SHARE THIS SHOW:
RECENTLY ON TOL:
TOL Our Town
- A tumblr site dedicated to the people and places that make up Oregon and Southwest Washington.
TAGS:
Over the weekend, Oregonians — along with the rest of the world — took in the news that U.S. and European forces began enforcing a no-fly zone in Libya. This comes after a month of protests in the North African country, calling for the ouster of longtime leader Muammar Gadhafi. Gadhafi supporters have also taken to the streets.
One of the big questions about the situation in Libya is: is it war? The term "civil war" has been widely used to describe the fighting among the Libyan people. What is less clear is whether or not the military intervention should be considered a war.
As the situation unfolds, Oregonians are debating whether the U.S. should be involved in Libya or not. An anti-war protest marking the eighth anniversary of the war in Iraq drew people from around the region, some of whom decried President Obama's decision to help enforce the no-fly zone. But a group of Libyan-Americans gathered in Portland recently to voice their support for U.S. involvement in their home country.
Do you have a connection to Libya? Do you have family there? What's your reaction to the fighting among Libyan citizens? What do you think about the no-fly zone? Have you participated in a demonstration for or against U.S. involvement in Libya?
GUESTS:
- Ahmed Abraibesh: Owner of Clogs N More stores in Portland, grew up in Bengazi and left Libya in 1977
- Paul Sullivan: Professor of economics at the National Defense University and an adjunct professor of Security Studies at Georgetown University
- Will Seaman: Volunteer with Portland Peaceful Response Coalition and a mechanical engineer for Hewlett Packard
Photo credit: Omar Chatriwala / Creative Commons
-
Crazy or smart as a fox?
Hard to believe an insane person could stay in power that long.
-
Three answers to your question.
#1: Oil
#2: Oil
#3: Oil
by the way, did I mention oil?
-
Libya contributes less than 2% to the world's oil supply. Most of Libya's oil goes to Italy and central Europe.
-
The oil in Lybia is very high quality light sweet crude. It makes 4 times the diesel of lesser grades that are more common from the middle east; and Oil is the chief reason that Lybia accepted once again after Lockerbie and the last war we had there. Oil, even 2% of the worlds supply, is always valuable; and I think you would find that there is more there in Lybia than in the Alaskan Wildlife refuge they ae so anxious to drill in Alaska.
-
Whether you agree or disagree with the U.S. / Nato attack on Libya, it is an act of war. In the U.S. constitution, only the Congress may authorize war. Isn't this act by Obama without congressional approval unconstitutional? What can a citizen to do to make our representatives uphold the constitution?
-
We are already currently living under a state of war declared by Bush/Cheney and authorized by the Congress. The ambiguous, undefined, and nefarious GWOT. Probably everything is encompassed and legalized under that.
So I don't know if any specific new declaration is required. But that would be an interesting discussion by the legal X-spurts, wouldn't it?
-
What success could look like in Lybia
They could have a participatory democracy with people that participate; unlike America where less than 2% of the eliglble voters participate in any political activity except voting.
Income distribution, while not socialist, could at least have some degree of fairness across the board, with a large middle class enjoying the profits from oil and other resources and not reflect the current situation in the United States where a mere 1% of Americans are receiving 23 cents of every dollar of GDP. It should be easy for them to do better than we are doing now as they are going to start from scratch.
The environment could end up with standing in court just like corporations have in much of the western world. The environment could employ lawyers to seek redress when the water, air and soil are sullied in the name of profit and owners of companies could be forced to pay the environment back damages. This would be heplful in America too, but we cannot have everything; and we have been saved by private property rights on this issue.
Food production in Lybia could go all organic. Just like in America, it takes a lot of hand labor by human beings to grow food and animals without chemical shortcuts and band-aids. If either country, Lybia or America, made a commitment to this principle and also made a commitment to fill those jobs with citizens, the price of food would surely rise but there would also be full emloyment. And that raising of prices would work on that income distribution problem at the same time. Maybe the average Lybian needs a good diet and a healthy environment more than a plasma television and smart phone and an SUV with subs and seperate DVD players for each kid.
And law enforcement in Lybia could start out enforcing laws against white collar crime first and deal with the crimes of the common man second. Somehow this always gets turned around. Why is it people are always so anxious to pursue economically disadvantaged single men whose actions hurt only a few; while they let powerful bankers and lawyers and CEO's walk away from crimes that have destroyed the lives of tens or hundreds of thousands of people. Maybe the Lybians can create a "radar gun" that detects economic crime committed against people and the environment.
Oh, and they could start off with a 30 hour work week and single payer health care and sustainable solar power too. Couldn't hurt.
-
I never dreamed I would say this but twitter has proven itself an invaluable tool. Libyans on the ground gave us information that the media didn't pick up for hours, days, sometimes not at all.
For ex, Libyan State TV, airing Gaddafi's ridiculous blatant lies, was the ONLY source using the term "civil war." The Revolutionaries stated MANY tiimes: NO! it is Libyans ag. Gaddafi and his mostly-mercenary forces.
Libyans are exceptionally kind, loving people. If you haven't been there or somewhere like it, you maybe just don't get it that many cultures are light-years ahead of western societies in that regard. To speak of the "Rebels slaughtering Gaddafi loyalists" exposes a severe lack of awareness of actual circumstances. An informal YT video of captured Gaddafi forces shows them being treated like guests (while captured Rebels were being tortured by G.) A photo (CNN?) shows one Revolutionary shielding, with his own body, caputured Gaddafi troops from an apparently trigger-happy Free Libyan - just in case. It is unbelievable how out-of-touch corporate media, and those who depend on it, are from the actual humanity of the situation.
The NTC and Free Libyans, from late Feb, were calling/begging for a no-fly zone because Gaddafi was bombing peaceful protests, and bringing in planeloads of mercenaries. The NTC specified, NO ground troops. When UK sneaked in MI-6, NTC captured & politely sent them home.
The tiresome argument "we shouldn't be in Libya because why then aren't we in Burma, Bahrain, etc etc" makes no sense. YES, the US is in Libya for the wrong reasons. Yes, we SHOULD help ALL victims of genocidal dictators. Yes, we should STOP supporting such dictators. OK?
Let's agree: it IS unconstitutional (but if you think Congress would have said "no" to increased lucrative war, I think you are deluded); it IS for imperialist control of the region, not humanitarian reasons; it IS likely to backfire - Mullen and Petraeus were already, within HOURS of beginning shelling, saying "oops - looks like this could take a VERY LONG time!"; and yes, the way to peace is not via war.
Given those truths, now, what MIGHT success in Libya look like? A miraculous change in WESTERN motivation, I fear. If we could take out Gaddafi & cronies, I do believe there is enough goodness in Libyan hearts to create a peaceful egalitarian society. Fully half the population is under 16; right there is a huge force for change.
Seven7's comment is incredibly insightful and much appreciated. What I might add is: widespread awareness among Arabs of what actually has happened to western Democracies, of the insidious subtleties of banksters' & corporations' propaganda, warmongering, and social engineering. And, therefore, I would love to see some other term replace "democracy" in their amazing overturning of the status quo.
-
The United Nations Security Council, the United States, Britain, and France are right to condemn and try to prevent Qadaffi’s violence toward his own people. But their high moral stance has more of hypocrisy in it than high moral rectitude. No such condemnation or intervention has followed other cases of equally horrendous violence against civilians and peaceful demonstrators . Examples include the Israeli bombing and shelling of defenseless Palestinians in Gaza, the US bombing and shelling of Faluja, and the violence against peaceful demonstrators being perpetrated by the Bahrain government and its Saudi allies. Invoking high moral standards in a selective fashion indicates hypocrisy, and shows that self interest is the real reason for the action, not morality.
-
No such condemnation or intervention has followed other cases of equally horrendous violence against civilians and peaceful demonstrators . Examples include the Israeli bombing and shelling of defenseless Palestinians in Gaza
Maybe you should check out the latest headlines of a deadly bus bombing of innocent civilians in Jerusalem this morning. Terrorism. Sometimes facts make our statements phony.
-
What will we have accomplished in Libya? If we eliminate Gadhafi's ability to quash the rebellion, the result may just be a turning of the tables as the revolution slaughters Gadhafi's loyalists. Will we then destroy their weapons? The problem here is that we find ourselves, once again, in a military conflict in which goals are not clearly defined and consequences not completely predictable. More importantly, can we have opened a third war front at a time when we can ill afford the expenditures. Teachers are being put out of work, NPR may be defunded and the infrastructure is decaying, but the vast sums of money spent on these ill-advised ventures remains sacrosanct. Yes, we are moved by the cruelty of Gadhafi's forces, moved enough to react, yet I have to wonder why don't those same actions apply to the Sudan, North Korea, Myanmar. Why do we support the rebels in Libya and not in Bahrain where Saudi forces are killing off the revolutionaries. The answer, simply, is that we don't do the right thing, we do the "oil thing." Our foreign policy continues to be warped by our oil addiction, our laws continue to favor the oil companies and our future rests in the most contentious corner of the world.
-
what to do in Libya? nothing. get out.
we didn't intervene in Rwanda for Humanitarian Reasons, so why are we in Libya, where conditions are not considered genocidal?
this is energy policy, not foreign policy dontcha know
Brent Geske ("GUESS-key"), Portland, OR
-
We are addicted to Oil.
We are despised in the Middle East as Infidels worse than Dogs.
We must embrace our foes, strongman dictators, and bestial leaders because of our dependence on Oil
End Oil Addiction.
Disengage from the Region.
Let them do their own tribal war thing, sectarian violence, self brand of torture, and genocide and live with responsibility.
-
Yes we are addicted to Oil but we could change the way we allow our leaders and corporations to do business for that oil and stop installing and supporting Conservative "small governments" like Qaddaffi, the House of Saud, etc and start doing business decently with The People and with respect for Human Rights, Freedom and Liberty.
We can require businesses to act morally instead of immorally.
-
I sent the following comments to the Oregon Congressional Delegation. I believe that it reflects by skepticism regarding this war action.
re: War and Libya
I have recently been reading a copy of the US Constitution, particularly Article I, Section 8, regarding the power of Congress to declare war, etc. I have also been reading Article II, regarding the powers of the executive, wherein I find no power to declare war.
Please provide me with a copy of the amendments of the US Constitution , wherein a war action - the use of force, including the enforcement of a no-fly zone - authorized by United Nations Resolution 1973 on 17 March 2011 and exercised by the US Department of Defense on 20 and 21 March, precludes Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution.
If there are no such amendments to the US Constitution, then why are you not exercising your responsibilities under Article I of the US Constitution?
-
Note: Korea, Vietnam, Grenada, numerous military activity authorized by Executive Directive or "Finding", Iraq (1 and 2), Afghanistan, and now Lybia.
And, you can go back to the US imperial adventures in the 19th century and find numerous expamples of the Commander in CHirf exercising executive power to direct US military adventures without the ratification of Congress.
It just happens. THe empire needs perpetual war.
-
Can your guest enlighten us as to who the "new" leaders of Lybia will be if the "rebels" are successful. Right now this looks like rabble. Who will form a new government?
Is there a set of "founding principles" that can lead to a government for the "rebels". Right now it looks like chaos. What will be "better" if Ghadaffi's regime is run off. Is there an equivalent of a Lybian 'declaration of independence".
This just looks like another imperial land grab by the West, led by the biggest and most agressive military in history.
-
Here is an early version of the NTC's declaration: http://feb17.info/general/translation-of-declaration-of-the-establishment-of-national-transitional-temporary-council-in-libya/
One of the first defectors was Younis, former minister of the Interior, and I believe he is a higher-up in the NTC. I recall hearing guidelines about how all tribes or districts had to be equally represented, as did the Libyan Youth.
One reason we don't know much about the members of the NTC is the western media's insane continuation of interviews with Gaddafi family members. News segments seemed purposely to give a slanted view. The UNBELIEVABLY pathological liar Saif Gaddafi was shown as civilized, clean, respectable. All footage of Libyan civilians, by contrast, was limited to scenes like masses trying to leave the country, and the messiness created by such situations. Christine Amanpour has a lot to answer for.
That you call the Libyans "rabble" shows that the corporate media accomplished its aims... and turns my stomach. Do you recall learning something about how the American forces were clothed in rags but still won against the highly-organized Redcoats?
The idea that Libyans don't have what it takes to define and create their own future is propaganda put out by who? - "the biggest and most aggressive military in history." Don't buy into it, for god's sake!
-
Redbridge: I am just following the photos of the "rebels" provided by alJazeera English. There is no organized aspect to the way these folks are acting. Just a bunch of guys with guns. Every time a video camera is on they start grinning and shooting into the air and nobody shows any military-worthy discipline.
Perhaps we are being fed images by manipulative media, but there still does not appear to be any organization behind the opposition. Which relates to the fundamental question of why we should back a disorganized hodge-podge without staying power. That is how we get into quagmires of no end.
-
"Can your guest enlighten us as to who the "new" leaders of Lybia will be if the "rebels" are successful. Right now this looks like rabble. Who will form a new government?"
______________________________
I can imagine the same questions being discussed about the American colonists around 1776. And France took a chance on us.
I suggest that we take a chance on The Libyan People, just like France took a chance on us.
And if it turned bad, how much worse could it be than Qaddaffi?
And if we can clean out a rats nest once, can't we clean it out again if it becomes reinfested?
-
Gahdafi is not practicing socialism. He's a ruthless dictator. Socialism spreads the wealth, it doesn't put it all in one bank account. Please don't allow your guests to misuse inflammatory terms.
-
There is a reason that all of those Middle East governments are called Conservative. They are what Conservatism looks like in action, in reality.
"Small government". No thanks, no way! We ought to support the biggest possible government of all, "Government Of The People, By The People, and For The People."
-
I am glad I am not President Obama. The United States is on the horns of a dilemma. I am intuitively supportive of the revolution and deposing Kaddafi. On the other hand the United States having a leadership role in this effort could be counter-productive and lead to more support for Kaddafi and separate jihadists in the Arab Street. I would have preferred a deeper involvement of NATO and the Arab Leauge with the UNited States taking a back seat.
But now that we led the attack extant we are faced with open war with a modern day machiavellian, Kaddafi. This brings to the fore the Machiavelli maxem, when you strike a prince you better kill him.
Having waded in so deeply my next hope is that NATO, Egypt and our allies in the Middle East will take a more active roll in the combat. Thus, very reluctantly and conditional on a wider and more committed coalition, I concede that we have no choice but to put the peddal to the metal and take him out.
-
I would like to believe that the West, including the US, has started realizing that the world loves us for our ideals but hates us for our actual behaviors.
In the past, our leaders, governments and Corporations have installed vicious Conservative strongman leaders in power all over the world, whether you call them kings, presidents for life, dictators, or "crazy persons" like Qadaffi. And The People living under those oppressive Conservative governments have hated us for supporting their oppressors and consequently some decided to make "terrorist" attacks on us in reaction.
I suggest that the West and US ought to reverse our "behaviors" and start supporting our own ideals as stated in our US Declaration of Independence, the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and The Convention on the rights of The Child. Human Rights are well defined, having been discussed, negotiated and agreed upon by all of the nations signed on to the UN.
I believe that we would make ourselves safer by making other peoples safer from the old oppressive ways of doing politics and business. By supporting Freedom and Liberty and self government "Of The People, By The People, and For The People" as is our own yet not achieved American ideal goal.
-
I think of our US Founders.
France came to their/our aid so long ago, when we were oppressed by the Conservative "small government" King George and his predatory Corporation.and I believe that it is right for the US and West to come to the aid of people fighting for freedom whenever and wherever possible.
That is a significant part of our birthright and we ought to help to birth other peoples freedom and self government.
-
What are the chances of regionalizing the conflict? The Egyptian and Algerian armies could intervene on the ground. Both nations claim to be democratic and in support of the democratic movements in their own countries. In the case of Egypt, that army has grown fat and rich and hasn't really been tested in combat for years. Why can't the coalition embrace these countries and allow their armies to enter Libya in support of the rebels. Certainly having a stable and democratic Libya should be in their interest.
-
If a War Tax is instituted, so that people are more cognizant of the costs of war, as the guest suggested, then the people should be given the right to directly vote on whether we go to war... in every case. Congress is inherently not a reliable proxy, given the political and financial influence of the defense and munitions industries, and the energy interests. This is not to suggest that all wars are engaged by the U.S. for purely economic reasons, but many are, and the Middle East is certainly no exception, given the oil situation.
-
First off, thanks to the Think Out Loud folks for having this discussion and for inviting me to take part. And thanks also to Ahmed Abraibesh and Paul Sullivan. Here are some links to several discussions of this topic that I believe are helpful in thinking this through. I mentioned only the Gilbert Achcar interview which, in light of the events of the last several days, is much less persuasive. The others are by Richard Falk and Marjorie Cohn. Had there been time, I think it would have been useful to explore the likely motivations for the US/French/British governments. Even if we accept that a part of that motivation was genuinely humanitarian, the consequences for the Libyan people will depend very much of what other goals are likely in play.
http://www.zcommunications.org/gaddafi-moral-interventionism-libya-and-the-arab-revolutionary-moment-by-richard-falk
http://www.zcommunications.org/stop-bombing-libya-by-marjorie-cohn
http://www.zcommunications.org/libyan-developments-by-gilbert-achcar
If folks want to get in touch with the Portland Peaceful Response Coalition, or see a list of the over sixty local organizations involved in last Saturday's peace rally and march, please visit www.pprc-news.org
Again, thanks to OPB and the other guests. Let us all hope for the best for our brothers and sisters in Libya and throughout the Middle East. But let's do more than hope by getting engaged with these issues, and by contacting our elected officials to share our views and concerns.
Will Seaman
Portland Peaceful Response Coalition
www.pprc-news.org -
OK, Will Seaman your skepticism is well taken. But just as one cannot be half pregnant, a half ass commitment to a perpetual civil war serves no good interests.
I was proud of Sec. of Defense Gate's initial cold feet on this and was dismayed when the hawks got the helm in the Obama Administration and push came to shove.
The non-supportive position of Turkey along with the cooler heads of NATO and the jump back of the Arab Leauge to the expanded attack beyond ofensive airforce, airport and air defense systems to include neutralizing Gaddafi's front lines all make the status quo a no win situation that will stalemate if something more robust is not employed.
The long knives are already out in the Gaddafi held areas and the beautiful revolutionaries are being imprisoned, tortured and killed by the thousands. On the other hand, no amount of troopless shock and awe short of a lucky direct hit on Gaddafi himself will bring Kaddafi to sue for peace or cease his repression.
In short there is nothing easy about the choices available. My hope is the US will find a proxy in Egypt, perhaps to drive tanks to the edge of Tripoli and bring Kaddafi to heal. The thought of US troops in harms way and the collateral damage to civilians are sickening and it is hoped that a formula can be found diplomatically to wind this down and forestall the misery of open war and repression. Good luck, Barack.
-
Comments are now closed.
I would be interested to hear why we (the civilized nations of the world) have allowed this insane despot to remain in power so long...42 years -- seriously?!?!? If memory serves, He whom Tea-partiers revere as the Second Coming (Reagan), ordered an assault on Qaddaffy's (or Ghadafi or Khadaffee or however it is spelled -- I've seen several different spellings) palace back in 1986, about the same time as he gave Amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants (not that I think there is a connection).