This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
The Forgotten War – Understanding The Incredible Debacle Left Behind By NATO In Libya
Submitted by Mike Krieger via Liberty Blitzkrieg blog,
In retrospect, Obama’s intervention in Libya was an abject failure, judged even by its own standards. Libya has not only failed to evolve into a democracy; it has devolved into a failed state. Violent deaths and other human rights abuses have increased severalfold. Rather than helping the United States combat terrorism, as Qaddafi did during his last decade in power, Libya now serves as a safe haven for militias affiliated with both al Qaeda and the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS). The Libya intervention has harmed other U.S. interests as well: undermining nuclear nonproliferation, chilling Russian cooperation at the UN, and fueling Syria’s civil war.?
As bad as Libya’s human rights situation was under Qaddafi, it has gotten worse since NATO ousted him. Immediately after taking power, the rebels perpetrated scores of reprisal killings, in addition to torturing, beating, and arbitrarily detaining thousands of suspected Qaddafi supporters. The rebels also expelled 30,000 mostly black residents from the town of Tawergha and burned or looted their homes and shops, on the grounds that some of them supposedly had been mercenaries. Six months after the war, Human Rights Watch declared that the abuses “appear to be so widespread and systematic that they may amount to crimes against humanity.”?
As a consequence of such pervasive violence, the UN estimates that roughly 400,000 Libyans have fled their homes, a quarter of whom have left the country altogether. ?
– From Alan Kuperman’s excellent Foreign Affairs article: Obama’s Libya Debacle
Regular readers will be somewhat familiar with the total chaos NATO left behind in the wake of its so-called “humanitarian” intervention in Libya, but I doubt many of you are aware of just how enormous the disaster actually has become.
Alan J. Kuperman, an Associate Professor at the Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs at the University of Texas at Austin, wrote an incredible article in the latest issue of Foreign Affairs, which is an absolute must read. If the American public and politicians actually wanted to learn from their mistakes and avoid making them in the future, this piece could serve as a comprehensive warning about what not to do.
That said, after reading this article the unfortunate truth becomes apparent; that there are only two logical conclusions that can be reached about American foreign policy leadership in the 21st century.
1) American leadership is ruthlessly pursuing immoral wars all over the world with the intent of creating outside enemies to focus public anger on, as a conscious diversion away from the criminality happening domestically. As an added bonus, the intelligence-military-industrial complex makes an incredible sum of money. The end result: serfs are distracted with inane nationalistic fervor, while the “elites” earn billions.
2) American leadership is completely and totally inept; being easily manipulated into overseas conflicts by ruthless corporate interests and cunning foreign “rebels” in order to advance their own selfish interests, which are in conflict with the interests of the general public.
I can’t come up with any other logical conclusion. Either way, such people have no business running the affairs of these United States, and their actions are merely increasing instability and violence across the planet. The longer they remain in charge with no accountability, the more dangerous this world will become.
From Foreign Affairs:
In March 17, 2011, the UN Security Council passed Resolution 1973, spearheaded by the administration of U.S. President Barack Obama, authorizing military intervention in Libya. The goal, Obama explained, was to save the lives of peaceful, pro-democracy protesters who found themselves the target of a crackdown by Libyan dictator Muammar al-Qaddafi. Not only did Qaddafi endanger the momentum of the nascent Arab Spring, which had recently swept away authoritarian regimes in Tunisia and Egypt, but he also was poised to commit a bloodbath in the Libyan city where the uprising had started, said the president.
“We knew that if we waited one more day, Benghazi—a city nearly the size of Charlotte—could suffer a massacre that would have reverberated across the region and stained the conscience of the world,” Obama declared. Two days after the UN authorization, the United States and other NATO countries established a no-fly zone throughout Libya and started bombing Qaddafi’s forces. Seven months later, in October 2011, after an extended military campaign with sustained Western support, rebel forces conquered the country and shot Qaddafi dead.
In the immediate wake of the military victory, U.S. officials were triumphant. Writing in these pages in 2012, Ivo Daalder, then the U.S. permanent representative to NATO, and James Stavridis, then supreme allied commander of Europe, declared, “NATO’s operation in Libya has rightly been hailed as a model intervention.” In the Rose Garden after Qaddafi’s death, Obama himself crowed, “Without putting a single U.S. service member on the ground, we achieved our objectives.” Indeed, the United States seemed to have scored a hat trick: nurturing the Arab Spring, averting a Rwanda-like genocide, and eliminating Libya as a potential source of terrorism. ?
That verdict, however, turns out to have been premature. In retrospect, Obama’s intervention in Libya was an abject failure, judged even by its own standards. Libya has not only failed to evolve into a democracy; it has devolved into a failed state. Violent deaths and other human rights abuses have increased severalfold. Rather than helping the United States combat terrorism, as Qaddafi did during his last decade in power, Libya now serves as a safe haven for militias affiliated with both al Qaeda and the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS). The Libya intervention has harmed other U.S. interests as well: undermining nuclear nonproliferation, chilling Russian cooperation at the UN, and fueling Syria’s civil war.?
Despite what defenders of the mission claim, there was a better policy available—not intervening at all, because peaceful Libyan civilians were not actually being targeted. Had the United States and its allies followed that course, they could have spared Libya from the resulting chaos and given it a chance of progress under Qaddafi’s chosen successor: his relatively liberal, Western-educated son Saif al-Islam. Instead, Libya today is riddled with vicious militias and anti-American terrorists—and thus serves as a cautionary tale of how humanitarian intervention can backfire for both the intervener and those it is intended to help.?
Optimism about Libya reached its apogee in July 2012, when democratic elections brought to power a moderate, secular coalition government—a stark change from Qaddafi’s four decades of dictatorship. But the country quickly slid downhill. Its first elected prime minister, Mustafa Abu Shagour, lasted less than one month in office. His quick ouster foreshadowed the trouble to come: as of this writing, Libya has had seven prime ministers in less than four years.
Islamists came to dominate the first postwar parliament, the General National Congress. Meanwhile, the new government failed to disarm dozens of militias that had arisen during NATO’s seven-month intervention, especially Islamist ones, leading to deadly turf battles between rival tribes and commanders, which continue to this day. In October 2013, secessionists in eastern Libya, where most of the country’s oil is located, declared their own government. That same month, Ali Zeidan, then the country’s prime minister, was kidnapped and held hostage. In light of the growing Islamist influence within Libya’s government, in the spring of 2014, the United States postponed a plan to train an armed force of 6,000–8,000 Libyan troops.?
By May 2014, Libya had come to the brink of a new civil war—between liberals and Islamists. That month, a renegade secular general named Khalifa Hifter seized control of the air force to attack Islamist militias in Benghazi, later expanding his targets to include the Islamist-dominated legislature in Tripoli. Elections last June did nothing to resolve the chaos. Most Libyans had already given up on democracy, as voter turnout dropped from 1.7 million in the previous poll to just 630,000. Secular parties declared victory and formed a new legislature, the House of Representatives, but the Islamists refused to accept that outcome. The result was two competing parliaments, each claiming to be the legitimate one.?
In July, an Islamist militia from the city of Misurata responded to Hifter’s actions by attacking Tripoli, prompting Western embassies to evacuate. After a six-week battle, the Islamists captured the capital in August on behalf of the so-called Libya Dawn coalition, which, together with the defunct legislature, formed what they labeled a “national salvation government.” In October, the newly elected parliament, led by the secular Operation Dignity coalition, fled to the eastern city of Tobruk, where it established a competing interim government, which Libya’s Supreme Court later declared unconstitutional. Libya thus finds itself with two warring governments, each controlling only a fraction of the country’s territory and militias.?
As bad as Libya’s human rights situation was under Qaddafi, it has gotten worse since NATO ousted him. Immediately after taking power, the rebels perpetrated scores of reprisal killings, in addition to torturing, beating, and arbitrarily detaining thousands of suspected Qaddafi supporters. The rebels also expelled 30,000 mostly black residents from the town of Tawergha and burned or looted their homes and shops, on the grounds that some of them supposedly had been mercenaries. Six months after the war, Human Rights Watch declared that the abuses “appear to be so widespread and systematic that they may amount to crimes against humanity.”?
As a consequence of such pervasive violence, the UN estimates that roughly 400,000 Libyans have fled their homes, a quarter of whom have left the country altogether. ?
Libya’s quality of life has been sharply degraded by an economic free fall. That is mainly because the country’s production of oil, its lifeblood, remains severely depressed by the protracted conflict. Prior to the revolution, Libya produced 1.65 million barrels of oil a day, a figure that dropped to zero during NATO’s intervention. Although production temporarily recovered to 85 percent of its previous rate, ever since secessionists seized eastern oil ports in August 2013, output has averaged only 30 percent of the prewar level. Ongoing fighting has closed airports and seaports in Libya’s two biggest cities, Tripoli and Benghazi. In many cities, residents are subjected to massive power outages—up to 18 hours a day in Tripoli. The recent privation represents a stark descent for a country that the UN’s Human Development Index traditionally had ranked as having the highest standard of living in all of Africa.?
So intervention actually destroyed a country that was doing very well compared to the rest of Africa, and turned it into a violent, economic disaster zone/terrorist camp.
Although the White House justified its mission in Libya on humanitarian grounds, the intervention in fact greatly magnified the death toll there. To begin with, Qaddafi’s crackdown turns out to have been much less lethal than media reports indicated at the time. In eastern Libya, where the uprising began as a mix of peaceful and violent protests, Human Rights Watch documented only 233 deaths in the first days of the fighting, not 10,000, as had been reported by the Saudi news channel Al Arabiya. In fact, as I documented in a 2013 International Security article, from mid-February 2011, when the rebellion started, to mid-March 2011, when NATO intervened, only about 1,000 Libyans died, including soldiers and rebels. Although an Al Jazeera article touted by Western media in early 2011 alleged that Qaddafi’s air force had strafed and bombed civilians in Benghazi and Tripoli, “the story was untrue,” revealed an exhaustive examination in the London Review of Booksby Hugh Roberts of Tufts University. Indeed, striving to minimize civilian casualties, Qaddafi’s forces had refrained from indiscriminate violence.?
Saudis lying as usual to get a war going. No surprise there.
Moreover, by the time NATO intervened, Libya’s violence was on the verge of ending. Qaddafi’s well-armed forces had routed the ragtag rebels, who were retreating home. By mid-March 2011, government forces were poised to recapture the last rebel stronghold of Benghazi, thereby ending the one-month conflict at a total cost of just over 1,000 lives. Just then, however, Libyan expatriates in Switzerland affiliated with the rebels issued warnings of an impending “bloodbath” in Benghazi, which Western media duly reported but which in retrospect appear to have been propaganda. In reality, on March 17, Qaddafi pledged to protect the civilians of Benghazi, as he had those of other recaptured cities, adding that his forces had “left the way open” for the rebels to retreat to Egypt. Simply put, the militants were about to lose the war, and so their overseas agents raised the specter of genocide to attract a NATO intervention—which worked like a charm. There is no evidence or reason to believe that Qaddafi had planned or intended to perpetrate a killing campaign. ?
This grim math leads to a depressing but unavoidable conclusion. Before NATO’s intervention, Libya’s civil war was on the verge of ending, at the cost of barely 1,000 lives. Since then, however, Libya has suffered at least 10,000 additional deaths from conflict. In other words, NATO’s intervention appears to have increased the violent death toll more than tenfold.?
Since NATO’s intervention in 2011, however, Libya and its neighbor Mali have turned into terrorist havens. Radical Islamist groups, which Qaddafi had suppressed, emerged under NATO air cover as some of the most competent fighters of the rebellion. Supplied with weapons by sympathetic countries such as Qatar, the militias refused to disarm after Qaddafi fell. Their persistent threat was highlighted in September 2012 when jihadists, including from the group Ansar al-Sharia, attacked the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi, killing Christopher Stevens, the U.S. ambassador to Libya, and three of his colleagues. Last year, the UN formally declared Ansar al-Sharia a terrorist organization because of its affiliation with al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb.?
NATO’s intervention also fostered Islamist terrorism elsewhere in the region. When Qaddafi fell, the ethnic Tuaregs of Mali within his security forces fled home with their weapons to launch their own rebellion. That uprising was quickly hijacked by local Islamist forces and al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, which declared an independent Islamic state in Mali’s northern half. By December 2012, this zone of Mali had become “the largest territory controlled by Islamic extremists in the world,” according to Senator Christopher Coons, chair of the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Africa.
The harm from the intervention in Libya extends well beyond the immediate neighborhood. For one thing, by helping overthrow Qaddafi, the United States undercut its own nuclear nonproliferation objectives. In 2003, Qaddafi had voluntarily halted his nuclear and chemical weapons programs and surrendered his arsenals to the United States. His reward, eight years later, was a U.S.-led regime change that culminated in his violent death. That experience has greatly complicated the task of persuading other states to halt or reverse their nuclear programs. Shortly after the air campaign began, North Korea released a statement from an unnamed Foreign Ministry official saying that “the Libyan crisis is teaching the international community a grave lesson” and that North Korea would not fall for the same U.S. “tactic to disarm the country.” Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, likewise noted that Qaddafi had “wrapped up all his nuclear facilities, packed them on a ship, and delivered them to the West.” Another well-connected Iranian, Abbas Abdi, observed: “When Qaddafi was faced with an uprising, all Western leaders dropped him like a brick. Judging from that, our leaders assess that compromise is not helpful.”?
The intervention in Libya may also have fostered violence in Syria. In March 2011, Syria’s uprising was still largely nonviolent, and the Assad government’s response, although criminally disproportionate, was relatively circumscribed, claiming the lives of fewer than 100 Syrians per week. After NATO gave Libya’s rebels the upper hand, however, Syria’s revolutionaries turned to violence in the summer of 2011, perhaps expecting to attract a similar intervention. “It’s similar to Benghazi,” a Syrian rebel told The Washington Post at the time, adding, “We need a no-fly zone.” The result was a massive escalation of the Syrian conflict, leading to at least 1,500 deaths per week by early 2013, a 15-fold increase. ?
NATO’s mission in Libya also hindered peacemaking efforts in Syria by greatly antagonizing Russia. With Moscow’s acquiescence, the UN Security Council had approved the establishment of a no-fly zone in Libya and other measures to protect civilians. But NATO exceeded that mandate to pursue regime change. The coalition targeted Qaddafi’s forces for seven months—even as they retreated, posing no threat to civilians—and armed and trained rebels who rejected peace talks. As Russian President Vladimir Putin complained, NATO forces “frankly violated the UN Security Council resolution on Libya, when instead of imposing the so-called no-fly zone over it they started bombing it too.” His foreign minister, Sergey Lavrov, explained that as a result, in Syria, Russia “would never allow the Security Council to authorize anything similar to what happened in Libya.”
Despite the massive turmoil caused by the intervention, some of its unrepentant supporters claim that the alternative—leaving Qaddafi in power—would have been even worse. But Qaddafi was not Libya’s future in any case. Sixty-nine years old and in ill health, he was laying the groundwork for a transition to his son Saif, who for many years had been preparing a reform agenda. “I will not accept any position unless there is a new constitution, new laws, and transparent elections,” Saif declared in 2010. “Everyone should have access to public office. We should not have a monopoly on power.” Saif also convinced his father that the regime should admit culpability for a notorious 1996 prison massacre and pay compensation to the families of hundreds of victims. In addition, in 2008, Saif published testimony from former prisoners alleging torture by revolutionary committees—the regime’s zealous but unofficial watchdogs—whom he demanded be disarmed.?
The “alternative would have been worse” is the shallow response told by status quo criminals the world over when it comes to defending their crimes. It’s the same response peddled by the architects of the “too big to fail” taxpayer bailout of financial oligarchs.
Even after the war began, respected observers voiced confidence in Saif. In a New York Times op-ed, Curt Weldon, a former ten-term Republican U.S. congressman from Pennsylvania, wrote that Saif “could play a constructive role as a member of the committee to devise a new government structure or Constitution.” Instead, NATO-supported militants captured and imprisoned Qaddafi’s son.
Obama also acknowledges regrets about Libya, but unfortunately, he has drawn the wrong lesson. “I think we underestimated . . . the need to come in full force,” the president told the New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman in August 2014. “If you’re gonna do this,” he elaborated, “there has to be a much more aggressive effort to rebuild societies.”?
Humanitarian intervention should be reserved for the rare instances in which civilians are being targeted and military action can do more good than harm, such as Rwanda in 1994, where I have estimated that a timely operation could have saved over 100,000 lives. Of course, great powers sometimes may want to use force abroad for other reasons—to fight terrorism, avert nuclear proliferation, or overthrow a noxious dictator. But they should not pretend the resulting war is humanitarian, or be surprised when it gets a lot of innocent civilians killed.
Think about all of this very carefully and deeply. A conflict initiated based purely on lies and propaganda destroyed the lives of millions, destabilized several nations, created a terrorist breeding ground, crushed all incentives for nuclear disarmament, escalated the conflict in Syria, and damaged the U.S.-Russian relationship. Yet, despite all of this, the lesson Obama gleaned from the debacle was:
“I think we underestimated . . . the need to come in full force. If you’re gonna do this there has to be a much more aggressive effort to rebuild societies.”?
Which is precisely why America will continue to gear up for war after war after war…
* * *
For related articles, see:
More Foreign Policy Incompetence – U.S. Humanitarian Aid is Going Directly to ISIS
Leon Panetta, Head of Pentagon and C.I.A. Under Obama, Says Brace for 30 Year War with ISIS
U.S. Propaganda Enters Into Insane, Irrational Overdrive in Attempt to “Sell” War in Syria
Obama’s ISIS War is Not Only Illegal, it Makes George W. Bush Look Like a Constitutional Scholar
»
- 17626 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
All those words to say its' Bush's fault.. dam
We came, we saw, he died...
...while being ass-raped with a knife.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fgcd1ghag5Y
Imagine Hitlery supporters having their eyes held open in the manner of A Clockwork Orange and being forced to watch that barbarity and her insidious cackle on a endless loop.
Well, I can dream, can't I...?
"As bad as Libya’s human rights situation was under Qaddafi ... ."
Every time I read things such as this, I weep. I truly thought the internet and the free flow of (true) information would stop people from making asses of themselves.
If you don't know what life was like in Libya under Mohamar (sp?), you should look it up to see what was done in your name.
Ditto Syria.
Much better for the people then than today, is my understanding -- ass-raped by NATO.
Looks like the new MIC teaser should be:
Shock and Awhhhhh...go fuck yourself SM*
*The New Paradigm
Big long article like this, what? It seems pretty simple. We stopped Qadaffi from making a gold dinar, we stole his gold (122 tons?), and stopped him from selling oil for non dollars. Could it be any simpler? Incredibly successful mission. It also achieved the goal of destroying a successful Arab country where people were living in harmony, and adds to the unrest in the region.
What do you mean it was not successful? Do you think these wars are humanitarian missions that succeed to some degree or another? What a joke.
We are tired of hearing these wars talked about as failures. Seems like they are all successes and achieve the goals of the One Bank and those who want the wars.
Nice summation.
Not only that but we destabilized another country on Europe's doorstep and created millions of illegal immigrants to bring to them the wonders of multiculturalism. As Nuland said, FUCK EUROPE.
I loved the stories of Gaddafi's plan to use revenue from his massive reserves of the world's sweetest oil to construct a world-class irrigation system to turn Libya into the tropical paradise of North Africa. Imagine the benefits of such a "Eden-like" accomplishment to EVERY Libyan citizen AND their GDP. MSM sheep scoff at the prospect, and instead question Mr. Gaddafi's sanity.
I wonder what SNC Lavalin has to say about that.
One of Canada's largest and most politically connected engineering firms, SNC Lavalin has been charged by the RCMP with bribery and fraud totalling 175 million dollars in the planning of the proposed Libyan irrigation project.
Hard as I try, I cannot think of a single, even trivial project of any true valuable significance to the general public, that has been introduced by either of the back-stabbing, murderous, deceitful, shameless, lying, traitors-in-chief of North America; steven harper or b. hussein obama.
Our situation could not be more dire. Our Western world is not dedicated to progress, but profit. Privatize profits, socialize losses.We must refuse to continue to participate in this charade. We must agree to disobey.
Understood immediately by many here on ZH, but never acknowledged in "MSM" discourse.
Strange. It says "Foreign Affairs" is published by the Council on Foreign Relations...
Aren't they erstwhile Progenitors of the NWO?
"1) American leadership is ruthlessly pursuing immoral wars all over the world with the intent of creating outside enemies to focus public anger on, as a conscious diversion away from the criminality happening domestically....
2) American leadership is completely and totally inept; being easily manipulated into overseas conflicts by ruthless corporate interests and cunning foreign “rebels” in order to advance their own interests....
I can’t come up with any other logical conclusion."
How about the obvious: that American leadership is destroying secular governments and promoting Islamic governments in order to simply promote Islam. Occam's Razor suggests it is as simple as that, as the results certainly speak for themselves. One might ask, "Why is the US promoting Islam as a matter of state policy since 1978?" That's a good question. The obvious response is we got in bed with the Saudis in 1973 and have been beholden to them ever since. A darker theory is that Illuminati have hijacked US policy in order to foment a showdown between Islam on one side, and Jews and Christians on the other, to destroy all three religions to pave the way for Lucifer worship. After all, that is exactly what the Illuminati/Freemasons have said they were going to do.
But hey? What do I know.
I did some desultory research the other night on that letter supposedly written to Manzini (?) by (can't recall) back in the late 1800's. I understand there is some question about its authenticity, but I tried (without success) to find the earliest irrefutable reference to it. Might you know? Fascinating implications if it predates 1920 or 1930.
Lucifer worship? Where do I signup?
You used to be Mr. Anti-Islam and now you're Mr. Illuminati?
WTF?
Please share with us your 'Road to Damascus'.
Footnotes pleez* !!
*bitchez
Of course I'm still anti-Islam. It is a thoroughly evil and despicable political ideology masquerading as a religion. One of islams core values, stated explicitly over and over again in the Koran, is that the followers of all other religions must be either forcibly converted to Islam, enslaved, or slaughtered.
In other words, it is the perfect tool to use to wipe out all other religions, to pave the way for Lucifer worship.
I'm with Buckaroo on this one.
http://www.prophetofdoom.net/
Read it. Pick a side. Fight like ...heck.
If the Illuminati’s goal is to first destroy all religion by engendering extremists within those religions and extremist reaction in response then you are playing into their dialectic and actually facilitating the installation of the Luciferianism they seek.
Attack the disease at its source not at its many manifest symptoms. Otherwise you become a part of its destructive programming.
Don't be absurd. Islam is by it's very nature extremist. Its core values are aggression and intolerance and a mandate to prosecute war on all unbelievers-- these are explicitly written into the Koran!! All you have to do is turn Islam loose and the rest of the world is simply forced to defend itself.
Libya was not a complete failure we stole 141 tons of gold, and made sure the petro dollar was not challenged by Gadafi. We we able to move weapons in prep. For Syria as well . Wasn't that the plan for the elite and Tri-Lateral Commission ?
That what US does today running around protecting the dollar and stealing central bank gold.
For future POTUS "warning, graphic images" does not apply.
For private second round of watching she probably used a dildo.
LOL, Hillary in the Wahabi outfit, CLASSIC.
"Who Cares" The stock market has quadrupled! Obama cares about ONE THING....MONEY. What ever it takes to centralize power for his cronies and make money. Why the media licks his feet is the real mystery!
We're gonna needa a lot more Blue Bonnet.........
I typically read ZH articles, but.
When I saw the pic of that worthless piece of douchebag , scumbag, coat tail riding, cunt bitch, fat ass, boring, damaged, worthless piece of sheeit and thought that she could be the commander in CHief. I simultaneiously threw up, shit my pants and had heart palpitations...WTF have we become?
Midway--
They make a plastic overlay for your keyboard. I throw up on it often when I see her. Haven't shit myself yet, but there's still time, I suppose,
They make a plastic inlay for your pants too. Not a matter of if, but when.
U'd best stock up on DEPENDS, because its's only gonna get WORSE until the the 'spell' that has been cast upon [what, once upon a time was called] 'AMERICA' has been lifted, & the BUSH/CLINTON plague has either been overcome, or has been ground into the earth.
wait till you have to see them both on tv non stop in the run up to elections!
Looking forward to spending free time by not having a television even more.
Thanks.
Kankles Clinton
Every country we've interfered in has turned into a huge steaming pile of shit...When do we intend to alter our strategies here?
This is total bullshit. We obviously have no fucking idea WHAT we're doing over there, we can't even figure out WHO to support. We need to pull it in and take care of our own shit here at home for a change. This isn't working out for us or them.
Who is we, who is us, who is our own?
It is working out just fine for the people who are making it happen. The pile of s... is what they intended, only at times there was not enough killing and demolition. Do you think they are going to pull things back here to take care of the s.. here? The people giving the orders are the s.... here.
They would like to eliminate as many of "you" to result in just those who can serve their needs, but they have not set the stage yet. You are no more to them than all the innocents already murdered. Relax, they will get to you in due time.
You are not a part of their "we", nor are you part of their "us", You are a part of their "them", "goy", "cattle", "livestock to be used". You daughters or grand daughters, if they are pretty, will serve them in the middle of a room while their "us" watch, have a drink, relax and wait for their time at her.
True. The War Lords in Merika are very wealthy now.
I believe the term is the Great Unwashed.
I think you are drinking 'their' koolaide.
When 'they' are brought to JUSTICE (this will be in our lifetimes) it is 'their' wives, daughters and grand daughters, if they are pretty, that will serve 'us' food, drink, and entertainment in the middle of a room while 'we' skin them alive and set them on fire.
There. Fixed it again.
War is for profit. Always has been, always will be.
Those most vociferously demanding of war are those least likely to be adversely affected by the consequences of their demands.
Those most vociferously demanding of war are those most likely to be COWARDS and HYPOCRITES. There. Fixed it for ya. This says it all..
http://sadhillnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/obama-gaddaffi-hand-shake-handshake-sad-hill-news-241x250.jpg
Let Me Make this Perfectly Clear! ( Richard Nixon) We have no intention of stabilizing global security.
If you aren't with us, we'll drone you!
Huh?
Life was pretty nice in Libia, with many things like health care and education paid for by the state, under Qaddafi.
Correct. Same for Iraq. Same for Syria. Ukraine doesen't look better either.
I once watched a youtube video of Qaddafi riding through the city with his body through the roof of a limo shaking hands while all of the people that were following by the thousands to show how well liked he was. I dare Obumbner to do that
He can't. He would be stoned and fall out onto the road.
Of course if the goal was to stop the introduction of a Gold Dinar, the intervention was a resounding success.
Those aren't millenials those are Marine-ables!
And yes indeedy...the Marines love this stuff.
Entire States in the USA will suddenly hear the term "Gulf of Sidra" and it will have very real meaning to them.
This is not "diplomacy has failed" folks.
THERE IS NO DIPLOMACY RIGHT NOW.
In the end the world forced Germany and Japan into a non offensive military ability.....in the end.
I recall that many NATO participants owed Libya huge sums, as Gaddafi was a major creditor abroad (Goldman Sachs wiped out a large portion of Libya's investments). Did they end up paying the new regime the money owed? If not, can we enact a no-fly zone over JPMorgan-Chase? I owe Jamie 70 big...
But is it good for the jews?
Nein
All American wars are wars for the Jews, even the American civil war.
Are we speaking of the successes and failures of the guy that wants to close gitmo and have trials for terrorists in NYC whilst at the same time telling the population that ISIS is a danger at home and abroad and that he needs unlimited authority to drone some folks???
and flood the country with all the Hondurans, Guatamalans, Mexicans, Haitians, etc. who like welfare.
Nein
Hey the illegals are solving the debt crisis here with all the DMV fees they are paying for their new licenses. Rome did the same thing, extending citizenship to expand the tax base.
.......and get 35K USD each!
The neocon plan is called Hornet Nest. In Libya it is a resounding success.
Nein
Progressives were and are in charge.
You trying to protect them?
Grimaldus
New Anonymous op as White House still ignores murder of American reporter Serena Shim in Turkey
says here NATO ousted Gaddafi. So calling a NO FLY ZONE and allowing a band of cutthroats to rip out a human's innards is termed ousted. Let's hope these NATO bastards are doubly ousted in the near future.
They called a no-fly zone and bombed the country to non-existance. These are war crimes gentlemen
...and ISIS is going to go halfway around MENA to invade Europe, but won't attack Israel. Yes.
Cmon man, you are kidding right? The Izzys would totally destroy ISIL. No way any Arab army can stand up fight the Izzys.
That's just the way it is. The best the murdering Islamic snackbarian goat f**kers can do is send the brainless Palestinian trash to kill themselves with homicide vests on, a tactic that has never ever won a war.
Progressive europissans however are importing murdering Islam in huge numbers willingly and are sure to continue to bend over for Islamic snackbarian murderers. So yeah, ISIL will bypass the Izzys and invade the progressive multicultural criminal banker utopia of Europe.
Grimaldus
Rothslandia will fight to the Last American!
Israel supports ISIS by bombing Assad's military weapons caches, treating wounded ISIS fighters and so on. It possibly buys the oil ISIS sells on the cheap.
Possibly you say? Damning evidence of your assertions!
its saturday. do you know where your hasbara are?
OT eh?
It's clear that this IS the New World "Order". The GlobalistsU.S. needs chaos around the world, and creates the same, because it needs to intervene in a region it must dominate, if only from the shadows. This keeps the fear up domestically, the bureaucracy growing and the MIC well oiled and funded all while destroying any semblance of the constitutional republic the U.S. once was; They're killing many birds with a single stone.
Nein times infinity
More importantly, where is the Libyan gold?
Nein squared
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Ghadafi try to sell his oil in something other than dollars?
We aren't fighting a religious or idealist war.
The money that hypothecates policy, is nothing more than a bunch of monkeys migrating to a new power structure.
What happens when the Illegals realize it was cheaper to be illegal?
I see a bunch of conservatives being born. Or we can go GREEK?
Exactly how many people were killed or maimed by our humanitarian bombing? We were given 24/7 coverage of fatalities in iraq for years, yet nothing at all on the evening news except "we came, we bombed, Gaddafi died".
How many people remember when the very first thing that the rebels did during the war was to set up a central bank and oil company?
http://www.zerohedge.com/article/us-purchase-oil-libyan-rebels-thus-fund...
http://www.cnbc.com/id/42308613
http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/wow-that-was-fast-libyan-reb...
http://shoebat.com/2015/02/27/gopro-video-reveals-islamic-terrorist-who-...
http://shoebat.com/2015/02/21/tough-questions-impossible-refute-proves-o...
YES OBAMA IS A TERRORIST! Part 1https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YOV6uvB3HvU
YES OBAMA IS A TERRORIST! Part 2https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HotM-6Elz0Q
as in the articles shared by Bobportlander
one wonders what obama is really up to
he refuses to call Islamic terrror what it is
then he pretends to fight them
when really he is funding them
seems to me he is setting up the whole territory over there for a new strongman by destabilizing every ME country
maybe he is the guy, whimp that he appears
Why is it that Germany, Japan and South Korea prospered after the war?
Could it be that the US is no longer the same country
No longer holds the same values and morales
I think so
A Russian friend of mine shared this with me as we discussed the current difficulties the US is involved in
Seems now everything we place our hands on fails
Just like this example
Whenever they went out to fight, the hand of the Lord was against them to defeat them, just as he had sworn to them.
What 'is' he? A terrible waste of human life IMHO....
Like I been telling you guys, "bloody hands" Hillary saved the Al Qaeda murderers of Benghazi from Qaddafi. Rebels nothing, Benghazi was well know for being the headquarters of Al Qaeda snackbarian goat f**kers. The article gets it wrong, Hillary put pressure on Obama to intervene. And when the Benghazi Al Qaeda she saved said "f**k you Hillary" and attacked the embassy, Hillary let the ambassador die to cover up her aiding and abetting enemies of the USA and which spawned ISIL.
Bloody hands Hillary will never be president and most likely will serve time in a cell next to obombya for war crimes if she can escape the firing squad.
Grimaldus
Are the current investigations going to uncover this? Is this why Hillary is laying low regarding her campaign?
Ample evidence exists.
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsmax-Tv/jd-gordon-hillary-clinton-tapes-Libya/...
"J.D. Gordon: Tapes Show Libya Is Clinton's 'WMD Moment'"http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2014/07/hillary-clinton-and-the-de...
"Hillary Clinton and the decision to intervene in Libya"http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/03/20/libya-airstrikes-hillar...
"Libya Airstrikes: The Women Who Called for War""That a diplomatic team led by Hillary Clinton, Susan Rice, and Samantha Power advocated military action against Gaddafi may be a footnote in the Libyan conflict—but it is a significant mark of our nation's evolution, argues John Avlon."Some time with search engines will pull up quite a bit.
I would say yes to laying low. The Hillary supporters have tons of foreign money(from enemies of the US that know she is stupid and will capitalize on it) but they can't quite square away Libya or the missing 6 billion from the State Dept during her "leadership"
Grimaldus
What's your reasoning? You're quoting the past.
I'd like to hear your future pretext.
The gloves come off if Hillary decides to run and she gets tagged hard in public for Libya. She wont survive. Longer term it will be Revolutionary War II. The tyrants are coming after the powder and ball again (M855 ban) just like they did in 1775.
Grimaldus.
I fear she will become CUNTUS in 2016 and increase her need for Blood!
Some fat German dude" if we had not the Jews we would have had to invent them" us,gov if don't have someone to free the shit out of we will have to invent them
I blame first the French.
They wanted to show the world that the Rafalle engaged in combat.
Second, the need for gold in the market, Gaddafi wanted a currency backed by gold in North Africa.
It is not a permissible thing.
Pump it.
hehe.
USA is really "exceptional" at fucking countries up.
Fixing them, not so much.
Just so you know, the White house is going to impose an embargo on all discussion of Libya, until after Feb 1st 2017.
It's all for the best - literally.
Element. Before I start my charts, I'd like to say " You're the best of the best".
You are extremely brilliant.
Libya has not only failed to evolve into a democracy
what what
that was not the plan
gold extraction by c130 plane loads.
jacob rothschield central bank debt into saturnic infinity
sweet oil
water infrastructure.
weapons systems for the testing
and dumping
cancer for a billion depleted uranium years.
rape and c130 nato shipping of children for eyes wide shut style masonic ritual
and the energy harvesting of souls
vaccinations for all
enslavement to the rabbi
and guns and bombs for syria greater israel project
the yinon plan
tis all.
Exactly...
Never listen to what any jew (Kuperman) has to say, it's all bullshit.
I was in the airport in Milan a couple of months ago --- there was a black fellow hanging at the rental car parking area hoping to pick up some cash helping people carry their luggage to the terminal after dropping cars --- I asked him where he was from --- he said Libya --- that he left after the Nato invasion tore the place apart....
I asked him what he thought of life under Gaddafi --- he said it was very good --- when Gaddafi was killed the country turned into a nightmare...
He was so poor he was wearing two mismatched shoes --- I asked him to help push our trolley the short distance to the terminal
I gave him 50 Euros not so much for his effort or because he was clearly in a bad situation
I gave him those 50 Euros because of my shame over how we destroyed his country --- how we destroyed his life...
(Big crowd in Libya)
"We will be independent of the PTB! My plan will rejuvenate Africa with gold for oil, which we will use to irrigate the land and bring progress!"
"Colonel! Colonel! Radar shows dozens of warplanes headed our way from ZATO!"
"We've been double-crossed!"
comment of the week. Thank you Magooo.
I think at some point the US and NATO will have to face the consequences of all the destruction they've caused, all the killing, the massacres, tortures, the smashing and looting of monuments, archeological sites, cultural objects, etc...
And Libya, Libya... They were building the man-made river among other things... US and NATO have destroyed the country, as well as Irak. Unforgivable.
Furthermore, I think the consequences are in motion.
Why do you think they'll suffer the consequences? No "Western" warmonger of the last 100 years has had to face justice. I can't see it being any different this time.
Obama is the anti-christ.
Rice, Clinton, Kerry and the unamed 4th are his horseman.
Sure, but you forgot the RED TEAM members....
*cackle cackle*
Well, Huma, it wasn't as good as watching Vince slump to the floor, but the Kadaffy death videos were pretty good.
*cackle cackle*
Here, I have some copies of the killing on CD. You and The Weiner can watch them tonight! Whenever I am drunk or depressed, I pop one of these in the player and perk right up!
*cackle cackle!"
What happened to Libya's gold????
What happened to Ghaddafis' Ukrainian Nurse?
Why doesn't democracy work in the Middle East?
Democracy needs floating voters to work, it is the floating voters who determine who gets into power, Republicans or Democrats.
In the Muslim world there are two types of voters, Sunni and Shia, but there are no floating voters. A Shia Muslim is not going to become Sunni Muslim between elections or vice versa.
Whoever has the majority, Sunni or Shia, will always get into power leaving a very sizeable disenfranchised minority, who quite understandably get a bit hacked off.
Why have all the main stream parties effectively become the same in the West?
Once politicians realised that elections are determined by floating voters then these are the people politicians need to win over to get into power.
The floating voters lie between the two main camps and catering to the floating voters brings both parties closer and closer together until they are almost indistinguishable.
This of course leaves a huge empty political wasteland to the Left and Right of the small space the mainstream parties occupy.
When things start to go wrong (like now) this paves the way for the emergence of new parties and a complete shake up of the political landscape, as can be seen happening in Europe today.
Just another Mission Accomplished, by Democracy Inc.
Turbulence. No way to know what is on the other side. Because I could not stop for Death. The sun looks different than it does during the day.
I'm always amazed that a Yale law school graduate would screech at the top of her lungs "what difference does it make?" on live TV in front of a congressional commitee.
Just goes to show you the 'Ivy League' is incapable of 'True' Education....
Because that's what Bill would say to her whenever caught in flagrante dilecto.
"debacle in Libya"
What is Not a debacle these days. Ragheads fighting each other is fine with me.
I might agree if the US didn't go in and arm some factions, bomb others and then basically say all is well and walk away when it all goes to shite. If we stay the hell out and they want to go after each other - that's different. I find it odd that every where the US decides humanitarian interests compel involvement happens to have a vested economic interest. Maybe your observation is the plan - break them down into tribes to fight it out while we milk the resources which oddly enough always seem to center around oil or pipelines.
shit-for-brains. lol
what goes around comes around, roadapple.
interesting, I feel exactly the same about you.
The destruction of Libya was planned prior to the PNAC New Pearl Harbor.
Chaos was the intent, along with stealing the people of Libya's gold.
See the satanist syndicate zio gangbangksters for details.
They have a website? You can link it from your page at stormfront.
I worked in Libya from 2009 until last year. I know this country better than anyone. Libyan economy was growing at round 50% under Qaddafi. Compare that that to now. I am ashamed of what we have done to this country.
Dont woory though same thing is coming to a theater near you.
Very true. Libya was a trranny but no more so that dozens of other countries whom we regard as friends. 95% of the people had a good and rapidly improving lifestyle. What happened was scandalous, unjustified and a war crime by any yardstick.
hey, you can enjoy 4 years of hitlery saying "what dif...."
lmao enjoy it fools.
you deserve exceptinal leadership
Iraq = Libya*25
We came, We saw,,,, They died.
Pretty much defines u.s interventionism that began after the unCivil war and has accelerated during the past 102 years.
Win the battles, lose the war.
As long as Russia plays Chess and China plays Go against the western penchant for tiddlywinks, Russia and China just need to ensure that the west is incapable of pre-emptive nuclear strikes and time will take care of the rest.
I would have thought Obama would have liked Gaddafi.... complete centralized government free stuff for everyone and total control and the best unlimited money for the leader.
Under Quaddafi they had it pretty good. The education sytem was good, free electric for some and health care. Now they crap in a bucket with no workable plumbing.
If the U.S. was really interested in promoting freedom and democracy, we would have leveled SAUDIA ARABIA years ago! Oh, something about a petrodollar there. HYPOCRITES!
"The Forgotten War – Understanding The Incredible Debacle Left Behind By NATO In Libya"
The invasion was a tremendous success!
Muammar Gaddafi's plans for a gold back currency were scrubbed and all the nations gold was looted.
Bingo!! Who cares how many died or that the country now lies in ruins....
Once it became clear that the writer believed - or claimed to believe - that NATO intervened for humanitarian reasons I stopped reading.