Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
CapitalistSwine

Libya Updates

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Two sources I found:

http://www.presstv.ir/detail/167814.html

http://mondoweiss.net/2011/03/report-israel-company-recruiting-gadhafi-mercenaries.html

The original source I was originally linked to, which I believed to have a biased writer, since it didn't bother to mention that a contracting company was involved, and what prompted me to look up other links:

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/03/03/gordon-duff-israel-intervenes-in-libya-for-gaddafi/

I hope to find some more renowned news sites posting information on this to ensure this is completely accurate, I will post any that I find, if nothing else, my post contains some good information on other events in Libya if this isn't further substantiated.

------------------------------

Other relevant, related, recent news for those that have been busy and haven't been able to keep up to date:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/feb/28/many-libyans-oppose-us-invasion/

The following Google Map is tracking significant events in Libya as they happen:

http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?source=embed&hl=en&geocode=&aq=&ie=UTF8&msa=0&msid=215454646984933465708.00049c59184ae1136341a&t=h&ll=28.539164,17.464045&spn=8.711661,12.994689

Who owns what territory in Libya (Revolutionaries vs. Govt.) MAP

http://imgur.com/gallery/jAyWo

"Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, one of the top advocates of the military occupation, insisted that Libya could “become a peaceful democracy, or it could face protracted civil war” depending on whether or not the US chose to intervene militarily."

http://www.khaleejtimes.com/DisplayArticle09.asp?xfile=data/international/2011/March/international_March59.xml§ion=international

Most discussion has been about enforcing a no-fly zone through NATO, and if there is an invasion in the future, that it will likely be spearheaded by the United States.

The US has been bringing its warships ever closer to the Libyan coast while announcing a broad asset freeze against Gadhafi, including demands that he immediately resign. The reality of Gadhafi’s already tenuous position, however, makes the threats have very little impact.

"Top Pentagon official Gen. James Mattis also told the Senate the military was preparing to bomb Libya’s air defense systems to set the stage for a “no-fly” zone. This would be particularly problematic as the indications are virtually all of the air defense systems, outside of the capital city of Tripoli, are under the control of the rebels, and have been used against Gadhafi’s warplanes."

Today:

Rebels successfully repel attack in eastern Libya

http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/node/687456

This post edited at poster's request

Edited by SapereAude

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was trying to filter the crazy in the articles down to a statement I could reasonably accept as a possibility, but the more I try, the wackier the whole thing seems.

First question that pops in my head: Where will these soldiers come from?

Certainly not Israel. No one's gonna send 50 thousand (or a thousand or even 50) IDF soldiers to fight anywhere, publicly (obviously) or in secret (can't keep something like this a secret here, it's too big) and there are no private armies here.

An Israeli security company is what, 50 people tops? Hell, let's say a hundred - it's a big company. These are not the people who will do the fighting. They will fix up operations or do the training. This is a process that takes years.

Suppose that all the equipment is there, all facilities have been built, the recruits are sufficient and willing, all trainers are motivated and capable and everything else resolves itself in the most optimal fashion (meaning that Libya already is the most efficient country on earth and therefore should have no need in foreign advisors), we're still talking about at least two months before you can use those recruits for the most basic of tasks, and I'm not even talking about combat.

They (the company) could have a pre-trained army of course, formed from your usual pick of outlaws, scalawags and rapscallions gathered from all across the great Middle East or Africa or the Caribbean or whatever, but how large can such an army realisticly be before it pops on everyone's radars? What kind of equipment could they have and how would they transport it? And themselves?

Suppose it's just a modest thousand people, each armed with just an assault rifle and a few magazines (the all-powerful wizard Qaddafi has already conjured up everything else that they would require on site: the vehicles, the gear, the facilities, service staff, etc). How do you get them to Libya? A wing of cargo planes? A cruise ship? A hundred tour buses? The Marakesh express?

And what good is a professional soldier against a civil uprising anyway? A thousand thugs with guns would be times more efficient and cheap (see: Iran - these fellows seem to get by without the aid of the Zionist Entity and its dark servants). You don't need a doctorate in soldiering to mow down a crowd with a machine gun. You can trust me on this - I'm Russian. :thumbsup:

I wiki'd Blackwater to see how many people they employ. Naturally I couldn't find even a ballpark figure, but some quote from 5 years ago claims that one of their guys claimed to be able to offer up to a brigade (3,000-5,000 people, apparently). Even if we assume that the quote is true and further, that in the time that has passed business was so good that they're grown to twice the size, it would still mean 10,000 troops at a time. Tops.

So:

Would it be likely for an Israeli security company (even one backed by the Israeli gov't) to have five (or ten) times the resources of Blackwater?

Would it be likely for Qaddafi to hire someone - anyone - to begin forming or reforming his army right the hell now?

Would I have started writing this post had I known how long it would turn out to be? I guess we will never know. But if I'll have to take I guess, I know what I would answer to all three. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was trying to filter the crazy in the articles down to a statement I could reasonably accept as a possibility, but the more I try, the wackier the whole thing seems.

First question that pops in my head: Where will these soldiers come from?

Certainly not Israel. No one's gonna send 50 thousand (or a thousand or even 50) IDF soldiers to fight anywhere, publicly (obviously) or in secret (can't keep something like this a secret here, it's too big) and there are no private armies here.

An Israeli security company is what, 50 people tops? Hell, let's say a hundred - it's a big company. These are not the people who will do the fighting. They will fix up operations or do the training. This is a process that takes years.

Suppose that all the equipment is there, all facilities have been built, the recruits are sufficient and willing, all trainers are motivated and capable and everything else resolves itself in the most optimal fashion (meaning that Libya already is the most efficient country on earth and therefore should have no need in foreign advisors), we're still talking about at least two months before you can use those recruits for the most basic of tasks, and I'm not even talking about combat.

They (the company) could have a pre-trained army of course, formed from your usual pick of outlaws, scalawags and rapscallions gathered from all across the great Middle East or Africa or the Caribbean or whatever, but how large can such an army realisticly be before it pops on everyone's radars? What kind of equipment could they have and how would they transport it? And themselves?

Suppose it's just a modest thousand people, each armed with just an assault rifle and a few magazines (the all-powerful wizard Qaddafi has already conjured up everything else that they would require on site: the vehicles, the gear, the facilities, service staff, etc). How do you get them to Libya? A wing of cargo planes? A cruise ship? A hundred tour buses? The Marakesh express?

And what good is a professional soldier against a civil uprising anyway? A thousand thugs with guns would be times more efficient and cheap (see: Iran - these fellows seem to get by without the aid of the Zionist Entity and its dark servants). You don't need a doctorate in soldiering to mow down a crowd with a machine gun. You can trust me on this - I'm Russian. :thumbsup:

I wiki'd Blackwater to see how many people they employ. Naturally I couldn't find even a ballpark figure, but some quote from 5 years ago claims that one of their guys claimed to be able to offer up to a brigade (3,000-5,000 people, apparently). Even if we assume that the quote is true and further, that in the time that has passed business was so good that they're grown to twice the size, it would still mean 10,000 troops at a time. Tops.

So:

Would it be likely for an Israeli security company (even one backed by the Israeli gov't) to have five (or ten) times the resources of Blackwater?

Would it be likely for Qaddafi to hire someone - anyone - to begin forming or reforming his army right the hell now?

Would I have started writing this post had I known how long it would turn out to be? I guess we will never know. But if I'll have to take I guess, I know what I would answer to all three. :D

Well done good sir, apparently I had a period that lacked critical thinking earlier today. :D I've requested the thread title get changed to Libya Updates and fix that part of the post.

Edited by CapitalistSwine

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well done good sir, apparently I had a period that lacked critical thinking earlier today. :D I've requested the thread title get changed to Libya Updates and fix that part of the post.

Thanks. :)

For what it's worth, I'm sure there's at least a couple of Israelis that are profiting off of Libya one way or the other.

That third link was weird, I can't keep track of what side supports who anymore. :confused:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like the US military is about to fight another war with its hands tied behind its back, thanks to a UN Security Council authorizing the limited use of force.

There's no way Qaddafi can be removed withing the limits of that resolution. If the Republican Congress agrees to authorize the use of force, based on this, they're just as inept as Obama.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not up to us to remove him. That's for the opposition to do, if they are able. All the west needs to do is nullify his air and armor superiority. He has 300 MIG 21 and 25 fighters - no match for NATO at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why does "the West" need to do this? And if "we need to do this," then why not go all the way and take out the dictator? Makes no sense. Why not say on that "It's not up to us to nullify his air and armor superiority. That's for the opposition to do, if they are able."?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because he is a dictator and therefore his regime is illegitimate.

But that is a non sequitur because a non-”not to be invaded” is not the same as a positive “ought to be invaded.” So again, why should the US need to do this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The UN is taking the right step, it is just unfortunate it took them a month of Libyan slaughter to come to a decision. I also would have preferred it if Obama would have had a strong position on this instead of waffling the sideline like he has been with all of these recent crises in that region. The Rebels made significant strides early on but as of this morning only held 2 cities in the east, and as such, were losing the battle for all intents and purposes. Having that dictator stay in power is of no benefit to anyone.I would prefer the US did not get fully involved in the unseating and transfer of power, but rather assist these other countries in assisting in taking out the main professional aspect of their military force (the armor and aircraft) that the rebels cannot handle themselves. They are more than willing to do the dirty work on the ground, which cannot be said of some of the other citizens in countries where this issue has come up before and we had to make a decision. As was stated before, we should stop their ability to massacre their own population. What happens after that is up to the Libyans.

In other words, the US does not NEED to do anything, but it would probably be in our benefit in the long term to assist at least in this aspect, particularly since the Libyan's have been calling for outside help since shortly after this began.

Looks like the US military is about to fight another war with its hands tied behind its back, thanks to a UN Security Council authorizing the limited use of force.

There's no way Qaddafi can be removed withing the limits of that resolution. If the Republican Congress agrees to authorize the use of force, based on this, they're just as inept as Obama.

Perhaps you should read more on what is actually going on first. Obama has no intention of spearheading this with our military, nor does the Pentagon. Second, this is not a full-fledged war, it is setting up a no flight zone, which is something very very different. Third, we hardly have our hands tied, we don't even need to use humans in combat zones to play an effective role in this. The Pentagon stated we are likely to employ unmanned drones, arming rebels, and signal jamming. I am not sure how excluding "a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory," equates to having our hands tied. There is no reason we should even have to put ground troops in there, this is Libya, not Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. The country already had lost half their cities to rebels, and we have multi-national military support.

Edited by CapitalistSwine

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But that is a non sequitur because a non-”not to be invaded” is not the same as a positive “ought to be invaded.” So again, why should the US need to do this?

The US is not doing this in a vacuum. It serves no good purpose to leave this madman in charge. He has already indirectly attacked the US, remember the Lockerbie incident? He supports terrorism, and has, in the recent past, harbored WMDs, which he gave up because he was afraid of Bush. He has no fear of Obama, who should have taken out his air and armor when this started. It is in the best interests of both the US and the EU to have a friendly government in place in Lybia, considering their oil fields. This has to be approached from a position of geo-political reality, rather than from hypothetical idealism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not intrinsically opposed to any military action in Libya, depending on whether or not it protects us and keeps us free. I can be convinced. I just don't think any of the reasons provided as of yet are sound.

1. Having the dictator in power is of no benefit to anyone. / It serves no good purpose to leave the madman in charge

There may not be any benefits to having him in power, this of course is the case with any dictatorship, but that still doesn't tell us why it benefits us to intervene militarily. There are dictators everywhere. This reason would have us invade both them and anyone else who wasn't “beneficial to anyone/us.” However, we don't need to invade them unless they pose a physical threat to our lives and freedom. (That is the standard I am using to measure these reasons, by the way.)

2. We should get involved, but not fully involved.

Why not? Again, if the entire grounds for getting involved is that Kaddafi is in power and needs to not be in power, why not simply go in unilaterally and take him out as quickly as possible?

3. the US does not NEED to do anything, but it would probably be in our benefit in the long term to assist

But this assumes that which it needs to prove. Would it be in our benefit (protecting our lives and freedom, specifically)? That is what you have to show, so simply stating it isn't a reason. (Not that you probably were intending to prove it here, but I'm just saying.)

4. The Libyans want us to help.

Which Libyans? Some of them are pretty adamant about having no foreign intervention whatsoever. Some of them say “No foreign intervention, but we want a no-fly zone,” which is contradictory. (Installing a no-fly zone is a foreign intervention in itself, plus it would involve an attack and invasion of Libya.) Other Libyans say that we should have intervened yesterday. Which ones should we listen to? The majority? How do we know what the majority wants? And since when is that objective? Clearly, this entire reason is altruistic anyway, because if it were truly a matter of our self-protection, then it wouldn't matter one ounce whether they wanted it or not. And if the standard is only our benefit, then why should it matter anyway?

5. He supports terrorism, and has, in the recent past, harbored WMDs, which he gave up because he was afraid of Bush.

But he gave these things up and paid blood money to the families of the victims, so this point is entirely moot. We should only invade him if he is a threat to our lives and freedom, which he wasn't when we were friendly to him prior to this whole thing.

6. It is in the best interests of both the US and the EU to have a friendly government in place in Lybia, considering their oil fields.

But considering their oil is sold primarily to the EU, shouldn't the EU invade them then, if it wants? Why the US, considering it has no effect on us whatsoever, with regard to oil? Why doesn't Italy invade them? After all, they were a former Italian colony. Why doesn't France invade them, since they appear to be the most outraged at the situation?

Secondly, there are plenty of non-friendly governments to the US, yet you are not advocating we invade them simply because they are “unfriendly.” France isn't known the be friendly to us, but again, they aren't attacking us and neither is Libya. And anyway, the Kaddafi government was actually friendly to us until this thing started, as mentioned, and would probably be friendly to us if we left them alone. Surely then, this can't be an objective reason for invading them or anyone.

7. This has to be approached from a position of geo-political reality, rather than from hypothetical idealism.

But there is no moral-practical dichotomy, so this statement is unjustifiably pragmatic. Either there is a good reason to invade, or there isn't.

All in all, the entire reason for invading appears to be altruistic. A dictator is killing the rebels. It's bad. We have to intervene for “humanitarian reasons.” But if Kaddafi killed every last rebel (or vice versa for that matter) down to the last man, and left only supporters alive, would it mean a damn thing to our lives and freedom? The truth is: no it wouldn't mean a damn thing either way.

Edited by 2046

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The UN is taking the right step,

This is not something I would agree with very often, but I think you're absolutely right. I also think Hillary Clinton has been the lone voice of reason, from the US policy community...something else you won't hear me say very often.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All in all, the entire reason for invading appears to be altruistic. A dictator is killing the rebels. It's bad. We have to intervene for “humanitarian reasons.” But if Kaddafi killed every last rebel (or vice versa for that matter) down to the last man, and left only supporters alive, would it mean a damn thing to our lives and freedom? The truth is: no it wouldn't mean a damn thing either way.

This is exactly why hard core fundamentalist Objectivists are considered to be heartless bastards, and why it will never catch on with the wider public.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is exactly why hard core fundamentalist Objectivists are considered to be heartless bastards, and why it will never catch on with the wider public.

Okay. Cool story. That still doesn't tell us why invading Libya is good for us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about oil?

Obama the Pathetic" by Dr. Hurd

Edit to add:

Quoting from Dr. Hurd, "In any dysfunctional situation, the key question is always to ask: "What's being ignored? What's not being talked about?" In dysfunctional families, it's called the elephant in the living room -- the thing that's there, but nobody in charge will ever mention. In the case of Libya, and elsewhere in the Middle East, it's the oil."

Edited by Trebor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay. Cool story. That still doesn't tell us why invading Libya is good for us.

Sarcastic much? We aren't invading Lybia. We are the only one capable of providing the necessary logistical support for the imposition of a no fly zone around the last rebel stronghold. Why would we do this? To prevent the indiscriminate slaughter of the civilian population by Gaddafi's hired mercenaries and loyal military. I would hope you have enough remaining human decency to see why this would be a desirable course of action?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For a fascinating and informative lecture on the history of the development of the oil industry including the development of the Middle East oil fields, here's Alex Epstein's lecture, free to listen and download, at ARCTV: "The Triumph and Tragedy of the Oil Industry" .

Part 1: 77:05

Part 2: 91:34

Part 3: 85:30

From the description:

"Recorded Summer 2008—Born out of scientific and inventive genius, and brought to the masses by entrepreneurs like John D. Rockefeller, the oil industry took a seemingly useless substance and transformed it into an incalculable value to men’s lives. And yet with all the glory it has brought man, the oil industry has been vilified, strangled, looted since its inception.

“The Triumph and Tragedy of the Oil Industry” tells the story of how scientists, inventors, engineers and, above all, businessmen transformed black glop into black gold—into the fuel that would power man’s transportation by car, boat, truck, airplane, space shuttle. It tells the story of how this glorious achievement has been undercut by bad philosophy and bad politicians cashing in on its spoils. Finally, it chronicles the oil industry’s own role in its destruction, and how it has managed to keep producing and profiting despite huge regulations against it."

Edited by Trebor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about oil?

Obama the Pathetic" by Dr. Hurd

Edit to add:

Quoting from Dr. Hurd, "In any dysfunctional situation, the key question is always to ask: "What's being ignored? What's not being talked about?" In dysfunctional families, it's called the elephant in the living room -- the thing that's there, but nobody in charge will ever mention. In the case of Libya, and elsewhere in the Middle East, it's the oil."

That would be a valid reason, but the fact is that we literally import next to nothing in oil from Libya, and that would likely not change. Basically, if there is any American property or interests worth defending, then that would be a valid reason, but there doesn't appear to be any such there. In any event, certainly if we intended to just take all of their oil and turn it over to private investors while tell Kaddafi to screw off, then that could be justified. But that is obviously not what we are doing, not what the UN is doing, and wouldn't happen. So again, there doesn't appear to be any valid reason for supporting this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sarcastic much? We aren't invading Lybia. We are the only one capable of providing the necessary logistical support for the imposition of a no fly zone around the last rebel stronghold. Why would we do this? To prevent the indiscriminate slaughter of the civilian population by Gaddafi's hired mercenaries and loyal military.

So, as I said, the rationale is entirely altruistic.

I would hope you have enough remaining human decency to see why this would be a desirable course of action?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_emotion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, you would advocate simply standing by and doing nothing? I hope I'm never in serious trouble and you're the only one nearby who could help.

In order for this operation to be altruistic, as you assume, it would mean that we get nothing out of the deal other than feeling good about ourselves. I propose that preserving the free flow of oil into Europe, maintaing their economy and, by extension, ours, is in our best interests. From a moral standpoint, preventing the slaughter of innocent lives increases our standing in the world, which has suffered greatly up to this point by Obama's prevarication.

We may not be the "world's policemen" as some have put it, but we did assume a leadership role in the world after WWII. To abdicate that responsibility and retreat into Isolationism would create a power vacuum, into which China would gladly step.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am sorry but anyone that thinks intervention in Libya is about the oil is a moron and doesn't understand the details of Libya or our oil situation, Phd or not. This is a normal cry from liberals and other non-interventionists. They were wrong about it when it came to Iraq and they are wrong about it now. Perhaps they can push the concept into their skulls eventually that there may be more reasons (many, in fact, although not necessarily from an Oist perspective) operations in the Middle-East other than simply killing terrorists and hording oil. There is also the fact that Libya doesn't even hit the top 10 list of oil imports.

1. Canada

2. Mexico

3. Saudi Arabia

4. Venezuela

5. Nigeria

6. Angola

7. Iraq

8. Algeria

9. United Kingdom

10. Brazil

^--This also ignores the fact we could easily pull more oil from our own country if we didn't have so many idiots in control of that decision.

There can be numerous benefits for our action in Libya, and this is enhanced further by the fact that we are not the sole operator in this event, nor even one of the spearheading countries. We are providing support but not nearly as much as people seem to, for whatever reason, think we are. There are military, economic, and political concerns here and our being a part of this effort, no less in the fasihon we seem to plan to be, does not really seem to have a downside.

There also seems to be a great deal of confusion about what enforcing a no-fly zone actually means in real terms. It is not akin to an actual invasion in any way, shape, or form. It requires a different level of logistics, different equipment, and there is a much lower chance of lives being lost etc. I also don't understand where this suggestion that the Libyan's wanting a no-fly zone enforced but no foreign invasion is a contradiction. I have heard this numerous times but no one has explained the logic behind this statement to me. It seems to me, rather, that those suggesting this have little understanding of what a no fly zone is.

As far as this world police thing goes, I could care less about that role and I think we can still have a sensible military function without seceding the power vacuum completely to China as has been suggested here. That seems like a false dichotomy to me.

As an aside, an Objectivist I know brought up the idea of "The Arab League can enforce their own damn no-fly zone, thank you very much. Saudi Arabia spends more per capita on military expenditures than any other nation. The 22 member nations could field a perfectly capable coalition air force." but I have not thought much on this as I only just recently saw this so I won't comment on it right now .

Edited by CapitalistSwine

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was trying to filter the crazy in the articles down to a statement I could reasonably accept as a possibility, but the more I try, the wackier the whole thing seems.

First question that pops in my head: Where will these soldiers come from?

They come from Chad and northern Nigeria. Non-arabic populations make better armies, thus Qadafy's success to date.

edit: The mercenaries are real, the Isreali connection most likely is made up.

I would not assume that it is to America's benefit for Qadafy to be eliminated. We had that loon in a box, he was making nice and bribing his way though western politicians and academics. Who knows what will replace him? Oh well, too late to make nice now.

Somebody who can make a decision should .... ah moot point these days. Nobody wants to make decisions.

Edited by Grames

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, you would advocate simply standing by and doing nothing?

I would support any effort that 1) did not put our people in harms way whatsoever, and 2) we would be financially reimbursed for in totality.

Beyond that I have to agree with 2046. No matter what your and my feelings are on this, anything more would be an act of altruism. Using money taken from people against their will in order to finance putting American lives at risk to depose a dictator so the people of Libya can install a new and improved…evil, authoritarian, muslim despot. Let's not forget how Gaddafi gained power in the first place, through revolution with the hopes and promises of a republic.

In order for this operation to be altruistic, as you assume, it would mean that we get nothing out of the deal other than feeling good about ourselves. I propose that preserving the free flow of oil into Europe, maintaing their economy and, by extension, ours, is in our best interests.

I propose that Europe has far more at stake than we, and that they are more than capable of handling Libya without us.

From a moral standpoint, preventing the slaughter of innocent lives increases our standing in the world, which has suffered greatly up to this point by Obama's prevarication.

There is nothing moral about letting our people die and our money be wasted so that we can…look better.

We may not be the "world's policemen" as some have put it, but we did assume a leadership role in the world after WWII.

Included in that was moral leadership, I think we will agree. I would argue that we should lead by standing up for the right morality, not mimic the de facto morality of the collectivists of the world.

To abdicate that responsibility and retreat into Isolationism would create a power vacuum, into which China would gladly step.

Is anyone suggesting all out isolationism? I think we can appear strong and decisive without running to the aid of every country that falls apart.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...