The NATO War on Libya: Way to Go, Idiots

I knew this would happen.

All of you liberals who supported the war on Libya, now look what you’ve done.

Speaking on CBS’ Face the Nation, South Carolina Republican Lindsay Graham said we are getting very close to the time when we are going to have to attack Syria. He also said that now is the time to let Assad know that all options are on the table. Graham was an avid supporter of the US Nazi war of aggression on the Iraqi people that led to the US colonization of Iraq. He supported the somewhat more supportable Afghan War. Of course he was very much behind the Libyan War.

Of course, Graham cited the Libyan War as the basis for attacking Iraq, saying that Assad and Ghaddafi were indistinguishable.

Graham could not seem to stop with Syria. He also demanded more aggressive attacks against Pakistani territory and said that the US is on a collision course with Pakistan.

In the wake of war on Libya, Jew Lieberman (Independent – Tel Aviv/Connecticut) demanded that the US also attack Syria. If we can attack Libya, then we can attack Syria too, he reasoned.

I was very worried about this. Though the war on Libya seemed innocent enough, the problem is what these things lead to. In an imperialist power such as the US, they set the stage via the slippery slope for more wars of aggression on whichever other target the imperialists feel like attacking next. It opens a Pandora’s Box. First Libya, next Syria, next Pakistan, next what?

See why I thought this was a bad idea?

Please follow and like us:
error3
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

32 thoughts on “The NATO War on Libya: Way to Go, Idiots”

  1. It’s interesting that, as a paleoconservative, I agree completely with this post. But my impression is that virtually all liberals/democrats/neocons would completely disagree. What does that say about political alignments?

    1. That the left-right axis model of the political spectrum is too simplistic.

      Also, that common sense transcends political affiliations. 🙂

    2. Currently, 2/3 of Americans polled, want the U.S out of NATO operations in Lybia. So, “true” conservatives seem to think like you, for the most part. A Syrian war would be even less popular, I have no doubt.

      1. So are we going to leave? Of course not. Have you noticed that US leadership doesn’t care what US public opinion about a lot of stuff is, in particular in foreign policy? The Republicans are far worse this way, they seriously don’t give a damn about public opinion as a plutocratic party, but the Democrats fall into this too. Look at that Libya poll? Will Obama leave Libya? Hell no. Imperial interests override everything.

  2. It’s ideology. You can be a right wing anti-imperialist or a left wing anti-imperialist
    but you must be an anti-imperialist.

    You are either for the Empire or against it. if you’re for the Empire you’re against the Nation. Even Bob might be confused on this, as the only way any military action at all in Afghanistan could have been sanctioned was a small Special Forces type injection to attempt to find and capture or kill Bin Laden. Also even this action could only be justified
    as an initial phase of withdrawing from Iraq because bin Laden himself clarified his motivation was revenge for the Persian Gulf and Iraq Wars.

    1. Not to defend the Iraq war in any way, shape, or form, but – bin Laden’s main grievance after 9/11 was the presence US troops on Saudi Arabian soil following the Gulf War. According to Paul Wolfowitz in that Vanity Fair interview, one of the considerations involved in regime change in Iraq was addressing that “root cause.” If they got rid of Saddam Hussein, then the US could withdraw its troops from Saudi Arabia. Again, I’m not trying to justify that stupid war, but it was undertaken at least partly as a way of addressing bin Laden’s grievances.

      I wouldn’t worry too much about an attack on Syria, despite all the tough talk. That would be even stupider than attacking LIbya. Syria’s a lot more powerful and important than Libya. I think James Kurth once described America’s foreign policy as idealist towards the weak and realist towards the strong. Libya is weak, Syria is relatively strong. The US hasn’t gone that crazy.

      1. Ok, do we still have troops in Saudi Arabia then? Did we pull them all out?

        I think that Wolfie and the other neocons were motivated to attack Iraq to support Israel. But I do not think that this was Bush’s motivation. He’s not that stupid. Bush was not going to invade Iraq with 350,000 troops all for the Jewish state. No way.

        1. I have no idea whether we still have troops in Saudia Arabia. Who cares, now?

          On motivations, I think the Iraq War was overdetermined (to use a word you lefties like). Israel is always in the background with neocons, especially the Jewish ones, whenever they’re talking about foreign policy.

          I agree with you about Bush. In fact, I’ll see that and raise you one: I think he actually believed the WMD thing. Bush, Cheney et al. never would have consciously lied about that, because they’d have known that the truth would come out as soon as Saddam was overthrown.

          Most anti-Semites blame the whole war on Jewish neocons. Which is fine, I wouldn’t want to take away their fun, but it’s kind of silly. They talk as if Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld just rubber-stamped whatever the neocons put in front of them.

        2. Aaron, the majority of U.S military personnel, bases and equipment are now in the other GCC “Sheikdoms,” such as the UAE, etc. In that regard, Bin Laden got what he wanted.

  3. Bob, They won’t do it.
    Simply because Russia and China who have UN vetoes won’t let them.
    On the other hand the left Gaddafi to hang out and dry.
    Gaddafi was an expendable, inconsequential ass to the Russkies and the Chinee.
    Syria, on the other hand, is a strategic ally.

    1. @Dirty, Filthy, Bull.

      Actually Russia and China had oil contracts with Libya but it is not a strategically important as Syria.

      If Syria falls this could have serious security implications for Russia and open up another direct terrorist pipeline which Lebanon is a major terrorist ground for terrorists fighting against Russia.

    2. The U.S pretty much acts unilaterally nowadays, so I don’t think even the Obama administration would give to shits what the Russians think, if their mind was made up. The Chinese aren’t really relevant to Syria. On the other hand, Syria is an Iranian client state in every sense of the word. That would create problems, combined with the fact that the Syrians are historically much as competent as soldiers than the Libyans. Go in “on the ground” would be collective insanity for U.S and NATO policy makers. It would quickly divulge into a free for all blood bath, with nobody winning(Except maybe Tel Aviv and Tehran).

  4. Russia and China also know the Syrian-Iran alliance and they have biz with Iran as well and assumedly don’t want that friendship complicated.

    1. Russia is close to Syria, not Iran. China is close to Iran, but not to Syria. In the end, Syria is a client state of Iran, and that probably has more than anything to effect the future of the current government of Syria’s future.

  5. Bin Laden turned irrevocably against the House of Saud for allowing US troops to attack another Moslem nation from Saudi soil.

    1. @Ken Hoop

      I think that is a BS myth as Bin Ladin himself was minuscule in regards to the international terror network not a shred of serious evidence to link him to 9/11 and the Bin Ladin and Saudi royal family and billionaire businessmen, the regime in Qatar, Pakistan and other Gulf states as well as Iran with full western intelligence oversight.

      The only provable terrorist attack that can be linked to OSM is the African Embassy bombings which he only financed which was organised and planned years ago by Libyan and Egyptian terrorists in the early 90’s in Sudan.

  6. All of you liberals who supported the war on Libya, now look what you’ve done.”

    Liberals are so full of shit and work had in glove with the right on every foreign policy issue that’s why you get George Soros working with US and British colonial institutions like NED and Republicans abroad.

    In Libya we arm fascist Islamic terrorist militants, blitz Libya committing war crimes and support Arab dictators like by the terrorist regime in Qatar to steal Libya’s oil and sell it abroad.
    A classic definition of colonialism.

    “I was very worried about this. Though the war on Libya seemed innocent enough, the problem is what these things lead to.”

    LOL! Everyone knows that Libya has been targeted by Britain, Israel and the US for decades including launching false flag terrorists attacks like Lockerbie and the Berlin disco bombing against Gadaffi because Gadaffi and Libya opposes and supports anti-Colonialist leadership in Africa.

    This is a great website.

    http://www.btinternet.com/~nlpwessex/Documents/WATgaddafideal.htm

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lb9aFSraUE0

    Libya is just a rehash of Bosnia to the point that it is following the same script.

    Islamic terrorists referenced as rebels. Check.

    Rebels supported by western intelligence and linked to Al Qaeda for years. Check.

    Claim there is a massacre with hyper- inflated numbers including the magical 100,000 number. Check.

    Initiate a no-fly zone in an engineered civil war while smuggling arms, instructors and intelligence to rebel forces. Check.
    Blitz Libya with the NATO air campaign committing war crimes bombing civilian targets. Check.

    Make false genocide and mass rape charges. Check.

    Create puppet terrorist state carved out of sovereign state. Check.

  7. But Aaron, you said that the purpose of the war was to get rid of Saddam so we could pull troops out of Saudi Arabia. If they are still there, then that shows that that was all a lie.

    1. C’mon everyone knows that since the 90’s Jewish Neocons and Israeli have been pushing for the overthrow of Saddam. I don’t see how it benefited the US in any reasonable way.

      Given US foreign policy since the 70’s has been to support Islamic terrorism and insurgencies around the world centred about control of Eurasia which the Balkans serves the major transit routes from the Caspian that bypass Russia, it runs counter to the NWO’s main foreign policy objective.

      Zbignew Brzezinski who has been directing US foreign policy in Europe makes this very clear in his writings and books which are now being re-established to there post 9/11 cooperative stage under the Brzezinski/Obama regime.

      Notice how Obama’s staff is filled with people since the Afghan war were responsible for support jihadist and pushing NATO eastwards.

      Defence secretary Gates and Brzezinski himself admitted to covertly support Afghan jihadist 6 months prior to the Soviet invasion.

      “Le Nouvel Observateur: Former CIA director Robert Gates states in his memoirs: The American secret services began six months before the Soviet intervention to support the Mujahideen [in Afghanistan]. At that time you were president Carters security advisor; thus you played a key role in this affair. Do you confirm this statement?

      Zbigniew Brzezinski: Yes. According to the official version, the CIA’s support for the Mujahideen began in 1980, i.e. after the Soviet army’s invasion of Afghanistan on 24 December 1979. But the reality, which was kept secret until today, is completely different: Actually it was on 3 July 1979 that president Carter signed the first directive for the secret support of the opposition against the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And on the same day I wrote a note, in which I explained to the president that this support would in my opinion lead to a military intervention by the Soviets.”

      http://emperors-clothes.com/interviews/brz.htm

      Terrorist pipeline networks established in Europe by western intelligence since the 90’s were being diverted from Chechnya to support jihadists in Iraq.

    2. I didn’t say that was “the purpose”; I said it was “one of the considerations.” Big difference.

      It was only a lie if they did not intend to withdraw the troops. What later happened doesn’t prove anything. It does not look like a lie.

      Here’s Wolfowitz from the DoD transcript of the 2003 interview:

      There are a lot of things that are different now, and one that has gone by almost unnoticed–but it’s huge–is that by complete mutual agreement between the U.S. and the Saudi government we can now remove almost all of our forces from Saudi Arabia. Their presence there over the last 12 years has been a source of enormous difficulty for a friendly government. It’s been a huge recruiting device for al Qaeda. In fact if you look at bin Laden, one of his principle grievances was the presence of so-called crusader forces on the holy land, Mecca and Medina. I think just lifting that burden from the Saudis is itself going to open the door to other positive things.

  8. John UK

    Israel originally funded Hamas to offset Fatah. Some in the Israeli establishment
    argued against it, that long-term religious nationalism was more of a danger than secular nationalism.

    Hamas got out of Israeli control. See the analogy? Or perhaps you believe it as well
    is still being puppeted around.

    1. “Israel originally funded Hamas to offset Fatah.”

      That was Golda Meir’s idea and its worked like a charm. A harmless enemy which can justify an indefinite occupation.

    1. I am actually glad Boehner is doing that.

      Both parties are prisoner to the Pentagon War Machine and US imperial doctrine, which periodically demands wars for this or that.

      1. Looks like the Dems may be starting to usurp the traditionally Republican status as the War Party.

        Well, as Stephen Walt pointed out, Democrats are really no better in this regard than Republicans.

        The way I see it, both Democrats and Republicans are two wings of the same vulture.

        Don’t know how I’ll vote in 2012.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.