@annie @2 – http://www.moonofalabama.org/2011/04/the-coming-invasion-of-libya.html
HRW data

Posted by: b | Apr 20 2011 15:43 utc | 3

b, I’ve been pessimistic from the beginning, convinced that there would be an inevitable escalation in front of Gaddafi’s regime’s resilience, and that the destruction of Libia would have been the result, the only alternative being an unacceptable political debacle for Sarkozy, Cameron and Clinton-Obama;
but: the regime is so resilient, and the rebels so inept and untrustworthy, that the aggressors (at least the majority of them) at this point would gladly settle for the minimum face-saving objective: “get rid” of Gaddafi; the fact that Gaddafi doesn’t hold any official post might make things more difficult, or easier, I don’t know;
so I begin to see a ray of hope; the NYT op-ed by Obama, Sarkozy and Cameron reaffirmed the goal to see Gaddafi gone, but also posed limits to the allies: it gave the “official” interpretation of the Un resolution, that is, that it didn’t allow regime change; it referred generically to “a new generation of leaders”; it affirmed that the future of the Libyan regime was an internal affair, in terms that allowed a great latitude: practically, gone Gaddafi, anything could happen, based on that op-ed, even the continuation of the same regime under the rule of one of his sons! and the day after, we had that long interview (or rather, monologue? or op-ed?) on the WP with Said Gaddafi; now, can you imagine an interview with the closest aide of Saddam Hussein, or mullah Omar, or Milosevic, or Aristide, after the war / regime change intervention had begun?
even the arrangement between Libya and the Red Cross over Misrata could be read that way; they wouldn’t have allowed it, if eager to escalate
I hope I’m not deluding myself, but maybe a way out non too humiliating for anyone is slowly taking shape; military counselors, etc, if this scenario is realistic, would serve the objectives of “putting pressure” on Gaddafi but maybe even more on the rebels, rather then be the beginning of an escalation (of course they could always become such)

Posted by: claudio | Apr 20 2011 18:12 utc | 5

Mission creep indeed. I agree b,it’s only a matter of time. With boots on the ground already (advisors), I say within a month or two, the west will be in bigtime.

Posted by: ben | Apr 20 2011 19:10 utc | 7

Pretty sure this whole escapade was envisioned as it’s currently rolling out. Libya looked so irresistibly ripe for a shiny new lily pad in North Africa and with the rebels so willing to pull the Trojan horse home to Tripoli, they just couldn’t resist the temptation.
One has to wonder then, is there a Libyan Muqtada al-Sadr spoiler waiting in the wings? Remember, absolutely no one knew who he was before the invasion of Iraq.

Posted by: anna missed | Apr 20 2011 20:43 utc | 9

What does Russia get out of this gambit? They abstained, then allowing the resolution to pass. China abstained as well, but Morocco Bama sees a method in their vote.
Did Russia decide to let the US and the West run through more of their wealth, in both blood and treasure?

Posted by: jawbone | Apr 20 2011 22:05 utc | 11

i prefer ‘mission creeps’
if air strikes is a act of war…ground troops is even more so..How long can the lie of ‘humanitarian intervention’ before the public wakes up that they ARE being lied to?

Posted by: brian | Apr 20 2011 22:16 utc | 13

Uncounted – Clint Curtis: Million Dollar Programmer
Be sure to see ‘the rest of the story‘ in my posts, 42 through 44 and their various links…
I, like others, will not be putting to much more energy in following this through, as it has become detrimental to my health, reading and following this never ending fraud, treason, calculating malice and the continued unwavering corruption that is now so ubiquitous no one even bats and eye, and the worse part? No one seems to even care, except the ones whom has no voice, power or say. Having sd, that, I’d love to hear what the mooners would have to say with regards the above.

Posted by: Uncle $cam | Apr 20 2011 22:58 utc | 15

@14 “Rather it was the shame of allowing a repeat of Saddam’s suppression of the Shi’a revolt in 1991.”
I’m not following your reasoning, are you saying that something held back the West from stopping Saddam’s Republican Guard from slaughtering Shia’s in southern Iraq after the Shia’s were encouraged to rise up by GW Bush senior? So this shame of 1991, why did it not kick in in 1994 during the Rwanda genocide? Ok, maybe it is was 2 early, how about from 1998-2004 when over 4 million of Congo’s citizens were being killed, mostly bu the Ugandan and Rwanda militar and proxy forces (key Western allies)?
Is it b/c it is Africa south of the Sahara? So the West’s ‘shame’ is going to kick in 2011 to save how many Libyan’s? Did you say 1, 2,3 thousand (shit who is counting make it 25), so 25 thousand Libyan’s are going to be saved from a ‘meglomaniac’ (why are the ‘bad’ guys always mental? … not cool, cold and bloody murderers like, well Obama and Sarko) and pray tell how are they going to be ‘saved’? Yes, an invasion, so even if you believe the bs about humanitarian concerns for Africa only NORTH of the Sahara then b’s contention that a ground invasion was a part of the plan comes to center stage … where we should be.
I would suggest that it is way to narrow of a view to see the war on Libya in personal terms or simply about ‘saving’ this or that …. the game is much deeper and the stakes are very high, with a future body count from the saviors bombs that will make any ‘savings’ in Libya look like pennies in my pocket.

Posted by: Minerva | Apr 20 2011 23:54 utc | 17

alexno the ignorant..:
‘Gaddafi is a pretty nasty megalomaniac. I doubt he has very much support other than his tribe and his money’
Well gadafi has massive suppotr esp in west and south Libya.
as for’ nasty megalomaniac? jeez: what do you base your misinfo on:
‘On February 16, 2009, Gaddafi took a step further and called on Libyans to back his proposal to dismantle the government and to distribute the oil wealth directly to the 5 million inhabitants of the country.
However, his plan to deliver oil revenues directly to the Libyan people met opposition by senior officials who could lose their jobs due to a parallel plan by Gaddafi to rid the state of corruption.
Some officials, including Prime Minister Al-Baghdadi, Ali Al-Mahmoudi and Farhat Omar Bin Guida, of the Central Bank, told Gaddafi that the measure could harm the country’s economy in the long term due to “capital flight.”
“Do not be afraid to directly redistribute the oil money and create fairer governance structures that respond to people’s interests,” Gaddafi said in a Popular Committee.
The Popular Committees are the backbone of Libya. Through them citizens are represented at the district level.
“The Administration has failed and the state’s economy has failed. Enough is enough. The solution is for the Libyan people to directly receive oil revenues and decide what to do with them,” Gaddafi said in a speech broadcast on state television. To this end, the Libyan leader urged a radical reform of government bureaucracy.
Despite this, senior Libyan government officials voted to delay Gaddafi’s plans. Only 64 ministers from a total of 468 Popular Committee members voted for the measure. There were 251 who saw the measures as positive, but chose to delay their implementation.
Given the rejection of the Committee, Gaddafi affirmed before a public meeting: “My dream during all these years was to give the power and wealth directly to the people.”
So…another big LIE falls by the wayside, the false image of Ghaddafi the dictator who robs from his people.
http://redantliberationarmy.wordpress.com/2011/03/27/reason-for-war-gaddafi-wanted-to-nationalise-oil/
most westerners know little to nothing aboput Gadaffi, and trhat makes them prime targets for he official MSM propaganda

Posted by: brian | Apr 21 2011 0:39 utc | 19

What does Russia get out of this? Same thing as Osama Bin Laden. Another quagmire for the virtually bankrupt “international community,” perhaps sparking a crisis similar to the one that led to the collapse of the Soviet Union.
If you’re a Russian, revenge is so, so sweet. What’s not to like about the cash starved US taking on more and more expensive foreign obligations?

Posted by: JohnH | Apr 21 2011 4:27 utc | 21

Inside a Dying Empire

This can’t end well.
But then, how often do empires end well, really? They live vampirically by feeding off others until, sooner or later, they begin to feed on themselves, to suck their own blood, to hollow themselves out. Sooner or later, they find themselves, as in our case, economically stressed and militarily extended in wars they can’t afford to win or lose.
Historians have certainly written about the dangers of overextended empires and of endless war as a way of life, but there’s something distant and abstract about the patterns of history. It’s quite another thing to take it in when you’re part of it; when, as they used to say in the overheated 1960s, you’re in the belly of the beast.
I don’t know what it felt like to be inside the Roman Empire in the long decades, even centuries, before it collapsed, or to experience the waning years of the Spanish empire, or the twilight of the Qing dynasty, or of Imperial Britain as the sun first began to set, or even of the Soviet Empire before the troops came slinking home from Afghanistan, but at some point it must have seemed at least a little like this — truly strange, like watching a machine losing its parts. It must have seemed as odd and unnerving as it does now to see a formerly mighty power enter a state of semi-paralysis at home even as it staggers on blindly with its war-making abroad.

Posted by: DeAnander | Apr 21 2011 6:32 utc | 23

It would be useful to change your trained perspective on this issue. Many of you are still thinking in terms of Nation-States, and I would suggest that it is an antiquated and inappropriate filter. Nation-States are now likened to skins the moneyed-elite can put on and take off when the situation warrants. Russia is a prime example. The Soviet Union collapses, i.e. a skin is not only taken off but discarded and the moneyed-elite quickly pick the remnants of the old skin to sew a new one that pays significant returns at the expense of the new skin’s integrity.
Remember Larry Summers in Post-Soviet Collapse Russia? Remember Larry Summers in collapsing United States? Watching what happened in Russia…..the fall of the Soviet Union and the unprecedented rise of the Oligarchs sealed the deal for me. I realized that my filter for perceiving the events was all wrong and it could not, and did not, provide adequate explanations and reconciliations of obvious contradictions. Once I changed my filter, my perspective, the contradictions reconciled and it made sense.
Several years ago, I returned to the place of my birth, Philadelphia, Pa.. Folks in Pennsylvania were as devout Anti-Communists as any place in the USA. Everywhere I looked, there were Lukoil gas stations. They were ubiquitous. It made me laugh, hysterically. This former bastion of Anti-Communism was not only doing business with the Communists, but now they were working for the Communists. My former perspective would not have been able to reconcile this insanity. My current perspective easily reconciles it. The Philadelphia dopes don’t even know what Lukoil is, nor do they care….because they’ve not been told to care, or trained to care. Contradictions don’t even register on their radar, because there is no radar. Notice the Red…….and the employees wearing it. Is that not a rub in the face, or what? Clueless….the Global Oligarchs are having their laugh at the dolt’s expense….with a nod, nudge and smirk amongst one another…whilst saying to each other about their dutiful servants “what a bunch of Maroons!”
http://www.lukoilamericas.com/

Posted by: Morocco Bama | Apr 21 2011 12:05 utc | 25

Morocco–
You nailed it. The world is still being run by the monied who treat the nations they own like fighting pit bulls. It’s all a game to them because the real power/wealth is all held in the same hands. Everyone below is scrambling like mad to climb a polished glass rod while those sitting at the top watch and laugh and occasionally pour a little oil down the sides – just to keep it interesting, you know.
Peace

Posted by: DaveS | Apr 21 2011 13:02 utc | 27

this is total bullshit:
“Rather it was the shame of allowing a repeat of Saddam’s suppression of the Shi’a revolt in 1991.”
There was no one in power in America in 1991 — or since — who felt any shame, or regret, or guilt about what they allowed to happen. They did not give a rat’s ass about these people being killed.
Just as today they do not give a rat’s ass about what is happening in Bahrain to peaceful protesters.
And they do not give a rat’s ass about the people of Libya either. To suggest otherwise is delusional at best, and sickly evil at worst.

Posted by: Susan | Apr 22 2011 6:15 utc | 29