dagblog - Comments for "Disturbed About Libya"

Seriously? What other end

Saladin — Tue, 03 May 2011 15:10:36 +0000

Seriously? What other end game was there possibly for this? Stalemated civil war? Disasterous partion? Gadaffi compromise?

Take out the figurehead, endorse whoever looks strong enough to stabilize, keep our troops off the ground, and hope for the best.

I will try to learn to live

we are stardust — Mon, 02 May 2011 12:38:30 +0000

In reply to Yeah. I know all that.

I will try to learn to live with that. I am often disagreeable. (it sounds better in French.) ;o)

Dear Potatohead. From a guy

quinn esq — Mon, 02 May 2011 04:21:36 +0000

In reply to but, ummm... the US is in

Dear Potatohead. From a guy who can't tell abortion from circumcision, I'm taking no lessons.

Now. When someone comes on and says something as stupid as "It's a European war," you pretty much need to hit them over the head with a hammer.

But as long as you're onside, at least the bum fluff brigade in here has some starch to hold it together, eh?

Yeah. I know all that.

kgb999 — Mon, 02 May 2011 03:29:43 +0000

In reply to Can't say it's documentation

Yeah. I know all that. Buuuuut. That pretty much matches what I perceive myself to have been told about what our involvement would be. I'm not denying we're involved. We're in NATO. The part that I'm not agreeing with is that the operational configuration is materially different than what we were told would happen.

You didn't agree with it three weeks ago. I don't expect you to agree with it now. But you continuing to disagree didn't turn the exact plan you totally disagree with into a lie. You simply still totally disagree. This will be true until the situation resolves, I imagine.

If there was some "there" there, I'd totally be with you. Like, say, if there were a push to bring an authorization resolution before congress or something. But there simply isn't anything positive, proactive - or that even makes much sense from my perspective - to get behind. So, we just disagree on this.

I remember; I guess it's hard

we are stardust — Mon, 02 May 2011 02:32:04 +0000

In reply to The rape charges were made

I remember; I guess it's hard to say what charges Wallstrom made; of course it's a horrific part of war and civil war too often. But the viagra charge meant Gadaffi was actively promoting it, which is too disgusting if true. This piece mentions Wallstrom:

"The use of rape as a weapon during wartime has received increasing attention at the United Nations. Last year, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon appointed a special envoy on sexual violence during armed conflict, Margot Wallstrom.

Earlier this month, Wallstrom chided the Security Council for failing to mention sexual violence in two recent resolutions on Libya, despite having made the subject a priority" but at the end of the story about Rice's comments 'behind UNSC closed doors' and diplomats said:

"Rice’s statement, diplomats said, was aimed principally at countries like India, Russia and China, which have grown increasingly skeptical of the effectiveness of the NATO-led air strikes, which they fear have turned the conflict into a protracted civil war that will cause many civilian deaths.

Most council members, diplomats said, had expected Qaddafi’s government to collapse quickly. They said the frustration felt by India, Russia and China would likely grow if the war dragged on."

I don't know why the diplomats would lie, though they are unnamed. And yes; I sure remember the video of the woman at the hotel begging to be heard.

forgot the link: http://www.arabstates.net/middle-east/qaddafi-troops-in-rape-warfare-un-told-arab-news/

Wallstrom has been ringing

Rootman — Mon, 02 May 2011 02:28:41 +0000

In reply to "Despite robust action by the

Wallstrom has been ringing the alarms on this for weeks, based on accounts from doctors and refugees. You didn't see the TV news of the Tripolian woman who approached the press in their hotel with rape accounts? The Viagra thing was in the NYTimes and Brit press last week. Just saying that Rice didn't pull it out of her hat.

Thank you, Lulu. That's a

we are stardust — Mon, 02 May 2011 02:26:38 +0000

In reply to See RomeBy CHRIS FLOYDWhile

Thank you, Lulu. That's a keeper.

"Despite robust action by the

acanuck — Mon, 02 May 2011 02:19:43 +0000

In reply to The rape charges were made

"Despite robust action by the international community to protect civilians in Libya, we still hear reports of sexual violence,” said Ms. Wallström, who strongly condemned the use of sexual violence as a means to political and military ends.

That's all she said. Nothing about government-issued Viagra or orders to rape as a terror tactic. That was Rice's embellishment.

The rape charges were made

Rootman — Mon, 02 May 2011 02:05:17 +0000

In reply to The CIA seems to have

The rape charges were made several weeks ago from the UN's office on sexual violence in conflicts, by the Swedish activist Margot Wallstrom, who runs the unit. This was not something made up by Rice.

http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=38154&Cr=Libya&Cr1=

And the mainstream

we are stardust — Mon, 02 May 2011 02:04:43 +0000

In reply to The CIA seems to have

And the mainstream stenographers by and large are only too happy to promote the false as true. And it's much easier, it seems, when there is fear and loathing to sell. All this makes me think again of the Changing Chimeras of reasons to increase troops numbers in Afghanistan, stay a decade with nothing to win, either militarily or, it seems clearer, politically. And yet we stay. And now Petraeus will rule a conjoined military/intelligence machine that will oversee all of that intel, and by all accounts the true non-political analysts are freaking out about it.

"The WH and State don't ever demand a higher standard.' Hard to know where ass-covering and 'convenient intel' intersect any more, canuck.