Editor's Note: Juan Cole is Richard P. Mitchell Collegiate Professor of History at the University of Michigan. He writes the blog Informed Comment.
By Juan Cole, Informed Comment
The Libyan Revolution has largely succeeded, and this is a moment of celebration, not only for Libyans but for a youth generation in the Arab world that has pursued a political opening across the region.
The secret of the uprising’s final days of success lay in a popular revolt in the working-class districts of the capital, which did most of the hard work of throwing off the rule of secret police and military cliques. It succeeded so well that when revolutionary brigades entered the city from the west, many encountered little or no resistance, and they walked right into the center of the capital.
Moammar Gadhafi was in hiding as I went to press, and three of his sons were in custody. Saif al-Islam Gadhafi had apparently been the de facto ruler of the country in recent years, so his capture signaled a checkmate. (Checkmate is a corruption of the Persian “shah maat,” the “king is confounded,” since chess came west from India via Iran). [Editor's Note: This is no longer the case as of Tuesday, August 23. It turns out Saif Gadhafi had not been captured by the rebels.]
The end game, wherein the people of Tripoli overthrew the Gadhafis and joined the opposition Transitional National Council, is the best case scenario that I had suggested was the most likely denouement for the revolution. I have been making this argument for some time, and it evoked a certain amount of incredulity when I said it in a lecture in the Netherlands in mid-June, but it has all along been my best guess that things would end the way they have. I got it right where others did not because my premises turned out to be sounder, i.e., that Gadhafi had lost popular support across the board and was in power only through main force.
Once enough of his heavy weapons capability was disrupted, and his fuel and ammunition supplies blocked, the underlying hostility of the common people to the regime could again manifest itself, as it had in February. I was moreover convinced that the generality of Libyans were attracted by the revolution and by the idea of a political opening, and that there was no great danger to national unity here.
I do not mean to underestimate the challenges that still lie ahead– mopping up operations against regime loyalists, reestablishing law and order in cities that have seen popular revolutions, reconstituting police and the national army, moving the Transitional National Council to Tripoli, founding political parties, and building a new, parliamentary regime. Even in much more institutionalized and less clan-based societies such as Tunisia and Egypt, these tasks have proved anything but easy. But it would be wrong, in this moment of triumph for the Libyan Second Republic, to dwell on the difficulties to come. Libyans deserve a moment of exultation.
Read: The great Tripoli uprising.
I have taken a lot of heat for my support of the revolution and of the United Nations-authorized intervention by the Arab League and NATO that kept it from being crushed. I haven’t taken nearly as much heat as the youth of Misrata who fought off Gadhafi's tank barrages, though, so it is OK.
I hate war, having actually lived through one in Lebanon, and I hate the idea of people being killed. My critics who imagined me thrilling at NATO bombing raids were just being cruel. But here I agree with President Obama and his citation of Reinhold Niebuhr. You can’t protect all victims of mass murder everywhere all the time. But where you can do some good, you should do it, even if you cannot do all good. I mourn the deaths of all the people who died in this revolution, especially since many of the Gadhafi brigades were clearly coerced (they deserted in large numbers as soon as they felt it safe). But it was clear to me that Gadhafi was not a man to compromise, and that his military machine would mow down the revolutionaries if it were allowed to.
Moreover, those who question whether there were U.S. interests in Libya seem to me a little blind. The U.S. has an interest in there not being massacres of people for merely exercising their right to free assembly. The U.S. has an interest in a lawful world order, and therefore in the United Nations Security Council resolution demanding that Libyans be protected from their murderous government. The U.S. has an interest in its NATO alliance, and NATO allies France and Britain felt strongly about this intervention. The U.S. has a deep interest in the fate of Egypt, and what happened in Libya would have affected Egypt (Gadhafi allegedly had high Egyptian officials on his payroll).
Given the controversies about the revolution, it is worthwhile reviewing the myths about the Libyan Revolution that led so many observers to make so many fantastic or just mistaken assertions about it.
Myth #1. Gadhafi was a progressive in his domestic policies.
While back in the 1970s, Gadhafi was probably more generous in sharing around the oil wealth with the population, buying tractors for farmers, etc., in the past couple of decades that policy changed. He became vindictive against tribes in the east and in the southwest that had crossed him politically, depriving them of their fair share in the country’s resources. And in the past decade and a half, extreme corruption and the rise of post-Soviet-style oligarchs, including Gadhafi and his sons, have discouraged investment and blighted the economy. Workers were strictly controlled and unable to collectively bargain for improvements in their conditions. There was much more poverty and poor infrastructure in Libya than there should have been in an oil state.
Myth #2. Gadhafi was a progressive in his foreign policy.
Again, he traded for decades on positions, or postures, he took in the 1970s. In contrast, in recent years he played a sinister role in Africa, bankrolling brutal dictators and helping foment ruinous wars. In 1996 the supposed champion of the Palestinian cause expelled 30,000 stateless Palestinians from the country. After he came in from the cold, ending European and U.S. sanctions, he began buddying around with George W. Bush, Silvio Berlusconi and other right wing figures. Berlusconi has even said that he considered resigning as Italian prime minister once NATO began its intervention, given his close personal relationship to Gadhafi. Such a progressive.
Myth #3. It was only natural that Gadhafi sent his military against the protesters and revolutionaries; any country would have done the same.
No, it wouldn’t, and this is the argument of a moral cretin. In fact, the Tunisian officer corps refused to fire on Tunisian crowds for dictator Zine El Abidine Ben Ali, and the Egyptian officer corps refused to fire on Egyptian crowds for Hosni Mubarak.
The willingness of the Libyan officer corps to visit macabre violence on protesting crowds derived from the centrality of the Gadhafi sons and cronies at the top of the military hierarchy and from the lack of connection between the people and the professional soldiers and mercenaries. Deploying the military against non-combatants was a war crime, and doing so in a widespread and systematic way was a crime against humanity. Gadhafi and his sons will be tried for this crime, which is not “perfectly natural.”
Myth #4. There was a long stalemate in the fighting between the revolutionaries and the Gadhafi military.
There was not. This idea was fostered by the vantage point of many Western observers, in Benghazi. It is true that there was a long stalemate at Brega, which ended yesterday when the pro-Gadhafi troops there surrendered. But the two most active fronts in the war were Misrata and its environs, and the Western Mountain region.
Misrata fought an epic, Stalingrad-style, struggle of self-defense against attacking Gadhafi armor and troops, finally proving victorious with NATO help, and then they gradually fought to the west toward Tripoli. The most dramatic battles and advances were in the largely Berber Western Mountain region, where, again, Gadhafi armored units relentlessly shelled small towns and villages but were fought off (with less help from NATO initially, which I think did not recognize the importance of this theater).
Read: Obama demands regime change in Syria.
It was the revolutionary volunteers from this region who eventually took Zawiya, with the help of the people of Zawiya, last Friday and who thereby cut Tripoli off from fuel and ammunition coming from Tunisia and made the fall of the capital possible. Any close observer of the war since April has seen constant movement, first at Misrata and then in the Western Mountains, and there was never an over-all stalemate.
Myth #5. The Libyan Revolution was a civil war.
It was not, if by that is meant a fight between two big groups within the body politic. There was nothing like the vicious sectarian civilian-on-civilian fighting in Baghdad in 2006. The revolution began as peaceful public protests, and only when the urban crowds were subjected to artillery, tank, mortar and cluster bomb barrages did the revolutionaries begin arming themselves.
When fighting began, it was volunteer combatants representing their city quarters taking on trained regular army troops and mercenaries. That is a revolution, not a civil war. Only in a few small pockets of territory, such as Sirte and its environs, did pro-Gadhafi civilians oppose the revolutionaries, but it would be wrong to magnify a handful of skirmishes of that sort into a civil war. Gadhafi's support was too limited, too thin, and too centered in the professional military, to allow us to speak of a civil war.
Myth #6. Libya is not a real country and could have been partitioned between east and west.
Alexander Cockburn wrote,
“It requites no great prescience to see that this will all end up badly. Gadhafi’s failure to collapse on schedule is prompting increasing pressure to start a ground war, since the NATO operation is, in terms of prestige, like the banks Obama has bailed out, Too Big to Fail. Libya will probably be balkanized.”
I don’t understand the propensity of Western analysts to keep pronouncing nations in the global south “artificial” and on the verge of splitting up. It is a kind of Orientalism. All nations are artificial.
Benedict Anderson dates the nation-state to the late 1700s, and even if it were a bit earlier, it is a new thing in history.
Moreover, most nation-states are multi-ethnic, and many long-established ones have sub-nationalisms that threaten their unity. Thus, the Catalans and Basque are uneasy inside Spain, the Scottish may bolt Britain any moment, etc., etc. In contrast, Libya does not have any well-organized, popular separatist movements.
It does have tribal divisions, but these are not the basis for nationalist separatism, and tribal alliances and fissures are more fluid than ethnicity (which is itself less fixed than people assume). Everyone speaks Arabic, though for Berbers it is the public language; Berbers were among the central Libyan heroes of the revolution, and will be rewarded with a more pluralist Libya.
This generation of young Libyans, who waged the revolution, have mostly been through state schools and have a strong allegiance to the idea of Libya. Throughout the revolution, the people of Benghazi insisted that Tripoli was and would remain the capital. Westerners looking for break-ups after dictatorships are fixated on the Balkan events after 1989, but there most often isn’t an exact analogue to those in the contemporary Arab world.
Myth #7. There had to be NATO infantry brigades on the ground for the revolution to succeed.
Everyone from Cockburn to Max Boot put forward this idea. But there are not any foreign infantry brigades in Libya, and there are unlikely to be any. Libyans are very nationalistic and they made this clear from the beginning. Likewise the Arab League. NATO had some intelligence assets on the ground, but they were small in number, were requested behind the scenes for liaison and spotting by the revolutionaries and did not amount to an invasion force. The Libyan people never needed foreign ground brigades to succeed in their revolution.
Myth #8. The United States led the charge to war.
There is no evidence for this allegation whatsoever. When I asked Glenn Greenwald whether a U.S. refusal to join France and Britain in a NATO united front might not have destroyed NATO, he replied that NATO would never have gone forward unless the U.S. had plumped for the intervention in the first place.
I fear that answer was less fact-based and more doctrinaire than we are accustomed to hearing from Mr. Greenwald, whose research and analysis on domestic issues is generally first-rate. As someone not a stranger to diplomatic history, and who has actually heard briefings in Europe from foreign ministries and officers of NATO members, I’m offended at the glibness of an answer given with no more substantiation than an idee fixe.
The excellent McClatchy wire service reported on the reasons for which then Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, the Pentagon, and Obama himself were extremely reluctant to become involved in yet another war in the Muslim world. It is obvious that the French and the British led the charge on this intervention, likely because they believed that a protracted struggle over years between the opposition and Gadhafi in Libya would radicalize it and give an opening to al-Qaeda and so pose various threats to Europe.
French President Nicolas Sarkozy had been politically mauled, as well, by the offer of his defense minister, Michèle Alliot-Marie, to send French troops to assist Ben Ali in Tunisia (Alliot-Marie had been Ben Ali’s guest on fancy vacations), and may have wanted to restore traditional French cachet in the Arab world as well as to look decisive to his electorate. Whatever Western Europe’s motivations, they were the decisive ones, and the Obama administration clearly came along as a junior partner (something Sen. John McCain is complaining bitterly about).
Myth #9. Gadhafi would not have killed or imprisoned large numbers of dissidents in Benghazi, Derna, al-Bayda and Tobruk if he had been allowed to pursue his March Blitzkrieg toward the eastern cities that had defied him.
But we have real-world examples of how he would have behaved, in Zawiya, Tawargha, Misrata and elsewhere. His indiscriminate shelling of Misrata had already killed between 1000 and 2000 by last April,, and it continued all summer. At least one Gadhaf mass grave with 150 bodies in it has been discovered. And the full story of the horrors in Zawiya and elsewhere in the west has yet to emerge, but it will not be pretty. The opposition claims Gadhafi's forces killed tens of thousands. Public health studies may eventually settle this issue, but we know definitively what Gadhafi was capable of.
Myth #10. This was a war for Libya’s oil.
That is daft. Libya was already integrated into the international oil markets, and had done billions of deals with BP, ENI, etc., etc. None of those companies would have wanted to endanger their contracts by getting rid of the ruler who had signed them. They had often already had the trauma of having to compete for post-war Iraqi contracts, a process in which many did less well than they would have liked. ENI’s profits were hurt by the Libyan revolution, as were those of Total SA and Repsol.
Moreover, taking Libyan oil off the market through a NATO military intervention could have been foreseen to put up oil prices, which no Western elected leader would have wanted to see, especially Barack Obama, with the danger that a spike in energy prices could prolong the economic doldrums. An economic argument for imperialism is fine if it makes sense, but this one does not, and there is no good evidence for it (that Gadhafi was erratic is not enough), and is therefore just a conspiracy theory.
The views expressed in this article are solely those of Juan Cole. For more, visit Informed Comment.
© 2012 Cable News Network. Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
| Advertising practices | Advertise with us | About us | Work for us | Help
The rebels lynched and killed all black Libyans and ran them out of the country. Kaddafi put out the first International arrest warrant for Osama Bin Laden. That is why those rebel hate him. MSNBC, CNN and FOX are lying!!!
Gaddafi also helped Nelson Mandela run for president of Africa by giving Mandela $40 million for the campaign when Bill Clinton said that helping Mandela fight apartheid wasn't America concern. (Or goal)
Tell this to the families who had loved ones killed in the Lockerbie bombing bought and paid for by Gadhafi. They will shed no tears for him.
Nor will they return Gadaffi's generous financial settlement.
Bad spot to go. Heck, the US even shot down a scheduled Iranian civilian airliner. The US has systematically slaughtered innocent people all over the Middle East for 75 years in it's quest for oil. Glass houses, three fingers pointing back, etc.
'Nor will they return Gadaffi's generous financial settlement.'
I think they would rather have their family members back.
Maybe the United States should lead the way in apologies for terror attacks. Remember the Iranian Airlines Airbus shot down?
@Brian Smith: "They will shed no tears for him."
Indeed, they will be confounded! Die Gaddafis surprise us all the time! Saif al-Islam, the putative successor had not be captured as the rebels claimed. He's free and gave interviews to BBC journalists.
@Maybe the United States should lead the way in apologies for terror attacks. Remember the Iranian Airlines Airbus shot down?
Theres a difference between a idiotic mistake vs calculated murder of civilians. Oh pray what did America stand to gain from shooting down a Airbus full of civilians, none quite to opposite but you guys prefer to think they did it on purpose to support your never changing view America is evil.
This particular News sources has less than truthful in the pass, what in your story today would change that dubious fact?
After watching how innocent black immigrants are being murdered, what if Black Americans would retailiate against anti Ghadaffi Lybian Immigrants working in the US. Especially today when there is an economic downturn in America. One could say the Libyan anti Ghadaffi demonstrators in the US are taking jobs from Americans and there by takling food from the mouths of Black American children. Should they strike out as those in this video has done? Maybe we should be much more supportive of Israel claim to a right to exist and her right to use extreme deadly force from something as minor as a stone thrown against her.
"Remember the Iranian Airlines Airbus shot down?"
Yeah, the one the Iranians flew directly into a combat zone with the IFF turned off? That had the desired effect on world public opinion. The Iranians sacrificed those people.
"Remember the Iranian Airlines Airbus shot down?" – - Yeah, but I thought Iranian lives were less valuable than American lives. I thought I read that somewhere......FoxNews maybe?.....
calhon- you live at home with mommy i bet – you are clueless the US has been a liberating nation since the Civil War around teh world- how many nations have conqured- killed all males and mated with the women??
@johnbiggscr Not the materialistic self-absorbed westerners.
@resident alien–and the people of the oil rich middle east are not materialistic???You'd better look again
That Pan Am flight was a MI6 operation gone bad, period.
May, you are wrong. To compare the Kent state killings to what was done in Libya is irrational. When there are large elements of civil disobedience, the militias can be called in to help the police. That a few militiamen did the insane thing and fired on students was against all doctrine, orders – and it was immediately considered an atrocity by all parties. If the government of the US had of continued it's attacks on students (remember Libya is only 5 million people, almost 100x smaller than the US) – the US would have to have killed 100 000 students in order for the scale to be on the same size.
Maybe America should lead the way? um. 9/11? London Busses? Subway? i think there are/is a groups(s) that NEED to come to the forefront and "lead the way"....... or at least make an attempt at trying to , for lack of a better ter, get along with others...
About the Iranian airliner folks are making noise about, their captain should have known that it's a bad idea to proceed directly towards a warship at high speed in a combat zone. Most especially an Aegis cruiser.
Nobody on board had any intent to shoot down a civilian airliner. Ya think?
JoaoAlfaiate: Some families refused to take the settlement. Even then, who would they return it to?
Also, ccalhoun: "he US even shot down a scheduled Iranian civilian airliner." – Difference is, the Iran Air shootdown was out of confusion and negligence (watch the "Mayday"/"Air Emergency"/"Air CrasH Investigation" episode). Pan Am was deliberate
This is the most well-written and though provoking article that I have read on CNN.com in years. It was very clearly more well researched than the majority of the articles that make it to the front page. I would prefer to have articles like this be the norm rather than the exception.
If Gaddafi was truly responsible for Lockerbie. You need to do some research Brian and stop lapping up the mainstream media lies. The situation can be likened to Libya agreeing to do business with the West back in '03. "Do business or we'll do you like we did Iraq." It's sad that we rely so heavily on media propaganda from networks like the Criminal News Network as a source of info. Check out sites like infowars.com and take your thumb out of your mouth.
Cite your sources, and defend your conclusion. Otherwise, you just sound like you're yelling hearsay.
Rebels hate Gaddafi for what? Hard to tell since he controlled the media...and their access to news. More likely they just looked around and saw how poor and screwed they were, and how rich he and his were.
His source: everyone has one.
Who cares if the rebels tortured a Chadean mercenary? What would you do if the guy had killed half of your family and was doing it just for some spare change? Is anyone here naive enough to think war is about manners and politeness?
Youtube is full of those...
They hate him because he's not an islamist like ALL of them are. You can't see a single clip on the news of rebels running around without hearing their battle cry, which I will not repeat. I'm afraid of new Turkey, Egypt, and Libya (not to mention Afghanistan and Iraq once we're out for good).
Matteus, you're right! I'm sure – looking back – the author will realise what nonsense he had written! Typical of someone who lives in an ivory tower!
Matteus, you're right! Looking back the author will realise what nonsense he had written!
Agree. Site your sources. I have a hunch that no one will remember your comments in 5 minutes if you don't have sources. If you have a link to a source then we'll most likely remember you...and probably begin a useful conversation. Otherwise, you're just saying something to say something and well...who remembers those people after 5 minutes?
I find it amazing how many people will support a mass-murdering tyrant who overthrew the Libyan government via a military coup, and suspended his peoples rights indefinitely because of a 'state of emergency' that has stayed in place for 42 years!!
Yet they are now complaining because HE is getting overthrown by a popular uprising? His people are just following the example he set! They are taking back that which he stole from them in the first place!!
"The rebels lynched and killed all black Libyans and ran them out of the country."
We're eagerly anticipating your post containing the source of this absurd comment. It sounds like something Louis Farrakhan would come up with. He took millions from Gaddafi and censured Obama for daring to attack his "good friend."
I want to see that too. I looked at CNN last night and saw many black Libyans... that comment confused me
It sounds like something Quadaffi himself would say to make the revolutionaries look bad and lose NATO support.
Sounds very believable to me. As has been made quite clear, much of Gadhafi's forces were foreign mercenaries. Stands to reason that being a North African country that most of those mercenaries would come from some part of Africa, given the local alternatives are Europe (not many mercenaries there) or the Middle East (they're rather busy with their own issues).
With the largely tribal/village ties throughout Africa and the giant desert between Libya and the south, I imagine there aren't that many black immigrants that didn't arrive on Gadhafi's payroll.
What you call myths, I call facts. There was a stalemate and the rebels would not have had any chance of winning had it not been for NATO and the 400+ million dollars given freely to them. Just wait – it'll become worse than Ghadaffi ever was and then you will feel stupid in your support of these people.
The rebels shout "Allahu Akbar" every chance they get. Islamic dress for women is coming next. Intervention around the world makes great sense; for example, we just spent $2 trillion dollars turning Iraq into an ally of Iran. If you think intervening willy nilly in Arabia is a good idea? Just go check your 401-k account balance.
I am sure that anyone in a war situation calls out to there gods. It just in there culture to be more vocal about it. You can see that in more then just battle cries (Prior to church christians rings bells, islam "yells" a prayer to be heared). I am sure christians in such a situation would thanks god as well, maybe in a more silent prayer instead?
Many times christian soldiers will cross themselves prior to or during a battle. Is this a sign that christian fundamentalists are about to seize control? Look, Allahu Akbar simply means God is Great. Now, you may not like to believe this but Muslims warship the *same* God as Christians and Jews. The torah and Bible are both seen as fundamental religious books equal in importance to the Q'ran.
Without the NATO support and airpower attacks, the eastern section of Libya and every revolutionary would be flattened by tanks and bombs by now and the story would out of the front page.
Interesting the number of pro-Gaddafi frauds on this board.
Is is, isn't it? Its amazing how many people will support a mass-murdering tyrant who overthrew the Libyan government via a military coup, and suspended his peoples rights indefinitely because of a 'state of emergency' that has stayed in place for 42 years!!
Yet they are now complaining because HE is getting overthrown by a popular uprising? His people are just following the example he set! They are taking back that which he stole from them in the first place!!
He also supported Idi Amin and Sierra Lieone's Revolutionary United front. If you spread your money around enough, you're bound to find both the best and the worst of Africa. Please stop having selective vision.
AMERICA!! THE LAND OF THE HABITUAL LIAR! THE LAND OF THE IMPERIALIST AND GENOCIDAL MAD MEN AND WOMEN! THE LAND OF THE WORST WAR CRIMINALS ON THE PLANET PRETENDING TO NOW BE FREEDOM FIGHTERS AFTER THE GENOCIDE COMMITTED AGAINST THE NATIVE AMERICAN INDIAN,THE INUIT ESKIMO AND THE SOUTHWEST MEXICAN! AND AFTER KIDNAPPING AND RAPING AND MURDERING THE AFRICANS WHO WERE FORCED INTO SLAVERY.
AND NOW AMERICA WANTS THE WORLD TO BELIEVE THAT IT IS CAHMPIONING FREEDOM IN LIBYA!! SHAME ON YOU ALL! BUT YOU HAVE NO SHAME,YOUR AMERICANS!!
Mar. Relax yea America has a past that has some atrocities. However, that does not negate the war crimes that Gadaffi committed and would have committed in an attempt to stop protest. His son said if you try to take my dad out of office the river would run red with blood. Despite America's past on this day if believe America was on the right side of the conflict. However, as has been mention history will tell us whether the evil we know was better then our uncertain future
That was the nature of the times in 1600's, there was war and conquest around the world, not just europeans against the Indians and eskimo. But fast forward to the modern world, america has given more to the poor and done more for the poor than any other nation.
However, I do think we need to stop sticking our nose in everyones business.
the killing of native americans and killing of other people they didnt like was a really long time ago. alot has changed in the past couple hundred years and has nothing to do with whats going on now
Mar, did the deny you a holiday visa too?
MAR. The Libyans begged for help. Go back to your crappy little delusional hole and try to deal with reality. The Rebels won, backed by NATO, who are mostly 'the good guys'.
*** I have taken a lot of heat for my support of the revolution ***
Thank God there is still a lot of honest Americans! Concerning you.... Do not be overmodest, you have taken a lot of MONEY for your support of the "revolution", which in fact is not a revolution at all, but a NATO operation for a regime change (the rebels themselves recognize that). Only demagogic people like yourself can support the most vile usurpers of the world (e.g. Saudi, Bahraini king), at the same time cheering on dozens of thousands NATO bombs for a relatively peaceful Libya and at the same time do not even care about neighboring Sudan, whose civilian war made HUNDREDS times more victims. You are pathetic.
Kucinich: Time to end Nato’s war in Libya
August 21, 2011
Dennis Kucinich
In March of this year, the US, France, Britain and their North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (Nato) allies launched military operations in Libya under the guise of a “humanitarian intervention”. US diplomats and world leaders carelessly voiced unsubstantiated claims of an impending massacre in Benghazi. You hear no such appeals to humanity while Nato, in the name of the rebels (whoever they are), prepares to lay siege to Tripoli, a city of nearly 2 million people.
Libyan rebels are now advancing on the capital city of Tripoli with the aid of Nato strikes; this is sure to result in a real bloodbath, as opposed to the one that was conjured in Benghazi this past winter. Nato is assisting rebels who are blocking food, water and medical supplies from coming into the capital city, and is stopping those who need advanced medical care from travelling to Tunisia to access it. Nato is bombing power stations, creating blackouts, and using Apache helicopters to attack Libyan police checkpoints to clear roads for rebels to advance.
Regardless of whether Muammar Gaddafi is ousted in coming days, the war against Libya has seen countless violations of United Nations security council resolutions (UNSCRs) by Nato and UN member states. The funnelling of weapons (now being air-dropped) to Libyan rebels was, from the beginning of the conflict, in clear violation of UNSCR 1970. The use of military force on behalf of the rebels, in an attempt to impose regime change, has undermined international law and damaged the credibility of the United Nations. Countless innocent civilians have been killed, and Nato air strikes continue to place many at great risk.
So much for the humanitarian-inspired UNSCR 1973 as a means to protect civilians. The people of Libya cannot take another month of such humanitarian intervention.
EITHER OUR ELECTED POLITICIAN DENNIS KUCINICH IS LYING OR CNN IS LYING!! I KNOW THAT CNN IS LYING!!
Kucinich is an F'ING politician, who gives two $#its what he says?!
I agree Thomas. I cannot believe there are still naive americans out there that think that this country has suddenly become moral and a champion for freedom. OH REALLY? What about the Congo where millions have been slaughtered in such a fashion it is WORSE than the holocaust that is constantly thrown at us as being the worst of atrocities. It absolutely was and is not! What about SUDAN? There are many countries that America does not give a flying crap about. Why? No oil. Plain and simple or, they already have their oil.
This Libya war is a lie. Ghaddafi must have done something to tick of America and now they are simply stabbing him in the back for not holding up his part of the bargain. The CIA is the biggest gang organization on the planet. I would take the crips and bloods any day than be enemies with the CIA.
you are 100% correct! and the rebels are IN FACT AL-QAEDA TERRORIST! IBRAHIM BIN QUMU who was in the inner circle of OSAMA BIN LADIN is fighting with the rebels!! and here is the latest hot off the wire..............
Nato unwelcome in Libya – rebels
2011-08-22 18:44
Cairo – Libya's rebel government envoy to the Cairo-based Arab League said Monday that his country will not allow Nato bases in Libya after Muammar Gaddafi's ousting, the official MENA news agency said.
"Libya is an Arab and Islamic nation before Nato and after Nato," he said, adding, "the Libyans revolted from the 1970s against Western bases and there will be no non-Libyan bases."
Just because they don't want NATO bases, you're claiming that they're a terrorist nation? They're also majority Muslim, but it doesn't mean they'll rule by theocracy.
It's paranoid nuts like you that got us in Viet-Nam and will ultimately destroy this country with stupid wars if you and your dangerous kind are not stoped.
The source of your comments, please? From the Libyans I've talked to in the past 6 months, studying here in the US, the Libyan people–including black Libyans–are opposed to Gadhafi for his tyrannical rule over them for the past 42 years.
SEE FOR YOURSELF TEACHER!!
mar, Dr. Gebbels would have been proud of you. There's far more evidence in a pile of doggie doo doo than in this piece of crap you copied and pasted from UTube.
I found in Youtube or Liveleak dozens of such atrocities, ALL of them by the rebels.
Hey, Pale Horse. You're a liar and a propagandist for mass muderers. No one believes anything you say. Not to worry, the real plae horse will come for you some day, and you can answer to your God. Burn in Hades, you wretched, wretched excuse for a human soul.
please list all your sources. I'd like to do some fact checking.
@RICHARD....
IBRAHIM BIN QUMU (just google his GUANATANAMO BAY DETENTION FILE!) LONDON TELEGRAPH
ABDEL HAKIM AL HISADI LONDON TELEGRAPH!!
THEY ARE ALL AL-QAEDA
Nelson Mandela was up to his eyeballs in a corrupt party that sponsored terrorism and was deeply connected to the Communists. Just look at what the ANC has done to that once beautiful and vibrant country. Ending apartheid was not enough, the ANC had the responsiblity to care for the people ,and for over 20 years they have failed miserably in that regard.
I like how in your second sentence you call him, "Kaddafi" and in your fourth sentence you call him, "Gaddafi."
Funny how the BBC and Al Jazeera ALSO back a story OPPOSITE of your claims. Or are THEY US controlled too?
Here is a small hint, there are few black Libyans to begin with, the region has been Berber for THOUSANDS of years.
So, kindly stop listening to your djinn, ibn Iblis. Learn the TRUTH.
Gadhafi is and was a butcher, only out for self-aggrandizement and his tribe's welfare.
Then, hope for a brighter future for the Libyan people.
AS for the author, he's full of it on two points. I WATCHED the US lead the charge for UN action. From its earliest stages, which was a bit underreported.
I support it, but facts and truth are facts and truth.
I'll agree about ground forces, only some officers to interface with the local forces for targeting purposes are there. No brigades or even a battalion force is there.
I'll also laugh at the imperialism and oil crap, if we were after the oil, we'd have a division there. Indeed, the argument about Iraq frequently mentions oil that WE NEVER HAVE RECEIVED AND STILL DO NOT RECEIVE.
The ONLY thing funnier is a certain cancer ridden man from Venezuela, who has minimal personnel IN Libya, yet makes the most interesting claims that would require thousands of agents there.
AMEN.
MYTH NUMBER 11: Gadhafi's Sons have been captured by rebel forces ..... NOT!!!
Stop spewing your ignorance, there were plenty of blacks among the rebels. Take a look At this guys pictures from Libya if you dont believe me. http://ivanlabianca.photoshelter.com
BP Paid for the release of the Lockerbie. Fact.
CNN truly makes me nauseous. They might as well take a picture of a bunch of liberals crying and make the headline read "It's not Obama's fault".
What a tool.
Pale Horse: Got any proof to go with that baseless accusation?
President of Africa? Does anyone in America know that Africa is a continent and not a country......
Why does one side need to be bad and the other good?
Gadhafi is mad and egocentric.
The rebels will no doubt make Libya a stronghold for Islamic extremism (as its called).
We in the West do not win either way – extreme liberalism (as found too often on CNN) will tell you that what is happening in in Libya is good because when the "people" reign it can only be good. All bets are on for how long it will take to see how evil the new Libya will be.
"extreme liberalism"? Compared to what?
Maybe if you're somewhere near the lunatic reactionary fringe, all else might appear so.
You've ratted yourself out.
Yooooo Dimwitt I left "LA BELLE " some 30 m before Gaddaffi blew it up, and I would love the opportunity to "discuss" the all thing personally with Daffi, you know just to get the "facts' "straight" (or his neck)
Every word you wrote is either a complete lie or a massive distortion. Why?
Wow, you're quite the liar.
Invasion of Syria. At least now they're addressing the real problem
The Iranian plane the US Navy shot down was a political stunt. An airliner took a nose dive toward a destroyer and got blown out of the sky. All the bodies in the water showed no signs of trauma. They were frozen cadaver thrown in the water for all you pinheads to see. All you Muslim terrorists still point to this incident to morrally justify your hatred even though it was all a poorly orchestrated lie.
Pale Horse == You are nuts.
Sources, or I'm calling shenanigans.
CNN and the rest of the media spin our little heads round and round. For example, this article wishes to quash any myths made about the "Civil War/Revolution". Well let's take a look at who is calling it a Civil War. CNN's very own writer Dan Gilgoff. This is a quote straight from his article, "But experts say that Ramadan probably helped intensify the Libyan civil war and likely played a contributing role in taking the six-month old conflict to a dramatic new level."
As readers these words are very strong and the articles written seem to create a "Civil War" within the media and against there own readers. Please Please Please stop the PROPAGANDA!!!!!!
Big deal. A news outlet can distribute more than one opiinion on a subject. In fact, that's been the long tradition of a free press.
Ever heard of an "opinion page"? You're a hypocrite. You want your opinion to be the only one, calling anyone else's "propaganda."
President of Africa? Now, that's an interesting post that no one has ever heard of. Also, it wasn't Bill Clinton who refused to help Mandela. It was Bush Sr. and the Republican congress who voted against it and continued to support the apartheid in South Africa.
Nice attempt in revisionist history, by the way.
So far, Khaddafi has been a victim of Christian crusaders, Israeli zionists, Al Qaeda who passed around drugged milk, Iran and the U.S. It is a global conspiracy. All common enemies united against this saint of a ruler.Never mind the fact that he is a marxist and also a muslim (however that works) and likes to live the life of a playboy while Libyans marinate in their misery...so I say, bomb..bomb..bomb..bomb..bomb..bomb him into submission. he was the Fidel Castro of North Africa..and the ride is over..time to pay the bill.
So far, Khaddafi has been a victim of Christian crusaders, Israeli zionists, Al Qaeda who passed around drugged milk, Iran and the U.S. It is a global conspiracy. All common enemies united against this saint of a ruler.Never mind the fact that he is a marxist and also a muslim (however that works) and likes to live the life of a playboy while Libyans marinate in their misery...so I say, bomb..bomb..bomb..bomb..bomb..bomb him into submission. he was the Fidel Castro of North Africa..and the ride is over..time to pay the bill.
I would like to know how democrats (which I am one) are suddenly in lock-step over a war on Khadafi.
Hollering in unison how wonderful this war is.
1) How wonderful is it to undertake extremely expensive military action, which in NO WAY is in America's national security interest?
....Using money borrowed from China!
2) How can everyone turn from being against a war in Iraq, to so completely ecstatic about attacking Libya?
Khadafi is suddenly a threat how???
I'm glad we (America) has so much disposable income that we can spend billions upon billions on wars of choice....otherwise, it could stress our economy.....
Funny how no matter what they wanna cut social security/ medicare /unemployment...etc...there is always money for another war!
"Myth #3. It was only natural that Gadhafi sent his military against the protesters and revolutionaries; any country would have done the same.
No, it wouldn’t, "
yea insert police and then its a true statement
Welcome to the real World. Nothing is black or white. I'm sure Gadhafi was reading bedtime stories to his kids. Hitler sang with his kids and played with his dog. Both are still bloody tyrants and mass murderers.
I wouldn't be surprised if you were correct, but there's these little things called sources...do you have any?
Seriously, go there for yourself. I saw plenty of black Libyans in Benghazi. Didn't see any of them being lynched. So many of you people irk me because you will come up with an ironclad opinion without seeing for yourself. I saw firsthand for two months the devastation that Gaddafi wrought on the East of Libya. I cannot speak for the West, but to say that the East was neglected would be a gross understatement.
How do you idiots continually justify the Abu Salim massacre? Lockerbie? Air France? The Chad War? Supporting Idi AMin? Supporting Charles Taylor? Thousands of disappearances? The student hangings in 1976? A country rich in resources, but only has an oil infrastructure?
No doubt Gaddafi has committed atrociities for decades. He is not the only one! Destiny has no mercy on him. While some got away with murder, he has to fight the battle of ONE AGAINST ALL. He has few friends and is stubborn and intransigent. Time will tell how the future generations of Libyans judge him in history.
Who the heck is Juan Cole, and why whould anyone care about his obviously biased opinions? CNN is really scraping the bottom of the barrel now ...
"This is daft." Insightful comment there, Mr. Cole.
You're acting like that is all he said. If you read the rest of the paragraph, you'll see that he goes on to explain the basis for the statement you chose to quote. Quit trying to misapply a critical approach you've seen others use with greater success. Give it up, hack.
Moreover the guy clearly doesn't know what he's talking about. No one harbored these myths.
HAHAHAHAHAHA. I would ask, "Do you read?" but unless someone put your little fingers on the keys and typed this wholly ignorant statement for you, then you are at least capable of reading. But apparently you don't grasp what you read.
Testified before Senate, Fulbright scholar, appeared on TV, selected to teach at Yale (before supervisory board intervention), editor of Middle East scholarly journal.
He's accomplished. Albeit, biased, but well-reasoned and evidenced. Definitely not the bottom of the barrel.
Agree. Biased scholar = bad scholar. Bias usually comes from a bad temper, ignorance or political engagement. None of these is a sign of a good scholar...
And if they were to move the barrel they would find you under it.I see that you included the list of your qualifications and accomplishments, blank space!
Is this a real article? It is mostly this one guys own opinion and view. For a second, I thought it had value, but as I read it, I could see that it was a worthless piece. CNN can do better than this. I am surprised. It almost reads like a high school student newspaper article. Total garbage in this venue.
Read the end: "The views expressed in this article are solely those of Juan Cole. For more, visit Informed Comment." Of course it's one guy's opinion, just like it says. It's an opinion piece. That's kind of the whole point.
Then highlight where he's wrong. I, for one, with parents covering the story, found his analyses to be spot on.
YOU AND YOUR PARENTS ARE LIARS!!
Then name the facts he lied about and we can go from there.
READ MY POST THAT I COPIED FROM UNITED STATES SENATOR DENNIS KUCINICH AND YOU WILL SEE FOR YOURSELF!! IF YOU WANT I CAN EVEN GIVE YOU THE LINK FROM THE YOU TUBE VIDEO SO THAT YOU CAN SEE WITH YOUR OWN EYES THAT THE REBELS ARE COMMITTING GENOCIDE AGAINST THE BLACK AFRICANS IN LIBYA!!
Evidence of Libya torture BENGHAZI #Feb17 [libyasos] EVERYONE GO TO YOU TUBE AND REFERENCE THIS HEADING AND SEE THE VIDEO YOURSELVES OF THE REBELS COMMITTING GENOCIDE AGAINST THE BLACK PEOPLE IN LIBYA
Calm down everybody. It was most probably kar himself who wrote this BS
I agree with you; the rebels did target black Africans simply because other unrelated black Africans were mercenaries for Qaddafi, and that was wrong. But neither I, nor Juan Cole in this article, claimed differently.
Kucinich is somewhat right, but somewhat wrong. First, Qaddafi wouldn't have resisted a massacre of Benghazi to get his people in line. For evidence, look to Misurata, where he willingly cut electricity, water, and other supplies while mercilessly bombarding civilians with indiscriminate weapons fire. Looking further back, the Abu Salim massacre proves he's willing to massacre to preserve order, over small infractions. Saif Al-Islam Qaddafi's comments at the outset ("rivers of blood will flow"). It's hard to say what would have happened, of course, but his history points to massacre.
I agree that NATO inconsistently applied their standards, and that they intervened on a guise of humanitarian intervention. But was it the right thing to do? In my opinion, intervention was the correct answer (for reasons I specify elsewhere). As for the BS about cutting off gas to Tripoli, NATO stayed on target for the most part, targeting elements of Qaddafi's command structure. It's foolish to think an intervention would result in zero civilian casualties. But NATO did a much better job at it than Qaddafi.
So overall, you have legitimate points about the rebels and some of their questionable actions. But I'd point to Qaddafi as the alternative, who's as constrained by concepts of liberty and human rights as Kim Jong Il.
And Thomas, no, I didn't write this article. If I were Juan Cole, my answers would likely be more vitriolic and eloquent.
What is mar even talking about? Dennis Kucinich is in the House, not the Senate, and he's well known to be THE most liberal man in Congress. The guy is a whackjob wingnut that even people on the left are embarrassed of. Quote whatever you want from Kucinich. I don't consider him a reliable source on anything, and in fact he never cites sources for any of the outlandish claims he makes.
Mr Juan Cole does sound desparate, but I think it is more of a problem with CNN editors who seem to be stuck in the era of the Cold War. Am I the only one having that impression?
Yes.
I'll bet that you are surprised. A lot and often.
LMAO – propaganda at it's best
Mr Cole delusions are simply laughable. Take for example this: " in the 1970s, Gadhafi was probably more generous, ...but in the past decade and a half, extreme corruption happened, including Gadhafi and his sons." Gadhafi was a generous ruler for 30 years out of 42, hehe. Or this one " the supposed champion of the Palestinian cause expelled 30,000 stateless Palestinians from the country". My favourite is "There was no stalemate..... It is true that there was a long stalemate at Brega". Yummy
))
CNN – the new Fox!!
OK – how hard is it to Google a person's name? And, BTW, I like what I read, including on the net AND the article. Roll up your collar, your red neck is showing.
OMG! It means he may teach others. That's a whole different story.... That's serious...
This list of top ten is pretty biased and ignorant of other world events. It reads more like a defense of U.S. involvement than an actual informative piece on Libya.
That seems to have been the media's job for the last 10 years. Defend our imperialist boondoggles in the middle east.
Oh, and report on the cast of Jersey Shore, too.
Most of its purpose was to debunk the myths propagated in the media.
But most of those so-called myths were'nt even propagated in the media .. quite the contrary. I love the comment about Jersey Shore ... funny. I see an invisible hand pushing these regimes over one by one like dominoes. Who's actually doing the pushing, though? Is the West being duped into doing the dirty work while working counter to our interests? Greed is what led Europe and the US to attack Libya, not altruism.
Ignorant and one sided list.
Good analysis, certainly a lot deeper and more insightful than what you see on most of the mainstream media outlets (Fox especially). I'm not a big fan of any news service that offers mostly headlines, but CNN.com actually did a good job in this case by bringing us Cole's article. Hope to see more of it.
What the f***? Where do you not get information from this article? It is an opinion article. I did go back to read it again to see how in the heck these first few comments cry out "bias" and realize you're just a bunch of nuts. I thought the article was interesting and had history I didn't know or had forgotten.
Or even history that never happened! LOL
We're crazy because we don't agree with the author's opinions and you're enlightened because you do. HMMMM....
The Colonel was one of the founders of OPEC.. Of course NATO countries turned on him in a second
WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SOMEONE LIKE GHADAFI AND GEORGE BUSH. SENDING TROOPS INTO A COUNTRY THAT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH 9/11? END RESULT 13,000 US TROOPS DEAD AND WE ARE 2 TRILLION !!! DOLLARS POORER AND HATED EVEN MORE.
13,000 dead US soldiers? Where the heck did you come up with that figure? More like around 6,000, dude. Don't listen to al-Jazeera so much. By the way, the difference between George W. Bush (as much as I don't like the man) and Moammar Gadhafi? George W. Bush didn't drop bomb on his country's citizens, or shell them with tanks and howitzers, or cut down crowds of protesters with machine guns.
AJ's been bought out. They're on "our" side now.
Wikipedia lists this as "Total dead: 38,778-70,278" go figure.
Hey retard, the wikipedia numbers you just listed are TOTAL dead, not AMERICAN dead, as everyone else clearly stated. Most of those casualties were from secratarian violence, which would have happened as soon as Saddam fell, regardless of US involvement.
What? 6 000 dead instead of 12 000? Ok then! Long live Bush, hurray!
@Brad Baker, those must have been some really ticked off secretaries! Well, you learn something new every day. Who would have thought secretaries could do so much damage? I guess they were the real WMDs, eh?
The difference is that Bush's actions were based on the myth of Saddam's weapons of mass destruction, and bio-chemical laboratories which did not exist. Bush's actions were those of a bully, and he is profoundly hated by the people of Iraq for destroying their country and so many of its people simply because he wanted to be a War President.
Obama's actions are those of a diplomat and statesman: yes, support the rebels, but let them lead the fight and take credit for it. Let Europe pick up the slack for once. After the shooting stops, encourage the formation of a representative democracy, supply, along with other nations, what the winners need to get their country functioning again and return to their role in global society.
You may recall when something like this happened before. It was in 1775-1783. The tyrant was King George III, the rebels were Americans, and the support came primarily from France, to the extent that it nearly bankrupted Louis XVI. France also supplied troops as well as money, and leaders like the Marquis de Lafayette. We won back then on our own terms, and it looks like the Libyan rebels have won on theirs.
Because he wanted to be a war president? He was already a war president before Iraq. A little place called, Afghanistan, I don't know if you've heard of it or not. And all Iraqi's hate Bush? How many Iraqi's do you actually know? I know several. Now, they all believe Bush handled the war sloppily, but they all agree that Saddam was a brutal and vicious tyrant who needed to be overthrown, and that the only people capable of doing so was the USA. Have you forgotten the estimated 500,000 Iraqi's killed under his reign? have you forgotten the 1.5 million casualties of the Iran-Iraq war? My advice to you is stop formulating your political opinions from the headlines of newspapers you never bothered to read. Take it from an expert, Bush was not the bully. Saddam was. Bush was more like the class teacher finally returning from his office just in time to expel the bully before he could do anymore harm.
Please. Before anyone takes this leftist nonsense seriously, go educate yourself – Clinton bombed Iraq in 1998 and every Dem (Kerry, Kennedy, Durbin, Boxer, Pelosi etc) went onto the floor of the Capitol to explain that it was necessary because of Saddam's WMDs. Don't take my word for it – go look it up for yourself. Oh I forgot I'm talking to the Moveon.org crowd, ok type G-O-O-G-L-E and enter I-R-A-Q B-O-M-B-I-N-G 1-9-9-8.
Bush did go on debatably faulty information, however it was information the entire top foreign intelligence community agreed on in many western countries. Bush also went in part because the UN as usual is all bark and no bite...he was enforcing what the United Nations would not. The Iraq strategy initially began with the assumption that the Iraqis would "welcome" the US from liberating them from Saddam and then, with American assistance, begin building a new democracy for them, by them (and hopefully be the first true democracy in the region). However, because a lot of local propaganda, injection of terrorists and insurgents from neighboring countries that certainly did not happen in mass form. The following scandals and then a souring bitterness politically caused the war to lose a lot of support. In short, they went in for the right reasons, but mishandled and underestimated the initial occupancy.
My grammar there was a bit poor, LOL.
You are ignorant to facts apparently. At which point did the Europeans pick up the slack? You are aware that we currently have an entire Marine Expeditionary Force sitting off the Libyan coast? Are you aware that we gave 70% of the initial strike force to enforce the "No Fly Zone". Oh, and we are also supplying the current NATO force with KC-130 mid air refueling jets (where we are paying for the fuel) as well and other jets, including ground strike jets. Can you explain why we are sending in A-10 Warthogs and AC-130 Spectre Gunships to enforce a no fly zone? Those are strictly ground attack air craft (anti tank and personnel).
@brad baker!!! Thank you for saying it like it is!
I agree with most of Juan Cole's opinions. And I enjoy his refreshing style of in-your-face writing.
Meaning: Style over substance wins the day! Useful idiots...
Not sure what planet Juan has been living on. Maybe he is just young. His article and opinions are naive and ridiculous. For example, "Deploying the military against non-combatants was a war crime, and doing so in a widespread and systematic way was a crime against humanity." If this is true, why wasn't Nixon tried for war crimes after the Kent State massacre?
Because it goes through the Security Council.
*because we have a broken system.
Exactly what I thought of when reading this belligerent piece. The only moral "cretin" is this irresponsible academic who is unable to express himself in a tempered manner. Apparently, someone's gunning to be the "Dr. Phil" of political punditry.
Sorry Pat, just because one event doesn't occur(Nixon), it means nothing in relation to another seperate event.(Ghadafi)
*** "Deploying the military against non-combatants was a war crime ***
What about NATO premeditated bombings of clearly civil objects like water supplies and food storages?
I suspect Nixon was not tried for the Kent State massacre because he was not culpable. It was a soldier who heard or saw something that convinced him that he was being fired upon. It was a bad mistake, regrettable. Avoidable if they had allowed better trained police to deal with the crowd or had just given them some space and let them protest until they had said their piece. In the US, that sad event was investigated and we got a lot of lessons learned. Crowd control is better trained for now and the Nat Guard is not used for protest situations. They are used when there is a potential for lawlessness – as in the hurricane Katrina aftermath to prevent looting and help in other ways.
Two different guys rob two different banks. One gets caught, one doesn't get caught. They're still both bank robbers.
I agree with most of what was said here, but the writer sounds like a twit. "Moral cretans," "that is daft," etc. Sounds like a whiny 12 year old.
The author never referred to the Greek island of Crete, nor to its citizens.
I agree with most of the comments here so far. I was looking for something informative and fact-based, instead it was just an opinion piece. Does CNN not offer any actual news or facts any more?
Dude, what do you expect in a column marked "Global Public Square" and ending with "The views expressed in this article are solely those of Juan Cole", and in fact listed in the Opinion section, EXCEPT an opinion piece?
This story is one of the main headlines on the mobile site, making it seem more informative than opinion. This is why newspapers don't put editorials on the front page. Headlines are supposed to be facts.
LOL, really? I don't know who Juan Cole is, but I know he's never read history. A great part of Africa and the Middle East aren't creations of Western powers (as he seems to imply)? Did anyone hear of Iraqis, Iranians, Palestinians, etc. before the late 19th and early 20th centuries. They were countries cobbled together when Britain and France decided to split of there spheres of influence. Please, informed comment?
ur right abuot Iraq, but Iran is a state long befor ,
Yes, it was called Persia.
He's a history professor U of Michigan.
Apparently, not a very good one.
LOL, really? I don't know who Juan Cole is, but I know he's never read history. A great part of Africa and the Middle East aren't creations of Western powers (as he seems to imply)? Did anyone hear of Iraqis, Iranians, Palestinians, etc. before the late 19th and early 20th centuries. They were countries cobbled together when Britain and France decided to split there spheres of influence. Please, informed comment?
I'm pretty certain the Ottoman Empire controlled most of this area of the world for the few hundred years leading up to WWI. Next time you disagree with someone's opinion, don't undercut your point of view with LOL type comments followed by 'facts' you have no basis for. If you don't, only the choir can hear you preach.
Ottoman Empire ceased to exist after WWI. Ever hear of Mustafa Kemal Atatürk?
So your point is that much of present-day Africa and the Middle East were not created by the Western powers until they were created by the Western powers?
Yes, that's exactly it. Can you read?
He's mocking you, Gil, you moron.
I think the author has a definite bias that is clear in his writing. I think when one calls opposing viewpoints 'cretinous' or 'daft' the bias is revealed even for the non discerning reader. I do not disagree with the largest part of the editorial, but the tone makes me regret agreeing to it in any extent.
The tone makes you regret...? It's an opinion piece. And tone, this guy's not displaying it harshly. If his tone is too much for you to continue to read, better quite this discussion boards!
Hey CNN (Criminal News Network), why don't you report on the atrocities committed by the rebels? Why do you support the indiscriminate bombing of Libyan women and children? Why are you so biased?
May God smite your Kosher behinds off the face of this earth.
YOU SHOULD CHANGE YOUR NAME TO ZNN (ZIONIST NEWS NETWORK)! YOU ARE TOOLS OF THE ZIONISTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
dude....chill the f.uck out......
The list does a fair job of naming its sources (given the chaotic and recent nature of these events) - on what basis are some posters calling the list "ignorant?" Where are their sources?
And there were no pro-war myths?
When did Cole "join the team"?
Juan joined the pro war side when Obama did it.
Juan's knowledge of Orientalism is specious at best and contains many bigoted hatreds toward certain middle east groups.
People quote Juan Cole when they try to be more elitist than their Chomsky quoting buddies.
The liberal patriotard.
An inevitable by-product of the O-Man's ascendancy.
Hey Mike-
The Conservative creep – a by-product of continual inbreeding.
The only point that I did not agree was #5.
Yes, it was a Civil War. A bloody revolution is the definition of a civil war.
Debatable. The Merriam-Webster definition says that a civil war is between citizens of the same country whereas this list makes the point that this war was basically citizens against the government. Its a fine line and I'm not sure which side I would put it on. I don't suppose it really matters what you call it as long as people get a good idea of what it really was.
myth #11 – the United States had every right to get involved in this in the first place. The whole US/Nato campaign was a damned mistake and I hope the world over will eventually forgive us for our foreign policy.
Now Gaddafi is definitely no saint,but,this has nothing to do with protecting anyone's civil liberties or civilians from a lunatic dictator.Under the guise of “protecting civilians,” the United States led NATO into Libya and is attempting to assassinate the Libyan leader. Of course, Libya happens to be the largest oil producer in Africa, but many do not realize that Gaddafi was planning to introduce the gold dinar, a single African currency that would serve as an alternative to the U.S. dollar and allow African nations to share the wealth. It is surely no coincidence that Iraq’s prior leader, Saddam Hussein, was trying to do the same thing just prior to U.S. invasion for all of those “weapons of mass destruction.”
Thank God, Obama stayed as much out of this war as could. And rebels WON! Bush's 2 wars go on and on. MAY GOD BLESS OBAMA!
Sure, all hail OUR great socialist dictator. More like Jimmy Carter v2.0.....
You may or may not like Obamas policies.....but when you call him a "socialist" and "communist", not only does it make you look ignorant, it clearly shows you have no idea as to what in the hell these two terms actually mean.
So the liberal position is war is good now? Wow, thats quite a reversal considering all the peace marches and protests that occured just a couple of years ago.
Obama's election emasculated the "anti-war" movement.
War is good when it's cheap, quick, no Americans die, and the guy who sponsored the Lockerbie bombing loses his hold on power. Yup, this wild-eyed liberal thinks that's a pretty good war.
Well, unless a conservative had been in office...So, let me get this straight, as long as it's the other guys innocent civilians getting bombed and you don't have to see it or sacrifice anything for it (but MONEY), war is fine and dandy? I LOVE the new progressivism. Who's next?
Here is my top myths of the Libyan war -
1) – The rebels are not Al Queda
2) – After this is over the Libyans will welcome the west with open arms
3) – The rebels/Transitional Council will pay everyone back for their help
4) – The Transitional Council will create an idyllic democracy with free elections and a 'President'
5) – The new free Libya will not need international support after Ghadaffi is found – they can rebuild their country with their own resources and their own two hands
As someone who supported this intervention, I agree with all but one of your assertions; the Rebels may have a few Al Qaida supporter, but they're too heterogeneous for that. There are likely some fundamentalists, but there are even more university students, doctors, and teachers (common folks) fighting for the rebels. But you do point out something that some supporters of the issue fantasize about: that this will progress steadily, and the path will be all roses. Anyone deluding themselves as such is crazy; there are still many ways this could go wrong. But that's why the West has to support these nascent movements fighting for the rights of the people, to lessen the chance that the revolutions will end up poorly.
Since you're obviously oblivious to the truth, lemme break it down for you: We went into Libya because Ghadaffi was issuing a debt-free currency - something the international bankers don't like (because if it's debt-free, they don't make a profit). Understand yet? You're ignorant "facts" are merely propaganda. You are, my friend, and unwitting Jew-tool.
Lemme guess. You got the old crooked cross tacked to your bedroom wall. BTW the putch is being held next Thursday. Your presence is requested.
You forgot this one:
6) Rebel "government" do not behead and burn their members. Remember General Younes?
OK, wise one. Your are an authority on the region.
OK, what are the names of the major tribes in Libya?
What is a Berber? Name key characteristics of a Berber. Tell us about what they eat?
You can do NONE of those.
Meanwhile, I've DINED at Berber tables.
You know more than me, you have the wisdom of the twinkie encrusted sofa. I only am still removing dust from my things two years after retiring from the military. Dust from many of the places currently in the news.
Obviously, I know nothing. I know nothing about Arabs, even IF I dined in Bedouin tents and played with their kids and exchanged recipes with their wives, which is notable, if you knew anything about Arab culture.
I've been in Afghan homes and dined as well. Can YOU say that in truth? Nope, you'd not survive, you're stupid enough to try to act superior to another human in their home.
I've been in Berber homes and dined, played with the kids and swapped recipes.
OK, the recipe thing is because of my Sicilian heritage. It works, so nobody argued.
I've been in Somali homes. Djiboutian homes. Eritrean homes.
What nationality homes have YOU dined in? Irish, from McDonalds?
If NATO (the US) had not intervened in this conflict, the rebels would not have had any chance in HELL of surviving. And yet, once this over, we all think they are going to thank us and throw their arms open to welcome us? HA! After this is over, we will witness the cluster this whole conflict (with us intervening) has produced!
The characterization of the US coming along as a "junior partner" is silly. Reluctant, yes, but more powerful militarily than all the other coalition members combined. Without the US, the other members of the coalition would not have been able to create the conditions mandatory for the Libyan no fly zone.
A little too much self recognition IMO...
Myth–The President of the United States can go to war simply by sanction of United Nations Security Council resolutions. This is enough authorization to use military action.
Fact–Only Congress can declare war on another country. Neither the President nor the United Nations can commit US military personal to military action against another nation without Congressional approval. The US military is not the Presidents toy that he can prance around the world to play war.
Agreed.
So long as the President is a democrat, then its OK.
Great article, IMHO. It was, as was evident at the header, informed comment. I lack the knowledge to judge the factual accuracy of all of Professor Cole's assertions, but on the whole this piece has the ring of truth. I loved the writing style, and appreciate the occasional loosening up that others blasted as juvenile. Sometimes it's good to just call a duck a duck!
If Bush was in office, this would have taken 10+ years.
If President Bush were still in office you would be saying this is and illegal and immoral war.
No, sorry, in regards to #10, it was absolutely about oil – China and Russia stand to lose billions in oil contracts and projects, the rebel bigwig even said so. The western oil cartels move in, the east is shut out. This is a huge move on the global chessboard of energy.
This piece is loaded with such goofy emotional words it's rather silly.
Except that Chinese oil is NOT coming from Libya. Oopsie!
The pieces is correct on all counts save one. That the US didn't push the UN action, I WATCHED it when it wasn't even a headline.
NATO accepted the mission at behest of a member state, the US.
That said, destabilization of the Suez canal would be a BAD thing and Libya CAN do that with their mining ships, which were incinerated in the harbor.
But, global economic activity is good, starvation is good, 100% unemployment is good, people murdered by artillery in the streets is good, torture is good.
IGNORANCE IS PEACE.
Stop using George Orwell as an instruction manual. We're on to you and HAVE been on to you.
Hey group . . . Juan Cole is a major intellectual figure in the study of the Islamic world, regularly appears–and has for years–on such things as PBS's News Hour, has been an advisor on foreign policy re. the Islamic world to think tanks and US administrations. I think he kind of assumed we would know who he was when he wrote this . . .
I'd LOVE to have a debate with him, over coffee or tea, about this. ONE thing he DID get wrong, the UN decision WAS pushed by the US. I watched it happen from when it was a small headline on the 5th page.
The rest, spot on. I'd explore more specific, tribal, arguments and solutions.
And you are telling the absolute truth?
Buried in here are a lot of cheap shots by a partisan wingnut. I HARDLY would describe Qadaffi as "buddying around" with a U.S. president. And had it been Clinton or Obama – they would have encouraged what appeared to be a good effort to redeem himself. (Obviously a ruse.) Whether it's crap like this or the birthers going after Obama – I'm a sick and freaking tired of holier-than-thou partisan wingnuts waving their hands about trying to pin anything bad on people they don't like.
You ask how we got in this mess where Congress is paralyzed and the President wrings his hands? Just read these articles.
Very true.
Myth 11: The new leaders of Libya will not be as bad or worse than the current.
realitycheck... ironic name. the kindness of the rebels is yet to be seen. they could easily be better, the same or worse then the former government. any realistic person would know that.
So the next lot who will take over are gonna share the oil wealth with the people? Free education & healthcare? Or are those millions of dollars destined for the first western multi-nationals (British Petroleum – thanks Mr Cameron), who get in there and cut a deal with the new govt. Same old song.
The biggest myth, the BIGGEST myth about this whole libya fiasco,
was that Israel was paying tens of thousands of african mercenaries to go fight for Gaddafi. Such ridiculous hate rumors spread like wildfire amongst those who hate jews and can't stand the idea of them living peaceful, happy lives in their homeland.
This was a very poorly written article. I could not take it seriously for the constant insults being thrown at the reader or the "myth believer" and the too-familiar tone. I think it is a good thing that change is happening in Libya. It is silly to argue if it would have happened so quickly without NATO. It is not silly to wonder if the US did the right thing. This has stretched our military even thinner, and our purse. There are real negative consequences to our involvement that are immediately visible. Any positive consequences have yet to show themselves. First do no harm.
He argues it wouldn't have happened as quickly without them. As for how this ends, it's an open question. As for proven positives: we prevented mass murder at the hands of Qaddafi in Benghazi. The West also showed that it wouldn't just stand idly by as a nascent rebellion fighting for liberation from oppression was crushed, strengthening the soft power of democracy and the West's credibility on that issue. Finally, it will act as a deterrent to other future dictators thinking of slaughtering their people.
How can one even try to explain to someone that the US did not lead the charge in this war? The writer has created a clearly biased article based solely on his opinions. I understand it's an opinion article, however, he always attempts to throw an abundant amount of facts into his opinion, all which should be cited.
I think he means that the US largely sat out of the diplomatic rally to action. Not the military aspects. NATO would have had a much harder time than it did and may have had some casualties, the war woulda taken longer, and surveillance woulda been nonexistent.
http://w w w.youtube.com/watch?v=avnHiPFwsyk&feature=player_embedded
War crimes? War is a crime. All these fancy rules that some countries have made up to turn it into a game are laughable. War is a dirty, nasty business and the only purpose of war is victory, by any means. War Crimes is just something the winning side brings as charges against the losing side.
Maybe war should be a last resort instead of a game. Perhaps then we would engage in it less often.
Very well put! Nuclear attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the firebombing of Dresden, for example, are NOT war crimes. But attacking rebels raiding a national armory intent on toppling your regime is. There must be a rule book somewhere. I would have guessed the first three I mentioned were also war crimes .. but they are not considered as such .. silly me.
Gotta laugh at all the idiots calling Obama a "statesman". He went to war with Libya without notifying congress, you libtards went ape shi* when Bush ASKED for permission. Democrats, party of HYPOCRITES.
AMERICA WAKE THE PHUCK UP!!! Is it a coincidence Libya is "liberated" the same day the UN discusses and invasion of Syria????? You are paying for the expansion of the empire....our tax dollars. These wars are a huge reason our nation is in massive debt since 9/11 and no new president you elect will change that, except for one candidate, and that man is Ron Paul. Only Ron Paul has continuously been against foreign invasion and empire building, all the others, including Obama server the military industrial complex. If we do not vote Ron Paul in, we are truly doomed to this future of perpetual, pointless wars. And since they are destroying the middle class, and since Obama is creating a civilian force as large as the army which he wishes to possibly "arm" at times, all of us suckers will have a job in either the military or this new civilian force. Our government doesn't want us to have a choice of where to work, they know no new jobs are coming, so in the future they'll just put a gun in your hand. Iran is a peaceful nation and has in fact, not attacked another nation in modern times....Iraq was sent to invade Iran in the 80's...by America when Saddam was our little puppet. If we attack Syria now, it may cause repercussions with Iran, and Russia and China. The west is playing a dangerous game of toppling governments and installing military run regimes under our control. Is this what you want for our future perpetual war? We need to protest NOW. No more spending on the expansion of the empire!
Ron Paul has as much chance of being president as I have of winning the Powerball Jackpot.
I wish us both luck.
I was waiting for the Ron Paul people. Watching him make Rick Santorum look like an imbecile at the debate was worth sitting through the rest of the utter crap. Thank you.
I agree C. Notice how the other two responders simply attacked your support for Ron Paul because your argument is flawless. If this Ron Paul character really feels this way, he will absolutely NOT be elected. Why?
Presidents are puppets for a much stronger regime. The military industrial complex, the AIPAC, and all big business REFUSE to pull out from foreign wars. THAT IS HOW THEY MAKE THEIR BILLIONS! The arms trade is incredibly lucrative for America. THAT is why we are always bombing smaller countries to bits. Smaller countries that cannot defend themselves. America will NEVER attack North Korea or any other power because we would get destroyed. Pick on the little guy. Typical of a bully.
How did I attack his support? The fact is Ron Paul at age 75 would be the oldest man ever elected as president. Ronald Reagan was 69 when first elected. I don't foresee history changing on that point. I merely stated that he has an extremely small chance of winning. That is not an attack, nor is it untrue.
this article is BS. Myth #1 is that this is all about humanitarian stuff. Fact: this was about oil. Europe's oil, mainly. Qadaffi was going to throw European companies out or force them to pay more. Once he threatened Europe's oil companies, he was toast.
Oil was not the only but a decisive reason for NATO intervention, no myth there. How else can you explain China's and Russia's initial opposition to the UN resolution? This was clearly due to their growing influence on Lybia's oil exports which in return was much feared by France, Britain and the U. S. who lead this raid.
myth number 1... cnn is onjective reporting. Why dont you show crimes rebels comitted?
The united states is now the biggest threat to humanity on the planet.
We lead the charge in war and claim it is justified, we killed 100,000s of thousands of terrorist.
The truth is , they were people like you and me. They had kids, they ate, they slept, they loved, now they are dead.
God is bringing judgement to America and it shall fall quickly for its evil deeds.
There will be no excuses for ignorance.
Enjoy your economic collapse
This was all prophesied in the Bible. The U.S is the last of man's world powers and will come to an end very soon. It has lived a short life but like all other governments ruled by humans, it has FAILED MISERABLY. God will exact judgement.
Yeah, you can read all about America in the bible, in the book of Tommyrottery.
demcratic gov. later for libertion movment free them and nations should follow them to fredom!
"It does have tribal divisions, but these are not the basis for nationalist separatism, and tribal alliances and fissures are more fluid than ethnicity (which is itself less fixed than people assume). "...............
This is a cryptic statement. Also, France lead the initial bombing, as it did in Egypt in 1956 – which was also over oil. Check the French oil contracts.
this was the war for Suez.
And yes I want YOU check the French oil contracts (of the 60's). You'll not find anything special.
You're paranoid, it was a war for the Suez canal which was way more important than more oil !
These are not rebels. These are the new gov't or Libya. A rebel rebels against the established order or gov't.. This is the NEW government.
The hard and most difficult part now is bringing law and order to the streets of tripoli. putting their guns away and go back to school and work.
this isn't a rebellion which is the myth
This is a uprising or spontaneous revolution like the 1776 US revolution.
It's a rebellion if it's put down (Google Whiskey Rebellion). If they win, it's a revolution.
I just saw Saif al-Islam Gadhafi on video being cheered by crowds in Tripoli. What's up with the Juan Cole? Just sayin..
Prof. Cole's celibration seems to be a bit premature! He's just another liberal intellectual that likes to toot his own horn.
Ever since Cole began quoting the ADL as a legitimate authority on anti-semitism some months ago, most folks realized he'd sold out and gone over to the dark side. I guess he decided to make peace with the group that denied him tenure at Yale.
His suggestion that the rebels in "Misrata fought an epic, Stalingrad-style, struggle" forces me to conclude that his grasp of history is being subordinated to the need to pat himself and his new found friends in Libya on the back. Misrata equalsStalingrad? How completely absurd!
Out of all the news sites I really prefer CNN because of its typically focuses on creditable news stories. While I believe a lot of the information in here is true, the lack of sources rely hurts the credibility of this article and it something I typically read on FoxNews.com. Kind of disappointing to be honest.
Where did US, Britain & France go when SriLankan military killed so many innocent civilians in the name of war against LTTE? Are they kept mum because "no oil" wealth in SriLanka?
Mr. Cole, you didn't praise Obama here like you should have. The devoted liberals are not happy. I'm sorry...but you need to learn a lesson. You are hereby banned from the Obama religion.
Cole attacked Bush's wars in Iraq and Afghanistan but when Obama got elected international intervention suddenly became a great idea. Cole personifies what happened to the antiwar movement when the Democrats took over the Executive branch..
If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck... I'm sorry, but I have never heard of this Juan Cole before. After reading this article and his credentials, I would like to add one more credential to Juan Cole's name. It' called "World Class Idiot"!
Myth #3. It was only natural that Gadhafi sent his military against the protesters and revolutionaries; any country would have done the same. is not a myth. if their able too most states will do the same thing. the only think that prevents states from this is if their military is not on the governments side.
Myth #5. The Libyan Revolution was a civil war. is not a myth. this was a Asymmetrical civil war. i.e. conventional state military vs a non conventional rebel army.
Video: Saif al-Islam Gadhafi: NATO & the US (INCLUDING CNN) has created a media, electronic war to spread fear and chaos in Tripoli http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tS7segZbJgw
For some reason a vast majority of people simply cannot believe #10 is factual. Like they have oil on the brain and can't think further than that. It's is their main argument as to why the U.S. has evil intentions. The naivety is unbelievable. I hope this article reaches some of them and educates the populace, it has become tiresome responding to them, I gave up.
People like to think America's wars are for oil because none of the reasons our leadership, Democrats and Republicans, give are honest, truthful or make any sense.
No, you are naive. You seriously need to crack open a history book to see how America became as powerful as it has. It has r aped, pillaged, stolen, backstabbed, and murdered BILLIONS all in the name of 'freedom'. They lie to ignorant fools like you who actually think that America gives a crap about any country other than itself. Look at what its doing to its own citizens!! They are bankrupting the entire nation out of pure GREED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Why aren't they helping the people in the Congo? Sudan? Rwanda? ETC ETC. The list goes on and on. It IS about oil and power. It always has been.
ha ha... CNN has turned into a propaganda machine. case in point: whole day yesterday – Tripoli has been captured.. Sons have been arrested!!"
turns out... Saif Gaddafi is roaming freely INSIDE the hotel where CNN reporters are staying.
so much for the objectivity of news. : /
it's a street fight. there is no army just groups of armed men no tanks no jets etc. just old fashion street fighting block by block these amateurs soldiers don't even have walkie talkies. and no central command.
Exactly!!, news media has failed like never before. They aren't vetting their sources! – airing unvetted media, showing obviously staged events (where did all those new flags magically appear from!?!), supposedly airing local nationals who happen to speak excellent western style English, quotes supposedly from local nationals that read like US or Israeli press releases, and now reporting of events that was completely false.
It is more than propaganda. It is outright Zombying. Just look at their headers: Closing of Gadhafi era! What's next as Gadhafi falls? Libya should've ended sooner.
They are repeating those mantras since March with no apparent success though
Gaddafi is an interesting figure. He started out as an anti-colonial progressive who wanted Libya's people to be self-determinant and free from the influences of neoliberal economic practices. Some may disagree with these ideals, but nevertheless must find it somewhat appealing that Libya wanted to define Libya. Well, Gaddafi never pasted on power. After awhile power seems to take over the figure. Power became more important that the Libyan people. All countries need to term limit their leaders.
If one of those rogue shoulder-launched surface-to-air missiles finds its way onto the black market and used against our troops in Afghanistan or against U.S. passenger aircraft Obama is done. He created this chaos, he has to deal with the consequences.
THe US may not have led the charge but it is clear from former secretary of defense Bob Gates that America's Europena allies did not have the capabilities to sustain the effort. If you ask me this is because they have relied on US defense spending. As an American I think we should pull back from this police the world stuff and force our allies to invest in the necessary resources themselves if they want to be able to take action.
Unfortunately, we have another article by a so-called intellectual elite that purports to know everything about anything. I find CNN's choice to publish such nonsense to be unfortunate and agenda-driven. At what point will we have someone counter the points made by Mr. Cole? Since this is CNN, I highly doubt any fair and balanced approach will never be used.
Yet you keep coming back for more. Good on ya, stick to it! You should boycott anderson cooper by buying 50,000 TV sets and turning on CNN every single time he's on, too. That'd show them.
Hard-hitting reporting is dead. No longer do news reporters dig deeper to find the truth.
They are PAID to bury it. They are PAID to tell lies by their investors.
Big business has taken over our medical, media, and educational system. It is all about THEIR bottom line.
Workers were strictly controlled and unable to collectively bargain for improvements in their conditions. There was much more poverty and poor infrastructure in Libya than there should have been in an oil state
______________________
Sounds like the U.S.
Myth #11 – things will change in Libya when Qaddafi is gone
how dare you tell people the truth! who do you think you are! lol
That is was a peace keeping mission...Literally, you sorry as journalists...
Let's not kid ourselves, this revolution, like many other revolutions of Arab spring are about establishing fundamentalist states all across middle east. Unfortunately America did not learn anything from support that it provided to Taliban revolution years ago and keeps supporting these.
Interesting, as there are ZERO facts in evidence to support your claim. Not here, not in any media. Not even on secure data sources that I'll not discuss.
Nope, the only source is in your empty mind, filled by other Christian extremists and based purely upon lunacy and voices in heads, not facts.
But, what would *I* know? I've only been in a handful of unpleasant places in Africa, all over the Middle East and Afghanistan. I'd know nothing at all. Even IF I can curse fluently in 7 languages and have outcussed the infamously potty mouthed Lebanese in Arabic.
I know nothing, you know all. You, with your vast experience gained from your twinkie encrusted sofa, while I am ignorant, as I dragged my knuckles all over those places you wish to speak about, yet cannot point out on a map.
I'm STILL cleaning the dust of those places, two years after retiring, from my stuff.
"support that it provided to Taliban revolution?"
In your world, are there unicorns? The US supported the Northern Alliance *AGAINST* the Taliban.
But Uncle Sam did support radical Muslim Arabs, including ObL, when they went to Afghanistan to fight the Soviets. Classic case of blow back when the tall skinny kid sucker punched the school yard bully on 9/11.
Wzrd, no one listens to your babbling. We all know you as the resident nutjob ex-soldier that had one too many pieces of shrapnel lodged in your brain making it hard for you to think straight. Please go back to eating pea soup at the vet's homeless shelter and yelling at squirrels.
BEWARE ALL WHO HEAR!
Beware in Africa, the Berber table. Beware in the Middle East, the Lebanese table.
For, in truth, you shall depart twice the person you arrived.
And yearn for more of those flavors in the future.
And I DO mean that. Once you start trying the food, you'll be unable to stop trying it.
I'm STILL trying to reproduce a couple of recipes I tasted from Berbers, after two years. And I'm QUITE good at reproducing dishes.
Go hungry, at starvation levels some time, YOU will have the same fixation on food. :/
But, I don't overeat. With MY GERD, it'd get disgusting REAL quick.
This war crime committed by France, the Britts, nato, and the USA wasn't because of any 'revolution', it is, and has always been for world domination, greed, and most importantly extermination of People of Colour. History (even european) has recorded this evil quest by europeans for thousands of years. Just invest in, and read a history book containing western peoples.
Yep! Absolutely! That's why Berbers were supported and there are no combat troops on the ground.
It's the new method of fooling everyone, even ourselves.
I'll give you the European history point, to argue against it is beyond foolish.
But, I DO know the history of this world. In a depth that you are not permitted to know, such as many names involved in Operation Ajax, a SHAMEFUL thing in the extreme.
Nope, this is a US lead, request driven, UN mission. NATO accepted it, all members of NATO are TREATY BOUND to join in. AS ratified treaties ARE THE LAW IN CIVILIZED NATIONS.
So, stop listening to your djinn, it isn't a faithful one.
BTW, westerners, even Brits, spell Brit as Brit, not Britt. Even by the French.
Stop getting your spelling from Iblis.
This is just an opinion page, nothing more. The author is a clueless as CNN.
The poster, most likely, even MORE clueless.
The author was wrong in one point. The US *DID* drive the UN mandate for action, by request of the Libyan rebels and prodded by the government of Libya becoming unstable, due to excess of age and ailments associated with age, of the mind.
An unstable Libya is a BAD thing, their navy capable of stopping shipping in the region, as with Egypt in a bit of a mess, the Suez canal was vulnerable to mining operations.
Hence, a demand to stabilize Libya.
As opposed to Syria, who cannot destabilize shipping. Or anything else in the region, Turkey keeps them in line on their border, their other borders equally inhospitable to instability.
This article reads like a biased political statement. Instead of being factual and informative it serves only to bring the political views of its moronic author.
This article is a waste of space. The entire thing is one big strawman argument.
Oh? Kindly SHOW us the strawman arguments. Other than the US NOT pushing the action in the UN, which IS false, what is a lie?
Other than nothing.
"Strawman" doesn't mean what you think it means. Stay in school.
But if it was verbatim on Fox's website it would be clear and concise?
?
On a quick count, I got 15 I's, me's or my's in this essay. Apparently this is a bullhorn for the author, who I do not recognize, nor remember, as anything other than a tag-along in this ongoing story. Raise your points, make your arguments and leave the decisions to the reader. Please stop campaigning for a position at the UN. And item #6 is wrong. Libya has and always will be a tool for the west to use against, or for, North Africa.
I think Juan needs to stop drinking tequila before his ciestas
This is pure propaganda. We (USA) blew up so much of their military infrastructure with smart bombs. At least 90% of the bombs were from America. I am sure we (USA) armed the "rebels" as well and supplied strategic data. How much of our tax dollars went to that?. Then the author had the nerves to say this is not over oil. Yet in Kenya we have men running around with machetes killing innocent children, woman and men by the thousands. However it might not be over oil as Libya was a privatized banking system and not part of the IMF / world bank. I guess that is all about to change as well.
I disagree with him, the US did start the war. NATO countries were pulled into it because of the agreement. Obama was the first one to suggest military action. The rest of the countries fell in.
Myth # 11. Western involvement in this conflict is a good idea
"NATO had some intelligence assets on the ground, but they were small in number, were requested behind the scenes for liaison and spotting by the revolutionaries and did not amount to an invasion force. The Libyan people never needed foreign ground brigades to succeed in their revolution"
"Intelligence assets" is a euphemism for CIA agents. As in Afghanistan, they are dropped in by helicopter and
report coordinates for bombing raids, of which the US made roughly 400 since the whole thing began.
There is no need to put troops on the ground–you already have the rebels. With air support (ie. bombing)
they could pretty much take over even if they were not all that strong. Same as when Karzai replaced
the Taliban in Afghanistan. It has taken continued support, billions of dollars, years of effort to keep him
in power. Maybe the same thing in Libya?
Did i actually read this?
"the best case scenario that I had suggested was the most likely denouement for the revolution. I have been making this argument for some time, and it evoked a certain amount of incredulity when I said it in a lecture in the Netherlands in mid-June, but it has all along been my best guess that things would end the way they have. I got it right where others did not because my premises turned out to be sounder"
....Duh you think anyone thought he would win?? Nato pounding the hell out of them and arming the "rebels"to the teeth.. im sure every man woman and child has a semi automatic...who is this loser writing this stuff...cnn needs to invest in higher quality investigative reporting and more objective reporting
It seems like the real myth in this article is the idea that any of these "myths" were widely propagated. I haven't personally been exposed to a single one of them. First-Rate Journalism.
McCain is a warmonger and a water boy for defense contractors. This guy has wanted us involved in every conflict since the beginning of our nation–or so it seems. Old McDoofus and his sidekick, His Plumpness Lindsey Graham are both warmongers.
NATO needs to optimize and strategize in order to motivize all the tribes to get along. Maybe have the leaders watch Rudy!
this article is a joke. A pathetic piece of propoganda. For one, its already been admitted in a previous CNN article that USA is indeed importing oil from rebel held territory; and the most obvious aspect of it is the fact that they stated they are not allowed to make public the price per barrel (probably cause USA is getting a bargain deal that is almost theft). Secondly, im not going to buy for one second that these rebels are not backed in far larger ways than some minor intelligence support. France has already admitted to arming them, and at the begining of the conflict British special forces were caught in Libyan territory. They would like to make it seem like these Rebels have accomplished all this on their own, but anyone who knows anything about war knows that would be a joke to believe. Pretty much, what it comes down to is the west wants to remove Gadafi. Yes Egyptian forces did fire on protesters, and Yemen the same story by large. Fact is, if Gadafi was another one of these pro-western puppets (like Bin Ali, Mubarak, Saleh, etc), we wouldn't see any armed rebellion in Libya right now (or what would have started, would have been crushed).
Actually, it was an opinion piece. But ramble on good sir, ramble on.
PROOOOOOOMOOOOOOO!!!!
This should have been called "10 myths you haven't been hearing".
haha! So true...
Gadhafi wanted African unity, as a means of limiting the long-standing exploitation of African nations by the western industrial nations. That was Gadhafi's real "crime". Behind the uprising is $billions in weapons, logistics, advice and cash. Not only that but the rebels are integrated with "al Qaeda in North Africa"... this just demonstrates how bogus the "war on terrorism" is completely bogus: the US and NATO are allied to the al Qaeda/Libyan rebel movement.
#3 has problems. Every government PERIOD will act an do whatever is necessary to put down a revolution. The author either is uneducated or a liar. Look no further than Waco. If you don't believe me, then put together a serious revolution movement and see how long you last.
#8 has problems. Anyone who believes that we didn't lead the charge needs to see a doctor. Our media was especially complicit in this overthrow of a sovereign state, agging the revolution on.
It's pretty obvious the writer is in denial of what we have become. It took me years to come to terms with the truth that we massacred the native Americans and stole their land from them, but no matter how much that bothers me, we ARE what we ARE: history IS history.
Myth #11: Juan has no affiliation with Obama's propagation machine.
Why has no one asked why suddenly the US and NATO countries suddenly became humanitarians .
Look on the map and see where Ceyhan is and the Caspian Basin . Then see where Tripoli is and Benghazi.
What with Cyprus it ties up the Eastern Meditteranean quite nicely . No coincidence that this is all about Caspian oil and its distribution . See who are the Caspian signatories and it all falls into place as to why NATO suddenly became nice compassionate fellows .
it is funny to count how many diffrent ways qadaffi is written
"Cost to taxpayers for U.S. share of Libyan mission approaching $1 billion"
LOL 'LIbyan Mission'
LIbyan Mission
Kinetic Military Action
ANYTHING but what it is....A War...A War without the support of congress or the people
Great Job Obama...For a dictator
I have heard a lot of conflicting accounts on what is REALLY behind this anti-Gahdaffi revolution, and the most logical explanation is that Gahdaffi announced that he was planning to sell his oil in EURO's NOT Dollars, just as Saddam Hussein did right before we invaded, and supposedly that is the REAL reason we invaded Iraq. For all you people who insist that it is about FREEDOM or DEMOCRACY or some other kind of feel-good control word than you really should get out of your elementary school mindset and wake up and recognize the world for what it really is. There is no TRUE democracy in the world and NOBODY just gives up power willingly. In America, we have a dual-partisan oligarchy that runs the country. Do you think you can EVER "vote" out the Dems. & Reps. NEVER. That in itself makes us a non-democracy.
America will fail again in Libya. It is unfortunate that President Obama is going to put the entire American citizens in the mind of Africans as bad people of the world.
youtube.com/watch?v=g1V1y0fw-Ag
please watch, rate, share and comment. thank you, the daddy
Terrible article.Its clear Cnn 's writers and commentators are dim witted idiots.Keep on writing rubbish and losing credibility.I m no Gaddafi apologist and I don't even understand his system of government .But before NATO's war,Libya had a better human development index than Saudi arabia.It is the country with the higest HDI in Africa ahead of South Africa.This is inspite of years of crippling sanctions by the international community.Reading this article makes me really sick.
I agree, it was absolute drivel. It was hard not to throw up while reading it. How dare western media take such a 'moral' stance, when the west is every bit as brutal as anyone else. Hypocrites. I'm a westerner, but I can see it. Why are most of us so blind that we can't see that the impetus behind such western interference in sovereign countries is just a grasp for market share and dominance?
Better HDI than Saudi and Africa, way to set your aspirations high. Still lower than UAE, Qatar, Bahrain and Kuwait. Oh wow and they barely management to beat Tunisia and Algeria, places where the people seem very happen with their governance. Does it really surprise you that the most educated people are the ones that strive for democracy? Whilst the illiterate ones didnt check their Facebook profiles for the lastest update on a protest to establish a multi-party democratic elections? Not surprising to me.
"I don't even understand his system of government". If you look up 'dictatorship' in the dictionary you will get the definition.
"Highest HDI in Africa ahead of South Africa. This is inspite of years of crippling sanctions" Because at that time the rest of Africa were havin a great time? No apartheid, no sowetos, no Famine (especially not that one that claimed a few mill in Ethiopia), no civil wars, no AIDS, no blood diamonds. Libya having the highest HDI in Africa only proves how torrid a time the rest of Africa has been having. And how much money you can make from old dead trees.
"Myth #3. It was only natural that Gadhafi sent his military against the protesters and revolutionaries; any country would have done the same. A:No, it wouldn’t, and this is the argument of a moral cretin. "
Huh?? So the US and UK don't send out police to beat protesters at world bank events and other protests? The US doesn't enforce order through force? I can guarantee the US would crack some heads if there were an uprising such as that in Libya. This stance that western democracies take the high road is foolish and dishonest. They never fail to react to uprisings with the exact same brutality as any totalitarian regimes.
As the gap between the rich and poor in the US increases due to neo-conservative politics, and the bankers continue to take all, people will take to the streets, but you can rest assured, there will be a BRUTAL response from the US government.
"So the US and UK don't send out police to beat protesters at world bank events and other protests?"
You realize there were mass riots and looting across England recently right? 2000 people arrested and charged. No evidence of beating. A proven looter was tackled and hit with a baton on the head once or twice. 4 policemen were investigated for the incident. They did not even use water cannons, rubber bullets or tear gas, they merely pushed them back or stopped them from advancing. Thats how heavy handed England were. SCORCHED EARTH! I can obviously see why you would equate England arresting violent looters with Libya firing live ammunition at a peaceful demonstration. Last time the west did anything comparable was 1972 Bloody Sunday; where 13 peaceful protesters were killed. The Saville Inquiry was open 12 years, closed and opened again recently, and made public. You think Qaddafi will treat his victims the same way? So if his enquiry is equally thorough it will last a good 10 thousand years. Just to put it in perspective for you.
I respectfully disagree with you: the rioting in the UK was not a serious attempt at regime change. The initial protests in Libya were NOT met with bullets, but a little roughing up. Once there were clear signs that the protests/riots were aimed at regime change, things got ugly. My only point was that were there an earnest attempt at regime change in the US or the UK, or other western governments, there would be serious violence from authorities to quell it.
Additionally, I think we can safely assume that "armed" protest would be met by deadly violence from western regimes also.
Well there was many other roits and crap in many other countries ..why focus on Libya !! Oil!
I disagree with myth 5. Isn't that the DEFINITION of a civil war? Ghadaffi's tribe supports him and no one else does.
This is what I read: blah blah blah.... This writing is a bit premature. wait and see what happens next
agreed 100% almost.
Iam happy to read that lots of europeans/americans sees the way it is real. Most wars get started by foreign issues and with this create atmosphere of own people get killed, tortured, etc etc.
what is it all about basics: power, control, money. all want to become rich behind back or deaths from others. This include Obama also. The pope in Rome, etc etc
Why not all of us in the world step back and do what is needed: fix your own problems first. Like climate, etc etc
politics is just bla bla bla bla bla but what about nature, family, gangs, drugs?
Iam in hospital because iam ill of airways. drty streets, car, poulions. This will become a worldwide issue and total not needed at all if they do what have to be done. This save lives, but of course will costs money on selling oil , gas and cleaner cars. etc etc etc. It is a big circle of robberys.
umm, how was the usa reluctantly following europe when the usa led the first weeks of the attack forces supporting the rebels? you may have forgotten this already because it fits your america bashing agenda but the rebels won't. otherwise, your writeup was accurate as far as we can know being we have little information about libya over the years due to the dictatorship. whos fault is that?
Not a bad article overall, very biased in some aspects, ill informed here and there but a straight B grade. Myth 10 – it WAS iabout oil. It is the #1 commodity, it's was made the G-man's wealth. The general public is failing to see the motiove behind these mid east uprisings. For the majority of "rebels" it IS about freedom, but most of all it's about the money. The have vs. the have nots. "Money So they say Is the root of all evil today" I hope these rebels realize that if the power fall into the wrong hands like in Egypt, they are done and will be serving a new master probably worse than old Momar.
#11: NATO actions fall within the NATO Charter. False. There is no provision for NATO members to take action against a non-member state that has not threatened or attacked a member of NATO.
#12: Pres Obama had the authority to enter into hostilities without Congressional approval. False. The WPR allows the President to enter into hostilities only under three conditions. None of those three conditions were met.
Myth #3....???? Moral cretin to think troops would fire on their own civilians? Anyone ever heard of Kent State?
What an absolute fluff propaganda piece...
Obviously biased trash.
Myth # 11 : CNN can be trusted to bring fair news that isnt generated by the government or big business
NOT a news piece. It's an opinion piece. But I'm sure you'll take it as the ground truth because it was written by an academic...
I am an academic. I have "studied" the region for years. I have a piece of paper to prove it. I will write about myths. I will insert some obvious truths along with MANY biased statements based on hyperbole and incredible assumptions. The sweetness of truth will make the sourness of the propaganda go down MUCH easier...
Wow, still trying to save Obama's reputation by tarnishing W's. Thinly veiled.
I had to laugh out loud to so called myth #8. Our Nobel peace prize winning president was in fact the primary instigator. As to #3, what do you call Waco? Every single government with a military with two functioning rifles will use them to supress any violent uprising. It's beyond naive to think that any government, no matter how "civilized" in the eyes of these know-nothing professors, will lay down and submit to rebels. Are you kidding me? State police has no qualms about shooting down inner city kids who look them the wrong way – I cannot even imagine the magnitude of the iron-fist response if there was a full scale rebellion. Most other "myths" are also not. This is pure government propaganda disguised as an opinion piece.
Waco
The siege began when the United States Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) attempted to execute a search warrant at the Branch Davidian ranch at Mount Carmel, a property located 9 miles (14 km) east-northeast of Waco, Texas. On February 28, shortly after the attempt to serve the warrant, an intense gun battle erupted, lasting nearly 2 hours. In this armed exchange, four agents and six Branch Davidians were killed. We know what, sadly, followed.
So, you're saying that after opening fire on law enforcement following a search warrant with automatic weapons they should have. . . .what? When people are willing to die for a 'cause' they WILL die for said cause. Unfortunately some of them take their families with them. You can find videos of pregnant women volunteering to be 'martyrs' for their faith. These people chose the same.
Could the situation have turned out better? Yes. Did federal law enforcement make a mess of it? Yes.
Did you see fighter bombers dropping bombs on UNARMED civilian protestors? Nope. Tanks rolling through peaceful protestors? Nope. The list goes on and on. Please stop comparing apples to a water buffalo. It makes no sense, and makes you appear foolish
For some reason I feel like I'm being feed something by CNN here. They have been pronouncing the rebels in control of the country for months now, each time it seems that the rebels are not as in control as CNN claims them to be. This network is becoming a propaganda tool for western governments rather than a news agency, your all fools for believing what they say.
Myth #3? HAHAHA!! On May 4, l970 members of the Ohio National Guard fired into a crowd of Kent State University demonstrators, killing four and wounding nine Kent State students. The impact of the shootings was dramatic. The event triggered a nationwide student strike that forced hundreds of colleges and universities to close. H. R. Haldeman, a top aide to President Richard Nixon, suggests the shootings had a direct impact on national politics.
CNN really has become a propaganda tool, they are much more biased than fox is now.
propaganda to control public sentiment....we went to iraq because sadamn killed 100 insurrectionist but in the aftermath 1,000,000+ dead civilians after our democratic liberation. what about the bomb we dropped on gahdafis grandchildren in a civilian town...isnt that a war crime???
Myth8: US DId not lead war?
on the first nights there were ~300 cruise missiles shot, and about 280 were from USA. Dont tell me we didint spend billions on bombs, missiles and fuel to make Gas and Oil prices surge!!! Oh ya and it was another president decision, not a congress one. NATO is nothing without USA. USA spends all the money, they do all the talking
Christians should be outraged and protesting against our government.
we are there for the oil.... look at the atrocities in Sudan but why intervene...they have no oil
Is it fun being that stupid? You honestly hate America sooo much that you are completely unwilling to make yourself aware of the facts before running your dumb mouth?
Western oil companies ALREADY HAD THE OIL. Gadhafi sold it to them. They paid for it. Now they have absolutely nothing. If we "were only there for the oil" we would have helped Gadhafi so we could keep it. Not help the rebels so we can maybe if we're lucky pay them a 2nd time to have it.
tool.
as soon as we control their oil...it will be easier to manipulate oil prices....venezuela here we come we need your oil, and maybe Mexicos so they can charge $6.00 a gallon.the more they control....the higher the price.
at the price a barrel of oil cost right now....a gallon of gas should be under $2.00 ........its not the arabs making the profits, its the big refineries...chevron , mobil,exxon...etc
If you check yesterday's closing prices for CXV, XOM and COP you will see how wrong you are.
Good try Dr. Egghead trying to tagg your boy with Conservatives by dropping the Bush name.
Since your hippy days of sticking it to your parents your crew of liberals....sorry, name change to "Progressives", have been on bended knee swooning over Gadhafi .
Progressives love nothing more than an all powerful Nanny State with Marxist shoutings...and Gadhafi was your ultimate lover. Don't try to pretend otherwise.
The biggest myth is that a broke-asss country like the US can continue to spend billions saving other countries.
I found this article to be interesting and helpful. Hippies and squares needa stfu and focus on the real problems in America: the hippies vs the squares. We play chicken with every issue until its do-or-die, then we make a bad decision because of all the time we wasted filibustering around.
Im sure there was more to laugh at later in this article, but after two paragraphs about how awesome, ole Juan is, I just couldnt stomach any more. You call yourself a writer?
hmmm yeah it is about maintaining new world order and having puppet governments installed in countries that have resources.
I find it funny that he defends against this war and not the Iraq war. Difference? The writer didn't like bush but loves Obama. We went to Iraq for oil but how dare u say that about Libya!?!? Complete left wing crap. And before u say anything, I'm an independent. I just find it funny how journalists can't be bipartisan ever. No one on CNN ever had anything good to say about the Iraq war but the Libya war? Wait a sec. Lets write an article about all the myths. Never saw one article, NOT ONE, on CNN, about the myths of the Iraq war. There's just no credibility here.
Lol, thanks for the propaganda, Commrade CNN.
This article is an Impressive feat. Juan Cole sets up a lot of straw men and then burns them. I never thought Kadaffy was a 'progressive' of any sort or any of the other 'myths'. It's really swell that he uses the 'Top Ten' format - that always inspires confidence in me, especially on the innertubes. Let me add Myth #11: KADAFFY HAS AN ESCAPE PLAN WITH A UNICORN AND A FLYING CARPET. We'll just have to wait and see; that's still 'up in the air' right now.
The biggest myth about the war in Libya is that anything thing that CNN publishes is the truth.
This article is a load of shiate to try and numb the questions people are asking, none of it is fact whatsoever and the pieces that are facts scattered in this mess could easily be countered by 10 facts from the other side of the story. CNN needs to sharpen up and stop taking so many checks from political groups that want the public to be swayed.
RON PAUL is the People's Choice in 2012!
"When fighting began, it was volunteer combatants representing their city quarters taking on trained regular army troops and mercenaries. That is a revolution, not a civil war."
Wrong. That does not a revolution make. A revolution would be if Gaddafi is overthrown and a new type of government radically different emerges. A revolution in and of itself is not violent or has anything to do with war (Industrial Revolution, the numerous agricultural revolutions, etc.). A revolution occurs when profound social change happens due to an event.
I am surprised so careless an error could be made by a professor of history on so obvious a very basic point to those in our field. There might be a revolution in Lybia, but its not because the common man rose up against a strongman. This has happened thousands of times, only for the strongman to be replaced by another strongman and those are not revolutions either.
I agree, i dont think Lybia would be where it is at currently without the help of NATO, its a proven fact that without NATO these rebels would not have advanced as far as they did, at least not this quickly. Im wondering what leader is next for western power to overthrow via some for of dreamed up revolution.
an overthrow or repudiation and the thorough replacement of an established government or political system by the people governed.
That is one definition of a revolution. Looks like it applies to Libya. Maybe you should go back to school and actually learn something... like how to read dictionary dot com
Also have to comment that no country would attack its people to control its power of authority like Libya has......that some kind of sick joke CNN? I go go into recent past within the last 50-70 years and come up with well over 100 situations where the American Governement/Police/Army have Physically made sure their power and authority was not challenged by the people.
Myth #11....This was a legal war.
What makes a war legal?
BTW – this is an internal revolution.
This article is the dumbest one I have ever read. Why not print that the sky is blue. What insight did anyone get from this? I just wasted 8 minutes of my life reading this garbage.
"I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested. Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents."
an overthrow or repudiation and the thorough replacement of an established government or political system by the people governed.
That is one definition of a revolution. Looks like it applies to Libya. Maybe you should go back to school and actually learn something... like how to read dictionary dot com
Should be reply to Michael Sawyer
Why is CNN's reply and message system so messed up?
Juan Cole's arguements just don't hold up. I have been fully engaged and informed in the middle east conflicts for the past twenty years and I have read mountains of material on the subject. I also took the time to go there several times to witness facts on the ground. I have rarely read a more biased and uninformed article in all my years than this "informed" comment by Cole.
For example: It is very clear that the rebels could never have made any progress without American boots on the ground directing and gathering intelligence for the thousands and thousands of merciless bombing runs on soldiers.
Yes ....."American boots on the ground".
Cole seems oblivious to the importance of international law. It was stated early on in this conflict that the real goal was to get rid of Libya's leader.......something that is against international law.
(If you don;t believe me then read Canada's prime minister, Steven Harper's comments after he came out of one of the first meetings on how NATO was going to handle this attack.)
And by the way.........this civil war has only just started Mr. Cole..........much more bloodshed is about to be spilled because of the human misery and mess NATO has stirred up.
I call bullcrap on #8, America has been that overwhelming majority of the "NATO support". America, DID, lead the charge to intervene in Libya to protect oil fields that supply Europe.
No Ian, The USA stood on the sidelines on this one. It was in the Europeans best interest to act. We gave them a few sorties and thats it.
You are completely cluless about our role.
Didn't bother to read the article huh?
If Libya didn't have lots of oil, no one would have run to the defense of rebels who were being beaten. The international community didn't like a crackpot being in charge of Libya's oil, and saw this as an opportunity to get rid of the crackpot. It's about oil.
Didn't read the article did you?
CNN is a joke. Myth #1 should have been, anything that makes Obama look bad is the biggest myth.
"No, it wouldn’t, and this is the argument of a moral cretin"
After argument like this I am not reading this garbage "news" site anymore.
Did he just label GWB right wing? lol
P. A. Ganda
CNN and the rest of the media spin our little heads round and round. For example, this article wishes to quash any myths made about the "Civil War/Revolution". Well let's take a look at who is calling it a Civil War. CNN's very own writer Dan Gilgoff. This is a quote straight from his article, "But experts say that Ramadan probably helped intensify the Libyan civil war and likely played a contributing role in taking the six-month old conflict to a dramatic new level."
As readers these words are very strong and the articles written seem to create a "Civil War" within the media and against there own readers. Please Please Please stop the PROPAGANDA!!!!!!
The whole thing is a myth.
This country just like Iraq is being looted by western powers. Period. There wasn't one single image of the "People" revolting or the "People" protesting on any media network. Remember Egypt and how there were images of the "People" uprising. Well the people aren't kicking Ghadaffi out, its a bunch of rag tag rebels being financed and armed by westerners. As before, its about the resources. Its modern day theft, divide and conquer. Ghadaffi's only crime was seeking independence from outside influences. If you're duped into believing its about saving the "people" from this ruthless dictator, then you my friend, are a fool.
Canada, Great Britain as well as the United States of America, had forgiven Lybia's part in the Air Canada flight that was blown-up over Scotland. So much so, that we aquited as well as paid for the trial of the bombers. Canada and Great Britain have had long standing business dealings with Lybia's government, the Americans were training their police force and military leaders. The revoloution was created and encouraged by Nato. The most important thing now would be to find out who the leaders of the revolution are and whether they should be trusted or removed and replaced with Lybians that will work within the rule of law. The rest of the year should prove to be interesting in Lybia. Let's all pray that Lybia can return to its pre-war peacefullness.
Myths? What myths? Nobody had myths about Ghadaffi. This isn't the Letterman Show.
I like how the author wrote this article seemingly to bolster the fact that he has been right all along...the U.S. has had its military fire on crowds before (ie Kent State and 4 killed) and I believe the US would do it again if there were large scale protests...I know it isn't US policy to fire on our citizens, but if the soldiers felt threatened and to protect themselves they would most likely fire...and once the first shot is fired, others follow unfortunately...this is meant in no way to compare Libya and the US, but our country is not perfect either...we welcomed Gadhafi in from the cold and then showed him the door! Unfortunately, we in the US will never stop being the world's policemen, even though our economy is in the crapper. It is my belief that if you want change bad enough, one will find a way to overthrow a dictator even at the cost of one's life.
Here in the US we live under a dictatorship disguised as a democracy but many people don't realize it. This is why a very small percentage of the US own more than half the wealth of the country. No matter how you slice it, it's not right. Please check out in YOUTUBE John Perkins "Confessions Of An Economic Hit Man". You will see what the real deal is.
SEEK THE TRUTH!
"he began buddying around with George W. Bush" What an asinine comment. Stupid swipe at Bush.
CNN ?...The Truth ?...LOL Ha!
google 'CNN fake newscast gulf war'
oil oil oil Reporter talks about how all the big oil companies would not jeopardize they oil sources WRONG they want a weak rebel goverment in power so they can dictate terms to them and increase profits who cares that ouput is disrupted for a year they will make up profits and production over the next 5 Oil Corps are forever they want die or change they are about profit thats it Old Libya would have sold oil on the spot market for less than opec prices if the Oil companies tried to bully them
So.. the US has spent a billion dollars that we don't have so these people can have a government based on Sharia law? Sounds to me like the taxpayers got shafted yet again.
We shouldn't care what laws other countries choose to have. We also shouldn't be involving ourselves to replace foreign governments though.
In regards to myth #3 -–The US governtment has indeed sent troops against civilians. Recall May 1970 - National gaurd troops opened fire on protesting college students. Recall Summer 1967 Detroit, Which I saw with my own eyes, Nation gaurd troops called out to quell riots. Opened fire on rioters. Marshall law imposed. I personally watched the tanks, yes tanks not APCs rolling down warren ave. The NG troops being bivouaced in chandler park, right behind where I lived. It may not have been the same in your eyes, but yes the similarities are there. Do a little historic research before you try to report things. A lot of us older generation still remember these things.
It will be interesting to hear what Obama has to say when the uprising comes to the US after it's citizens become completely disgusted with it's Government and our authorities attack the citizens here. Will Obama condone it or speak out against it as he has advised other leaders to allow their citizens peaceful protest against their Governments, Syria and Tunisia??? SEEK THE TRUTH
Our government is very hypocritcal in their condemnations of other countries regarding their violent crackdowns. I guess they think those of us have seen the kind of crackdowns here are no longer alive. But guess what ? We're still here and we still remember !!! They are obviously preaching to younger generation that have no knowledge of thes events. And yes, I can see it happening again in my own lifetime.
Well Kent State was before my time, However I've been a soldier for 18 years. We would NEVER fire on unarmed people. Gaddiff (and all other spellings) ordered Air Strikes on his own people. This has NEVER happen with the U.S. Army. I understand if you hate the president (hell half of the country seems to hate who ever is charge) But Kent State will not be happening again in our lifetimes.
My posting above failed to mention the 1970 incident was Kent State university.
How many thousands killed? If I remember my reading correctly there were no mass graves?
You're glossing over the facts. Point is, after the crackdowns, our citzens backed down. If they would have taken up arms as they did in Libya, yes you probably would have seen thousands of deaths.
It's like former Attorney General Ramsey Clark stated, "this has been a constant attack on the cradle of civilization (African nations) for the purpose of gaining resources". US has no shame but one day through divine intervention the US will have to answer to a higher power for all of the ugly deeds it has committed against peaceful nations of the world, for the purpose of monetary gain. This system called democracy designed to appease the wealthy will one day completely crumble. It is crumbling now but pace will soon speed up. Check out John Perkins on YOUTUBE "Confessions Of An Economic Hit Man" This video will explain how the US works against other nations to rob their resources. SEEK THE TRUTH!
All these countries are obviously very peaceful....
Why does everyone try to make issues like "Libya" one dimensional. Things are rarely back or white, right or wrong, but many shades and degrees of truth in between. I sometimes wonder if people have lost the ability to research matters on their own without the help of the media, and in doing personal research read beyond things that "prove their opinion". If people can not learn to open their minds again and be receptive to other peoples opinions and presentations and allow at least a moments honest reflection on those opposing thoughts, then we all are doomed very shortly.
YOU ARE 100% CORRECT!
I recently read an article regarding what they deemed "information overload." Essentially the article posits that the over abundance of information (often poorly researched and written) and the ease of access has actually slowed the growth and spread of knowledge. It continues to argue that with the wide range of information available cause people to have shorter attention spans and tend to jump from topic to topic, preventing them from fully researching any given topic.
I don't remember where I read the article or who the author was, but it was certainly an interesting read and fits well with your comment.
My thoughts exactly.
What's the interest of going into war in a country you have no stake in and you ended up spending billions of dollars in the process? I guess something is fishy about the whole process.
I got to "myth" two when the piece became so familiarly, painfully stupid I had to scroll up and see, yes, this was written by Juan Cole.
All THESE COMMENTS ARE POINTLESS AND BESIDES THE POINT. I BELIEVE THE ARTICLE STATES: "TEN MYTHS ABOUT THE LIBYAN WAR." SO WHAT ARE THE TEN MYTHS?
MYTH # 1. THE GOP IS NOT LENDING MORAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL SUPPORT TO THE LIBYAN GOVERNMENT.
MYTH #2. THE GOP IS NOT PULLING FOR THE LIBYAN GOVERNMENT
MYTH # 3. THE GOP IS NOT CONSPIRING TO DERAIL THE UN MISSION AND PREVENT NATO, THE UN AND THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION FROM SUCCEEDING IN LIBYA
MYTH # 4. THE GOP IS NOT DEVISING A PLAN TO HELP MOAMMAR GHADAFFI FLEE LIBYA AND AVOID A WAR CRIMES TRIBUNAL
MYTH # 5. THE GOP DOES NOT KNOW WHERE MOAMMAR GHADAFFI HAS BEEN HIDING OUT ALL ALONG
MYTH # 6. THE LIBYAN CAMPAIGN WOULD HAVE STILL BEEN ONGOING HAD THE GOP NOT STEPPED IN THE WAY AND CALLED FOR OUR MILITARY ENGAGEMENT TO CEASED
MYTH # 7. DENNIS KUCINICH WHO FIRST CALLED FOR THE IMPEACHMENT OF PRESIDENT OBAMA FOR OUR INVOLVEMENT IN LIBYA IS A LONGTIME DEMOCRAT. (NO, HE'S A LONGTIME SPY AND INFORMANT FOR THE GOP)
MYTH # 8. THE GOP IS CONCERNED ABOUT AMERICAN CASUALTIES AND SPENDING IN LIBYA. (NO, THEY DON'T SEEM TO CARE ABOUT OUR CASUALTIES AND TRILLIONS SPENT IN IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN)
MYTH #. 9. JOHN BOEHNER IS NOT A FAN OF MOAMMAR GHADAFFI
MYTH # 10. IF MOAMMAR GHADAFFI TOPPLES, JOHN BOEHNER WILL NOT CRY
Thanks CNN for the propaganda. Knob heads actually believe a trashy article like this...
1.) America should care about Libyan business in Libya and waste money on it in as many forms possible.
2-10.) See number one.
Fixed that list for you.
I Googled these myths and only one of them appeared in the main stream press “A War for Libya’s oil” where Fortune Magazine said
“The value of Libya's oil exports was $33 billion in 2009 market prices. As large as that seems, it makes up only about 2% of global oil production.‘’ Nowhere does Fortune say that this was a “war for Libya’s oil”. And it’s hard to imagine NATO going to war over 2% of the world’s oil supply.
Myth 0:
It was worth a BILLION dollars to unseat a person in a place filled with people who have no idea what self-governance is. This was not our business. There is no benefit to having a devil we do not know take the place of one that we understand. Arab spring has more to do with old leaders becoming weak on their deathbeds than anything else.
Myth 11: The next leader will be US friendly.
Myth 12: The only organized group, namely Islam, will just cede power to elected officials.
Myth 13: The US and NATO were correct to spend money because the Arab League asked for it.
Myth 14: The Lybian people appreciate what was done for them by the UN and NATO.
Myth 15: The US receives more benefit than cost by intervening in the affairs of other nations when it is not threatened.
Myth 16: The US people are safer and/or better off for intervening in Lybia. (And Egypt, Syria, insert other nations as you like)
I can't help but think that this article would have had an entirely different tone if a conservative were President instead of Obama. Especially once I read the 2nd "myth," specifically the portion that equated having a relationship with conservatives as somehow being evil.
Our last conservative ran up the national debt by starting two full-scale wars without congressional 2/3rds majority as he cut taxes and bailed out Wall Street using main street's money. In a breathtaking move, we switched policy to pre-emptive strikes. We have lost our minds, as an electorate, when we tolerate that.
WE DON'T NEED LIBYAN OIL. EVERY SO OFTEN WE SPILL OUR OWN TO SHOW OUR DISCONTENT FOR THE PRESIDENT.
Still waiting for Obama supporters to admit he is no different than GWB for invading this country. One pair of boots on the ground from US forces = Invasion by any other name.
And it's not a "peacekeeping" mission either for the BO apologists.
I think Congress is to blame on both accounts, for not pushing the War Powers Clause into effect.
??? Dubya told his advisors to leave and not come back until they had a justification (no matter how fabricated) for invading Iraq. So they (infamously) did.
The uprising in Libya was already occurring, and the US entered it late, as one accurate poster mentioned–reluctantly, and after GB and France. Obama and the US were constatntly criticized for a) not doing more; and b) doing too much–but he didn't start this war, and he didn't seek it.
Now the country will be run by US funded Al-Qaeda instead of the US funded Gaddafi!!! Just like the Muhajadeen! I guess it's only a matter of time until we're back at war with Libya! Oh it's sooo exciting! On to Syria and Iran! Yey war !!!!
# 3 is a lie. Other countries would have done the same thing. Look back to Kent State University in the United States, the national guard was called out and started killing students. If things had gotten any worse in England two weeks ago, you better believe England would have sent out the troops, in fact they did, Just don't know if they were killing anyone or not.
When will our government learn NOT to arm our enemies just like in Afghanistan in the 1980s they are arming AL QAEDA in LIBYA They call them "Rebels" but they are Al Qaeda fighters
Myth #10 is correct, the oil companies would rather have stuck with Gadhafi, which is why western countries put up with Gadhafi all these years, but now that the rebels appear to be winning, oil companies, and the western governments they control, will welcome and praise whatever new regime takes over. Whether they are better or worse than Gadhafi is not an issue, as long as the oil flows, whatever kind of nation they become, they too will be tolerated.
True the war is not about oil, but you can be certain that oil dictates our western propaganda and our foreign policies.
WHY did our government dump Osama Bin Ladens body and not provide proof to the world that he was dead? Especially after parading Saddam Hussein and his sons on camera.
Notice the war on Libya came at a time when the Fukushima disaster was under intense national scrutiny. Could i tbe that the Nuclear Lobby pays alot of politicians to SHUT UP.
Our government here in the US and in other countries IS NO LONGER RAN by the will of the people, but the will of corporations and Banks. All you have to do is take a look at the insane looting of the taxpaying citizen at behest of wallstreet banks (aka the bailout)
If we want ot TRULY stop terrorism worldwide we would start by tossing the Moneychangers who run this country OUT. Starting with the Federal Reserve
Conspiracy theory eh? Mel Gibson was great in that movie... you should probably move to Libya.
not a theory when its fact out government has a history of false flag operations USS Liberty or Gulf of Tonkin ring a bell?
Guess its opposite day guess the US never funded and trained Osama Bin Laden and his Muhajadeen back in the 80s
You stick to name calling Eric ill stick to facts
I got my own movie for you George Orwells 1984 or perhaps The Manchurian Candidate
Hmm eric so you want me to move to Libya because i am AGAINST Banking Cartels raping and robbing sovereign nations like our Beloved US of A?
Because im tired of our politicians getting rich while bailing out their paymasters on wallstreet While the rest of the country flounders in debt?
Because im sick of our government going to war for the safety and security of foreign countries, and then supporting the very enemies who attack us later?
To your credit though Eric many Germans during the Third Reich thought their government was doing the right thing too by invading other countries
"we would start by tossing the Moneychangers who run this country OUT." Just rip the problem out by the roots, eh? That's called a "radical" solution, from the Latin radix or root. Since there is seldom a single cause for any complex problem, radical solutions tend to appeal to the simple or uneducated mind. Actually, there is a reason we have banks, and a reason we have a federal reserve bank to rule over them. Close all the banks and it's Black Friday again. FIX things when they don't work, don't just break them further.
Does anyone know the ten myths about poo?
take a break from this nonsense! see if you can win a free gift card from todaysreview (dot) org
Another liberal trying to rewrite history....
I think it is hilarious that everyone wants to nit-pick the US, from the time of inception to now, pointing to ever done wrong, all the while protesting that we haven't acted in every country that has had internal conflict or deserving of a intervention. Somehow because we have risen up over a few centuries to become the most powerful nation militarily and socially that we are obligated to address all situation and do so perfectly the first time. Get real, your people have had time magnitudes greater than we yet your social policies and power projection stagnates just as it begins to incline due to your unchecked greed at the individual level, ulimately rising to the macro level. We are not perfect, we don't pretend to be so, we do however continually take self-correcting steps to better our nation and our moral fabric while protecting the individual freedom which we all enjoy and will defend to the death. Real education does not teach hate, but acceptance despite flaws. It saddens me to see such blind hate for a country that is trying to do what is morally right by all the inhabitants of the world, not just itself, while protecting itself from blind hatred of wealth, freedom, and idividual rights. For such a beautiful landscape it seems to be inhabited by awefully hateful people.
Ok, so if we rose up against Obama, he wouldn't defend himself and the country? Its is my understanding that the rebels were not so peaceful in their protests. Not all of the people wanted Gaddafi gone, he does have regular citizens and people that support him, that makes this a civil war and he had every right to defend his country. Call me immoral all you want, but this is very similar to almost any other civil war and NATO and no other country had the right to intervene. My two cents on the matter :/
Respect,
with all due respect, president Obama did not invade Libya. The president along with the UN authorized a no fly zone to protect civilians and prevent the Libyan government from killing it's people while they protest peacefully and try to decide the future of their country. Don't forget that there were no rebels on the ground to begin with but just Libyan civilians calling for democratic change. And if Moammar Ghadaffi had ignored them, eventually they may have gotten bored and head home. But no, Ghadaffi ordered them shot on the spot. And in all due respect, these people became rebels as they had to defend and protect themselves. I will not bother to go into to the details of the Iraqi war because for some reason, the people on the other side of the isle refuse to admit and acknowledge the crimes committed by George W. Bush and his cabinet.
Joe, it never fails me on how americans will tell one lie after the next just to try to make themselves sound smarter than they are. your either a moron or a habitual liar! I know,your both! watch the first three minutes of this interview that is going viral in the middle east on who these AL-QAEDA REBELS are and keep your lies and opinions to yourlself.
http://www.sabcnews.co.za/portal/site/SABCNews/menuitem.446bbb53cfccf0702ea12ea1674daeb9/?vgnextoid=f037b46ae2f66210VgnVCM10000077d4ea9bRCRD&vgnextfmt=format1
Gaddafi had nothing to do with the Locerbie bombing or the discotech bombing in Germany. The ones you all are trying to put in power in Libya did and I'm certain your government will be killing them next.
Libya owes no foreign debt under Gaddafi. The US is in incredible debt. END OF STORY.
And how do YOU know that exactly....how does any "average person" know what goes on with incidents like that anywhere at any time......
And you're doing better how?
We're not putting anyone in power, fool. We're standing back and watching as a country reshapes itself, and yes, half these rebels are against us, too. So what? You want to be liked? Hand out lollipops.
"The views expressed in this article are solely those of Juan Cole"
Funny, I thought Rumsfeld was back
Not about oil? Why would France and Britain (and eventually the US) sit back and watch the rebels fight Gadaffi while there is the risk that Russia or China might move to assist them. When the smoke clears who would have access to the oil then? Short term pain for long term gain... the rebels will deal with those who assisted the most.
LMAO! I saw someone call Libya part of "Arabia." Saudi Arabia is it's own country buddy. And just so you know, Libya is located on the AFRICAN continent. Go retake your high school geography class.
Myth #11... the US has any business militarily intervening in Libya...
Ransom,
The GOP and their Tea Party have been rising up against president Obama and America from day one as the president works vigorously to move America forward and beyond the problems he inherited. But unlike GW or Ms. Bachmann who weeped because someone called her a flake, the president continues to shrug off the personal attacks and he continues to respect his opponent as he focuses on what really matters to the American people. I just hope you people would overlook the color of the president's skin and just look at him as another human being trying to work for and represent all of us.
Yes, but the Tea Party is peaceful in their protests. The rebels of Libya were not. Honestly, I am Libertarian, thats most in line with how I think. On Obama, I have good and bad with him, for example, I don't believe in requiring health insurance because its a waste of money to me and I don't want it, but I do support the direction he is going in with allowing gay marriage. Now as for him being black, I am VERY against discrimination, the fact that he is black means as much to me as Bush was white. I am a white, gay man in the bible belt, so I kinda know discrimination first hand, but like him, I dont care what others think. But as for what Obama is doing with Libya, I don't feel its his business it intervene and he simply needs to stay out of it and focus more on his own country.
I would never have guessed there were so many Gaddhafi lovers reading CNN.
I do not love or support the man, but I also do not support rebels taking up arms against their government either. Do these rebels have any demands or plans once the Gman is gone? Then why do you think they would be better then him? imagine if some neonazi group protested and then started attacking our government would you support them? Then why would you support these rebels who are doing the exact same thing they claim they are fighting against? If they want to fight/protest then fine, but the USA & UN should NOT be supplying them weapons to do so. Imagine if Iran started supplying weapons to all the crazy groups in the USA with the intent that they attack our governement- would you not find that criminal/wrong? so why then is ok for us to supply weapons to rebels in order to have that government over thrown?
Your analogies are not sound. Do you really believe the Libyan rebels are Neonazis? And it would be criminal for the Iranians to arm "crazy" groups in the U.S. to overthrow the government. But perhaps not so much if the groups were made up of patriotic U.S. citizens trying to stop a tyrant from indiscriminately bombing U.S. civilians to maintain political control. You're not making any sense at all.
They want Dick Cheney to be the one who brings Khadafy down, and it makes them sad to see it being done on Obama's watch. They are the same people who agreed with Bush that there was no need to punish bin Laden. Our buddy bin Laden and America's friend Khadafy; why are we letting a socialist president harm them?
more liberal, Obama-loving propaganda
I do not like or dislike him to be honest. I like some things he has done and don't agree with others.
Gee, I know how you must hate having your president destroy al-Qaeda and bring down Khadafy, and it's really going to make your pancreas explode when he's re-elected.
Moochers living off of the producers.
I don't want Obama to be reelected, but I will sure as hell take him over any republican.
They forgot Myth #11 : CNN is a completely neutral news agency that reports facts objectively.
Right next to Myth #10: It's not about the oil we're only there because we care.
And Myth #12: That you're not in the Opinions section.
Apparently the writer thinks it is ok for rebels to arm themselves and attack their government, but the government has no right to fight back. I don’t call rebels firing guns a protest I call it an invasion! Sure we protest here, but I ask any of you- if any protest resorted to firing weapons would you support that? Then why support these rebels- who may I remind you we have no idea of their intentions or leaders once they get into power. I’m sure many readers think they are doing this for freedom, but if history has say in the matter than statistically speaking these rebels will be no different if not worse than the one they are trying to over throw. Also I’d like to point to the question of how are these rebels arming themselves? They are not allowed to have guns, so who is supplying these rebels- that is a rhetoric statement bc we all know it is the USA with the help of the UN who are arming these rebels. Ironic that when other countries arm their rebels to attack us (9/11) we call it an act of war, but when we arm rebels then we claim the moral high ground. We should not be in Libya at all! We are only going to create a much worse scenario for the world by helping these rebels whom we will have no influence or control of. Once these rebels “win” do you think they will thank us or turn on us?- again let history teach you some lessons before you answer that last question. 1 last thought- are any of these countries were protestors have over thrown their government any better or stable? Then why would you expect anything different in Libya? The only reason these rebels have accomplished this much is bc of the weapons we have been supplying them, yet if the shoes were on the other foot and Libya was supplying terrorist here we would be screaming mad. The public is so blinded and two faced.
"We should not be in Libya at all! " We're not. None of our soldiers are there. We flew over and bombed some stuff early on. We're getting rid of Khadafy on the cheap.
That sums it all up. Thank you, sir.
For more info on Arab uprising and events in Middle East read the groundbreaking novel -- king of Bat'ha
Ransom,
The rebels in Libya became violent out of necessity to protect themselves and exercise their God given right to be free human beings. I disagree with you that the Tea Party is non violent because their hateful and divisive rhetoric inspired the gunman's deadly rampage in Arizona that left six dead and congesswoman Gabriella Giffords fighting for her life. And their hatefula and divisive rhetoric is dividing this great country. These Tea Party members are the same people who went to Senator McCain presidential rallies in 2008 and said shoot him, referring to then candidate Obama. These are the same people who said that a black man should not be president of the United States, this after African-Americans gave four hundred years in bondage helping to build the American South. Let's face it, the Tea Party are the KKK without the hood.
As far as healthcare is concerned, when candidate Obama ran for office in 2008, comprehensive healthcare was on his agenda and therefore, if the American people who elected him didn't wish for comprehensive healthcare, they would have voted for candidate McCain. But they didn't because they adopted the platform of "Change" and voted for healthcare reform.
However, I'm happy to know that to you race is not a factor when to evaluate the president. I respect you for that Ransom.
They have tea crazies where I live. They wave guns and yell "Kill Democrats" and tell each other that their "rights are gone" and they "live in a dictatorship." One of them told me his right to live in a country that didn't have a God D##n Ni333r as president had been taken away. He got mad when I laughed and told him he still had the right to sit out in front of his cabin at night and sing spirituals.
Wow, earth to Joe – there was no link between the tea party and the AZ shooter. However, the union violence in Wis was real and captured at many events on video. The tolerant left, with their PC hate-speech, constantly referring to the right as Nazis and fascists and racists, behind the strength of the MSM, trying to control talk radio, turn a blind eye to the dangers of the world and their own rhetoric. Go to the Global Terrorism Database, and see which political group has committed more acts of violence in the US. Answer – the left by a large margin.
One myth about Juan Cole:
Myth #1. Juan Cole knows what he's talking about.
Compare his blog to yours. I think we'll go with him, but thanks for your valued input.
"Workers were strictly controlled and unable to collectively bargain for improvements in their conditions." Don't worry, we're catching up to Libya in that respect.
I'm okay with collective bargaining, so long as they are okay with the possibility with being collectively fired and replaced with other workers in a free market. Oh wait, but then the blessed unions would attack the replacement workers and their families, slash their tires, and vandalize their property...my bad. I forgot how good the blessed unions were..
Funny...CNN comes to Obama's rescue to justify this one. (When its a Republican President, they just give 24 hour live coverage of Cindy Sheehan and Code Pink..). Hey CNN...lets talk about Admedinijahd and Kim Jon Ill.
There won't be any more Republican presidents. You'll get some governorships and mayors, a few senators and plenty of congressmen, but never again will there be a Republican president after Dick Cheney. He was the last of his kind. As the chimp said, "Fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again." I don't think we will!
Guess you havent' seen Obama's George W. Bush style approval numbers, eh?
Sure, and he'll be re-elected easily. YOU wouldn't even vote for Mitt, or that lady with the scary eyes.
"Admedinijahd and Kim Jon Ill." Ad-med-dini-jahd? Kim Jon the Third? Who are these people, your imaginary friends? Do they come to your Tea Parties?
Yes, and both men present a MUCH bigger threat to the world than Quaddaffi.
Libya was no threat to the west, and Syria has killed more civilians than Libya. The reference article where Cole sites 1000-2000 killed calls the people rebels fighting Libyan troops. The liberals would be furious if a republican were president.
Libya is not falling right now. It is all the Zionist controlled media can do to get their puppets in control of Libya by lying in the media... but the reality is that there will be civil war for another 2 to 3 years in Libya.
Sir, the media can say anything it likes; making a statement will not put anyone in control of a modern industrial nation. Either they are falling or not, but I agree there will be fighting for years in certain areas. This is NOT chess, and the game doesn't end with a king's fall.
Who would Muslims blame..if not the Zionists? You all should thank Allah for the Zionists...because you need SOME convenient excuse for Islamic cultural failure. (Did the evil Zionists take over Iran in '79? How's that human rights thing going there with the Ayatollahs? Whoops!)
Well, it's nice to see someone blamed besides the CIA or rap music. Hey, maybe they can blame it on Kanye West; he gets blamed for most of mankind's evils already.
Everyone blames the West for what happens in the East, but haters gonna hate.
Top ten myths? Did anyone ever believe these "myths"? They seem more like "ten things no one ever thought about the Libyan Revolution." I don't get it.
With Obama doing the BLAME game, he will not lead the US in the apology arena as there is no Leadership in blaming others.
Blame? Khadafy is a beggar on the road, and we are laughing at him. I bet you blame Grampaw McCain, don't you?
Juan Cole lost me when he referenced GW as a negative. Cole supported the Iraq war initially, but later made outlandish claims such as Dick Cheney's pushed for war for the "billions in no-bid contracts for Halliburton" and Bush wanted war to resotre his family's honor. Cole dismisses the allegation that Iran has supports terrorism in Iraq or Afghanistan, and alleges Bush administration's objective in Iran was to control future supplies of oil and natural gas. Of course, no criticism of the Obama adminstration. He is just a liberal partisan hack.
So...what's the answer to myth #10 Juan? We have a good idea why rebels fought...well at least on paper. But why was NATO involved. Why were US taxpayer dollars squandered on this $#!T hole? Hmm? You don't have an answer to that one do you?
#1 and #2 cracked me up.
"Gadhafi isn't a progressive. Well, he was, but now he's a cruel dictator..."
Isn't that the natural progressive progression? Turn the people to your side by giving them stuff, but then since it's unsustainable, you have to oppress everyone and convince them you're still doing them a favor?
I guess the writer has never been to Libya. Because the Libya in the article is nowhere near the Libya I saw in February.
Very protective of who is allowed to wear the "progressive" label, aren't we?
Kadafi is evil? Who helped make him a dictator? The same ones who support these terrorists who deposed him and that will copy him in every detail, difference is that they may become enemies of US / NATO because we all know that the rightwingers will never respect their compromises with these terrorists. In Tunisia and Egypt the "protests for democracy" ended in a possible islamic dictatorship and in a military dictatorship that's already giving signs that will not be friends of US / NATO. It's just a remake of History. US / NATO did same in Afghanisthan... Who helped the Talebans? And now who's the worst enemy of Talebans? Libya is just one more ridiculous remake...
Obama got them on the run, and you got mad. Sux to be U, my man.
When something never happened you don't correct yourself by saying "this is no longer the case" you say "this never was the case, and we're sorry for reporting BS as if it were fact."
What about Burma ? Their rulers are no saints. Would NATO or anyone else think about the poor burmeese , forget about helping them. Libya is interesting because it has oil. In Burma, you get beetel nuts.
CNN's sole ambition is to advance the liberal cause. What the liberal media needs to address, is how soon are we going to regret supporting the fringe groups who are going to take over all of these Middle Eastern nations. This was France's and the European Unions fight from day one. What we need to ask, WHY? It's about the payoff, my friend. Weak, stupid, reactionary foreign policy, completely directionless, that's what this is, and soon enough we will regret it.
Maybe what we should be asking ourselves is why, what's the real agenda, who is gaining out of this, or hopes to. Why is France and the EU so gun-ho all of a sudden?, especially when we don't even know who we're dealing with? What's really going on?
I'm going to be real interested in the incoming Libyan regimes stance toward France. They can't be so stupid as to not see France's ulterior motives, or forget the past.
France is in a state of desperation right now. They've been burying their head, as the western world has been catching up and encroaching on a Muslim world that doesn't want it's filth. Their socially and economically in crisis as is most of the EU, trying to stay in the old world, and adapt to the new. Hmmm, here comes a very well orchestrated revolutionary period in the middle east, and now their suddenly interested, and willing to go to war? Come on people, wake up. This isn't about justice or human rights.
"Gadhafi and his sons, have discouraged investment and blighted the economy."
GDP Growth – Libya 10.6% – US 3%
Inflation – Libya <1% – US 2.1%
Population below Poverty Line – Libya 7.6% – US 14.3%
Unemployment – Libya 10% – US 9.2%
Some in a glass house is throwing stones again....
Everybody who is blaming Gadhafi for the Pan Am and La Belle attacks should check their facts. Your very own CIA / FBI's main evidence for the Lockerbie attack was proven fraudulent and CIA Agents knew way before La Belle happened that it was going to happen, that as well is a proven fact. Repeating MSM lies doesn't make them right.
http://i-p-o.org/nr-lockerbie-14Oct05.htm
Организация реализует хвойную и березовую фанеру сортов 4/4, 2/4, 3/3. толщина от 4мм до 21мм, а также бакелизированную фанеру. Размеры ФК 1525х1525 мм, ФСФ формат 2440х1220 мм, ФБС 5700х1250 мм. Широкий ассортимент ДСП и ДВП(оргалит), OSB Канада. Заявки принимаются по телефону: (495) 518-87-69
Организация реализует хвойную и березовую фанеру сортов 4/4, 2/4, 3/3. толщина от 4мм до 21мм, а также бакелизированную фанеру. Размеры ФК 1525х1525 мм, ФСФ формат 2440х1220 мм, ФБС 5700х1250 мм. Широкий ассортимент ДСП и ДВП(оргалит), OSB Канада. Заявки принимаются по телефону: (495) 518-87-69
Организация реализует портландцемент M-500 со склада в Московской области. Осуществляем поставку сухих смесей, цемента, необходимые для строительства материалы: различные строительные смеси, гипсовую шпатлевку, клеевые смеси, плиточный клей. Продукция имеет все необходимые документы и сертификаты качества. Возможна доставка автотранспортом.
Сделать заказ можно по телефону (495) 518-87-69
I was just looking for this information for a while. After six hours of continuous Googleing, finally I got it in your site. I wonder what's the lack of Google strategy that don't rank this type of informative sites in top of the list. Generally the top websites are full of garbage.
I do hope the Rangers win the series, it might be good to view them win.
Керамзит (навал) фракция 10-20 от 1200 руб/м3 с доставкой по Москве и ближнему подмосковью.
Заказ по телефону: (495) 518-87-69
Hello,
Im offering up some free design services for Icons only so that I can build up my portfolio. Im looking to do one project right now and then once that ones finished then I'll start on a second one and then another. I am looking for some feedback from on what could have been done better as well as anything else after the icon has been made also I'm willing to do revisions if they are needed!
After the Icon is to your liking I will send you the icon in all sizes that are required from apple to publish your app on the app store. I will either send them to you via email or put them in my dropbox account.
If you send me a Private Message or post here that your interested in the service then i'll contact you.
Thank you guys and I hope to do some work with you guys!
It's really a great and helpful piece of information. I'm satisfied that you just shared this useful info with us. Please keep us informed like this. Thank you for sharing.
I beloved as much as you'll obtain carried out proper here. The sketch is tasteful, your authored material stylish. nevertheless, you command get got an nervousness over that you would like be handing over the following. ill indisputably come more beforehand once more as exactly the same nearly a lot regularly inside case you defend this increase.
I was recommended this web site through my cousin. I am now not certain whether this submit is written by way of him as no one else realize such distinct about my difficulty. You're wonderful! Thanks!
I like the valuable information you provide on your articles. I will bookmark your blog and take a look at again right here frequently. I'm moderately certain I'll learn many new stuff right here! Best of luck for the next!
Generally I don't learn article on blogs, however I wish to say that this write-up very forced me to try and do it! Your writing style has been surprised me. Thank you, quite great post.