupid man. How do you think he was able to stay in power for over 40 years? According to socialistworker.org then, the U.S. and western governments had absolutely no free will whatsover. It takes "two to tango." If the West (and western peace movements) were so concerned about Gadhafi's "terrible record of political repression and human rights abuses" then why didn't they spurn his overtures? Notice all the effort and space socialistworker.org expends on bashing an allied peace movement, yet lets every comment it makes about the U.S. and western governments and their role in Libya pass without critical comment.That should set off alarm bells. I wonder what socialistworker.org's position was/is on the 1986 U.S. war crime/assassination attempt on Gadhafi. Did they/do they support it? The more I read this article, the more I wonder whether its authors are some stooges on the CIA payroll who have infiltrated socialistworker.org, peace, antiwar/anti-intervention and progressive organizations.]

Not only does ANSWER wrongly claim that opposition to NATO and U.S. bombing must entail support for Qaddafi, [Frmrsldr's note: Not necessarily. It could be ANSWER'S means of arguing against war, intervention and regime change by countering the U.S. and NATO's demonization of Gadhafi to justify regime change through their war and intervention.] but it has shown a disregard for democratic discussion, which needs to be at the center of any effort to rebuild the antiwar movement.

Socialistworker.org provides us with a quote from a Libyan rebel "supporter":

socialistworker.org wrote:

A Libyan activist [who attended an ANSWER sponsored event] Hoda Emneina, who supports intervention, spoke next, saying: "There is a difference between being against intervention and standing with a murderer. I can respect if you are anti-intervention, but what I cannot respect is that you spread Qaddafi's lies, saying he is for the Libyan people. He is not for the Libyan people!"

By extension - because socialistworker.org presents this Libyan person as an example of what a "good" Libyan rebel looks like - socialistworker.org supports war, intervention and regime change by advocating the overthrow of one murderer (Gadhafi) and replacing him with (an)other murderer(s), their ephemeral "good" rebel phantoms.

Now why would socialistworker.org go out of its way to bring attention to a Libyan war, intervention and regime change supporter and even provide a quote from such a person?

Because this reinforces their liberal bourgeois notion of "democracy."

In the conflict between socialistworker.org's values of peace, anti-war/anti-intervention and democracy and free speech, "democracy" (or their idea of democracy) and free speech, win.

socialistworker.org wrote:

We need an antiwar movement that can continue to protest U.S. wars and occupations in the Middle East--and that embraces all those inspired by the spread of the Arab revolutions across North Africa and the Middle East. Such a movement will only be weakened by associating our struggle with regimes, whether alled to the U.S. or not, that crush political dissent and uphold an unjust system.

Responding to the bolded portions: It is thus entirely acceptable to these prowar, pro-intervention and pro-regime changers in sheep's clothing (i.e., socialistworker.org) to support Wars of Aggression, military intervention and (foreign) regime change, so long as it removes regimes that "crush political dissent and uphold an unjust system."

Has it ever crossed their mind that the Libyan people might not want socialistworker.org and western peace movements to "embrace" them and that the Libyan people are quite capable of determining their future for themselves? Has it ever crossed their mind that the Libyan people might blame us for causing their current problems through decades of colonialism, war, imperialism, exploitation, regime change and intervention/interference in their countries, and that because of this they don't want our "embrace"?

Who invited socialistworker.org to poke their nose ("embrace" war, regime change and intervention) in the Libyan peoples' affairs?

Was it socialistworker.org who invited themselves?

Or was it (all) of the Libyan people?

What was I thinking?

Socialistworker.org uses little sock puppet, fifth columnist, Vidkun Quisling, compradors of the American Empire and western imperialism. Libyans like Hoda Emneina are used by socialistworker.org, the CIA and Western governments for propaganda purposes to justify the U.S. and NATO War of Aggression, intervention and regime change in Libya. Look at any war of the American Empire or any war for that matter, and you will see the same old story repeat itself time and time again.

"The task of overthrowing Gaddafi belongs to the People of Libya and to no one else"

What part of the People of Libya versus not People of Libya (i.e. no one else, people who are not Libyans, etc.,) do you not understand?