Skip to main content

View Diary: Does PDA Support Qaddafi? (26 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  So you're saying ... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Gooserock, David Kaib

    Tripoli Cynthia is this generation's Hanoi Jane? My, how advanced we have become in the past 40 years.

    How quickly the Pacifist becomes the Warrior when it's "our side" doing the killing.

    by edg on Mon Aug 22, 2011 at 03:05:09 PM PDT

    •  No Jane Fonda supported the Vietnamese (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      revolution, Cynthia McKinney opposed the Libya Revolution.

      Jane Fonda opposed the people that were killing Vietnamese the most. Cynthia McKinney supports the person that has been killing Libyans the most.

      See the difference?

      Is Tripoli Cynthia your creation? I haven't heard that before.

      Remember history, Clay Claiborne, Director Vietnam: American Holocaust - narrated by Martin Sheen

      by Clay Claiborne on Mon Aug 22, 2011 at 04:04:21 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  What about Saddam (3+ / 0-)

        We opposed the invasion of Iraq. Does that mean we were supporters of Saddam and his repression of Iraqis? I think not, but that's where your unjustified polemic has taken you.

        •  No, I'm funny like that... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          I think generallies have a very limited usefulness and 'generally' each situation has to be evaluated on it's own merits.

          For example WW1 & WW2 were in many respects the same, imperialist wars between 'great powers' to divide up the world. However I think it was absolutely right for the class-conscience US worker to oppose US intervention in WW1 and support US intervention for WW2. I will save my explanation of those choices for another time. Would you have opposed intervention in both? Some socialists oppose Lend-Lease saying "Roosevelt needs its dictatorial powers to further his aim of carving out of a warring world, the American Empire so long desired by the Wall Street money lords." Would you have been one of those?

          Now what was the War on Iraq? IMHO it was an imperialist war for the control of oil and the domination that goes with it. It had been more than a decade in the planning with the '91 Gulf pre-war and 10 years of sanctions. It was not shaped by any uprising and revolution among the Iraq people [unless I slept thru that part].US aircraft dropped over 29 thousand munitions in the first 30 days and over a hundred thousand ground troops went in at the same time.

          Now what is the "War on Libya", as you and the other anti-interventionist like to call it? Is it a "remake" of the War on Iraq, as you would have us believe? Well the US aircraft hit a total of 132 targets in the first 100 days, and no ground troops. So as wars go, not in the same class at all.

          And what prompt it? Just another grab for oil as the anti-interventionist would have you believe?

          In terms of the "another war for oil thesis" Juan Cole has eloquently answered that it his blog today Top Ten Myths about the Libya War which I highly recommend:

          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 Qaddafi was erratic is not enough), and is therefore just a conspiracy theory.

          Or was there something else going on at the time?

          Well that was this thing called the Arab Spring that swept the whole region starting in December and there was this uprising in Libya that had Feb 17th as it's official kick off. Could that possibly have anything to do with this "War on Libya?"  

          Before the U.S. intervened in Libya there was this revolution taking place in Libya. I know you call it a civil war and see the US and intervening in a civil war, but I think that characterization is kindness to Qaddafi. Juan Cole again:

          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-Qaddafi civilians oppose the revolutionaries, but it would be wrong to magnify a handful of skirmishes of that sort into a civil war. Qaddafi’s support was too limited, too thin, and too centered in the professional military, to allow us to speak of a civil war.

          An just as you discount the Libyan revolution in your consideration of the matter, you also think ‘protecting civilians from massacre,’ ‘humanitarian intervention’ and so on are diversions if not falsehoods. That assessment is another kindness to Qaddafi that nobody that honestly assesses the facts surrounding Benghazi when 1973 was passed believes. Juan Cole again:
          9. Qaddafi 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 Qaddafi 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 Qaddafi’s forces killed tens of thousands. Public health studies may eventually settle this issue, but we know definitively what Qaddafi was capable of.

          This was the Libyan people's war in the beginning and it remains so today, in spite of NATO support. NATO has no boots on the ground and has lost no lives. Regardless of what the Russians say, it has been the Libyan people that have done the 'heavy lifting.' NATO has been trying all along to get "boots on the gnd" but the rebels have refused. I think they have handle the whole situation very well to this point.

          So I think the main contradiction in Libya today is between the dictatorship and the people. NATO entered this struggle, which was already in progress, on the side of the revolution. It did so for creepy, self-serving reasons in spite of the rhetoric, just like WW2. It is not to be trusted as an honest partner, just like WW2, nonetheless, it is on the right side of this struggle, just like WW2 and those that opposed US intervention in the Libyan situation are not serving the forward progress of humanity just as those that oppose US support for the allies in WW2 didn't.

          Now I know that some people think that the US could never be on the right side of any struggle and so any struggle in which they take a side, anyone else on that side, i.e. Libyan freedom fighters, must also be bad. This is a narrow, ahistorical and un-dialectical  view of the situation.

          The reasons why NATO is supporting the revolution in Libya are complex and convoluted. I have covered much in my other blogs and so won't go into that here. See especially  NATO's Game Plan in Libya

          I know those that would have had the US stay out of WW2 would bristle at the charge that objectively they were supporting the fascist domination of much of the world but that was the reality.That being said, opposing NATO intervention period, also means opposing the revolution in Libya and supporting Qaddafi. That is very different from opposing NATO manipulation of the situation to gain advantage for itself by subverting the revolution while "supporting" it, but that is the task at hand for revolutionaries as opposed to 'anti-interventionists."

          Tokyo Rose, not Hanoi Jane is the proper analogy for Tripoli Cynthia.

          Remember history, Clay Claiborne, Director Vietnam: American Holocaust - narrated by Martin Sheen

          by Clay Claiborne on Mon Aug 22, 2011 at 10:00:05 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Cole is wrong about the oil (0+ / 0-)

            The sweet deals to the oil companies had ended by 2008 and Gaddafi was demanding very large increases. He also threatened to nationalize some oil companies.


            Qaddafi Says $100 Oil Will Deter Nationalization Call (Update1)
            By Maher Chmaytelli - January 23, 2009 05:51 EST
            Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi said crude prices need to rebound to $100 a barrel to prevent calls for the nationalization of foreign oil assets gaining ground.
            Libya in 2007 began re-negotiating contracts with foreign oil companies to get a larger share of profit after prices increased, reducing their share of production to between 10 and 15 percent, from as much as 49 percent previously. It already revised contracts with Eni, Occidental, OMV AG, Petro-Canada, Repsol, Total, Wintershall AG and StatoilHydro ASA.


            Petro-Can paid Libya $1 billion 'signing bonus' in 2008

            The new deals stem from Libya's ongoing efforts to secure tougher terms from foreign oil companies
            Under the new deals, Petro-Canada has committed to pay a $1 billion signing bonus and invest $3.5 billion in the redevelopment of several large producing fields, and $460 million in oil and gas exploration. Petro-Canada will pay 50% of all development costs and 100% of all exploration costs. The company had to accept a lower production share (a flat 12% for all six contracts, regardless of location),
            For their part, international oil companies - mindful of the high price of oil and limited venues for new exploration and production - have so far swallowed hard and signed up

            October 2010 | Industry News

            Four international oil companies (IOCs) including Chevron and Occidental Petroleum have decided not to renew their five-year exploration leases in Libya, effectively ending their involvement in the country.

            Gaddafi replaced these with Russian and Chinese companies.

            Cables show NATO’s intervention in Libya is all about oil
            Geo-strategic considerations, arm twisting, long-term objectives and behind-the-door haggling continue to impact the global energy chess board, as national interests, political and strategic priorities and considerations of major stake holders in the ongoing, West-led, get-Qaddafi campaign in Libya unravels
            In this context, the US cultivated relations with certain figures in Qaddafi’s regime, and secretly discussed the benefits of Qaddafi’s removal from the scene. A July 2008 cable relates how Ibrahim El-Meyet, a “close friend” of Ghanem (and a source to “strictly protect”) told the US Embassy that he and Ghanem “concluded that there will be no real economic or political reform in Libya until Qaddafi passes from the political scene,” and this “will not occur while Qaddafi is alive.”

            Interestingly when the then Libyan Foreign Minister Musa Kusa met Gen. William Ward in May 2009, he reminded the general that he “shared his views frequently and openly with his US contacts in the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the Department of State.” Kusa fled Libya to England by private jet on March 30 this year.

            Behind the scenes, tensions increased with the advent of the Obama administration. The Obama administration activated preparations, stretching back to at least 2007, to seek to oust the regime and install one more closely aligned to American interests.

            Indeed energy resources are proving to be a curse to its holders, this time for Libya. As is said, all is fair in love and war.

          •  Then follow your own point (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Geekesque, Claudius Bombarnac

            ...and stopping making lame analogies and 'rhetorical' questions' falsely implicating PDA in Gaddafi's crimes. Our main mass group here in Western PA is PDA, with some 200 workers involved. We want nothing to do with Gaddafi and never have, and don't take kindly to your 'rhetorical' questions. Your credibility just hit zero with us, whatever the value of your reports.

            Besides, if you'll recall there were progressive forces in Iraq welcoming the US attack on Saddam even as we opposed it.

            As for oil, the point is not whether it will be sold, but which of two rival blocs will have the main access--US-NATO or China-Russia-Brazil.  NATO is doing its best to squeeze out China and divide Libya from Southern Africa.

            We'll see how it all unfolds. IMHO, the democratic revolution still has complex battle there, even when Gaddafi is gone and if NATO's interests can be thrust aside. The Islamist wing is already circulating a draft constitution based on Sharia law. It may go nowhere, but it bears watching.

            •  PDSSM celebrated Qaddafi's No. 1 US supporter (0+ / 0-)

              at the exact same time that Qaddafi was killing hundreds of civilians in Tripoli. Those are the facts and they are beyond dispute.

              If PDA wants to make it clear that they don't support Qaddafi regardless of any conclusions that may reasonably be drawn from the above, they should say so with at least as much publicity as they have given to Qaddafi's No.1 US mouthpiece.

              Russia, China and South Africa threw there support behind the dictator and against the Libyan people. They did this because he was selling them Libya oil, or in the case of SA, because Qaddafi has bank-rolled Zuma, not because of his good government. That is also a fact, and yes the Libyan people may take that in consideration when it comes to future oil contracts.

              I guest they shouldn't have bet against the people.

              Remember history, Clay Claiborne, Director Vietnam: American Holocaust - narrated by Martin Sheen

              by Clay Claiborne on Tue Aug 23, 2011 at 07:20:54 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  I think the main thing you don't get (0+ / 0-)

              is that a revolution is not just about the people seizing power, it's about the revolutionary transformation that takes place among a people. You don't seem to see that in Libya but it has happened.

              The civilian working class of Libya came from nothing in Feb., little organization and no military experience. Through 6 months of revolutionary struggle they have built an army and a government. The people have transformed themselves, so the old rules and traditions with regards to tribes & religion don't carry the same weight as before.

              Also, you keep raising the bogyman of Islamic fundamentalism. The reason Qaddafi does it is to frighten white people into supporting him.

              I don't think that will happen precisely because of the above revolutionary transformation. The Islamists have played a secondary role in the "Arab Spring." The hackers have played a greater role, and the influence of the Islamists is less than before the Arab Spring.

              That being said, I think they have the right to self-determination. Some think they should be denied this because they may make choices they don't approve of.

              Is that your argument.

              Remember history, Clay Claiborne, Director Vietnam: American Holocaust - narrated by Martin Sheen

              by Clay Claiborne on Tue Aug 23, 2011 at 07:44:04 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Really? (0+ / 0-)

                ...the Islamists are secondary to the hackers? You wouldn't want to make a friendly wager on that point when we see how power is re-apportioned, would you?

                Clay, you haven't even been there yet.

                I don't doubt that you're better informed than most, including me, but I'd be a bit more measured.

                I've been down the road of believing most things revolutionaries told me from afar. I'm not going there again. Nowadays I listen to what's said, but I wait a while to verify more widely before turning it into gospel.

                But these are your stories, and if you want to pitch them so you have no friends left in CCDS, PDA or other groups, that's your business. I just think you're needlessly burning bridges you may need sometime.

                •  I have lost some good friends because I have (0+ / 0-)

                  supported the Libyan people and it's revolution. I'm sorry for that but I won't hold my tongue because my friends or political associates either decided to support the dictator or stay "neutral." So be it. It is a question of principal and progress.

                  You know Russia Today licensed my film for $7k and expressed interest extending it and also licensing the sequel. Now that I have opposed Qaddafi and criticized RT in my diary, I may have lost income as well as friends. So be it. It is a question of principal and progress.

                  I'm sure that during the American civil war a lot of unionists were warned "you have no friends left in ABC, XYZ and other groups" because you supported "intervention." {Remember from the southern pov, it was an invasion.}

                  Anytime I am forced to chose between by friends and the people's struggle, I will lose some friends.

                  And make new ones. I have a number of Libyan friends now.

                  Lastly, I spoke about the role Islamics and hackers have played, based on fact I know and what has already happened. I know there have been many courageous Islamic fighters in the rebel army but I also know the critical role that Libyan hackers have played in insuring communications. If the Islamists had stood down in this struggle, things would have still come to this point, just a little later. If the hackers had stood down, not only would we not be victorious, we wouldn't even know it.

                  Remember history, Clay Claiborne, Director Vietnam: American Holocaust - narrated by Martin Sheen

                  by Clay Claiborne on Tue Aug 23, 2011 at 12:12:11 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Wrong point (0+ / 0-)

                    You would have a point, Clay, if the people you're dissing were actual Gaddafi supporters.

                    But for the most part, by far, they are not. Quite the contrary.

                    There's not matter of 'principle' here. It's just that if people don't toe your exact line, you decide to make them your enemies, and then get all pompous about it. Sad.

                    •  Do you consider ANSWER pro-Qaddafi? (0+ / 0-)

                      Because they are also pissed at me saying they are although I can't see how anyone wouldn't think Qaddafi wasn't just wonderful based on what was said at one of their many heavily promoted events.

                      Since Cynthia McKinney has made it her mission right now to promote Qaddafi, I consider anything done now to enhance her creditability as something that enhances the creditability of her message.

                      You don't think opposing NATO support for the uprising strengthen Qaddafi's position but I do.

                      You don't think directing the attention of the anti-war movement to "massive NATO bombing" and implying that it is just like Iraq when as far as the intensity of the bombing is concerned that is just a complete lie, when Qaddafi is killing at least 10 to 1 doesn't strengthen Qaddafi's position but it does.

                      You and others have advocated positions and promoted a specific set of false 'facts' [ with regards to DU, cluster bombs, mercenaries, danger of massacre, etc] that would make it much more likely that Qaddafi succeed in crushing the revolution and slaughtering many more Libyans.

                      These are conclusion that I have come to after long and detailed study and so I am not likely to give the opposing opinions of those that have made little more than a shallow survey of the situation much credibility. They need to be able to talk details with me. And having come to these conclusions about the facts, I look at the position of say CCDS and it's presentation of the situation and most importantly it's position and demands from the point of view of the life and death struggle between the dictator and the people and say which side are they on.

                      PDA may not be an actual Qaddafi supporter but the stubborn fact remains that last Saturday while Qaddafi was murdering hundreds of civilians in Tripoli, a well known Qaddafi supporter that was there to receive an award from PDA was telling the people invited by PDA that none of what they heard about Qaddafi the mass murder was true and that really brother Qaddafi deserves their support. This while Libyans were dying under his rockets and shells.

                      Self-described Qaddafi supporters are drying up very fast now. Even Russia Today TV is talking about the "Libyan dictator."  Soon they too will take unbridged at being considered a Qaddafi supporter.

                      Remember history, Clay Claiborne, Director Vietnam: American Holocaust - narrated by Martin Sheen

                      by Clay Claiborne on Thu Aug 25, 2011 at 12:19:03 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

              •  The Islamists have taken over the "Arab Spring" (0+ / 0-)

                in Egypt.

                Islamists threaten to outmanoeuvre secularists in post-revolution Egypt
                Jul. 29, 2011

                There was a moment Friday in the Egyptian capital when the people’s vaunted uprising brought to mind Tehran in 1979: Just when the left-wing secularists thought they had ousted the Shah, the Islamists ousted them.

                Hundreds of thousands of ultra-religious Islamists packed this capital’s central Tahrir Square in an unprecedented show of support for the creation of an Islamic republic, rather than the planned unity demonstration in collaboration with secularists. In doing so, they drove a stake through the heart of a united revolutionary movement that had brought together Egyptian Islamists and secularists, Muslims and Christians, and shared the goal of democratic elections and the punishment of the corrupt regime of Hosni Mubarak.

        •  No, you didn't kiss Saddam's ass (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Clay Claiborne

          the way that McKinney kissed Qadaffy's.

          "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

          by Geekesque on Tue Aug 23, 2011 at 06:32:31 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  McKinney is ten times worse. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Clay Claiborne

      She's utterly despicable.  

      "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

      by Geekesque on Tue Aug 23, 2011 at 06:30:22 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site