The Libyan uprising

Euroland

Egypt Said to Arm Libya Rebels

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704360404576206992835270906.html?mod=WSJEurope_hpp_LEFTTopStories

Another US muppet is desperate to join the incoming bloodshed:

Qatar Lines Up Behind U.N. Push

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703512404576208312973386744.html

Overheal

Euroland wrote: »

It looks like Sarkozy just forgot about Gaddafi financing his election campaign.

You think people would vote him in if he chose to do nothing and still took the money? Don't be silly.

Mervyn Crawford

The revolution in the Mahgreb and the Middle East is in its infancy. Gadaffi can make gains against the revolution primarily because the working class does not have its own political party.

(Leon Trotsky "The Workers' Militia and its Opponents", from "Whither France?" 1934)

"But where are the workers going to get arms" object the sober "realists" -- that is to say, frightened philistines -- "the enemy has rifles, cannon, tanks, gas, and airplanes. The workers have a few hundred revolvers and pocket knives."
In this objection, everything is piled up to frighten the workers. On the one hand, our sages identify the arms of the fascists with the armament of the state. On the other hand, they turn towards the state and demand that it disarm the fascists. Remarkable logic! In fact, their position is false in both cases. In France, the fascists are still far from controlling the state. On February 6, they entered in armed conflict with the state police. that is why it is false to speak of cannon and tanks when it is a matter of the immediate armed struggle against the fascists. The fascists, of course, are richer than we. It is easier for them to buy arms. But the workers are more numerous, more determined, more devoted, when they are conscious of a firm revolutionary leadership.
In addition to other sources, the workers can arm themselves at the expense of the fascists by systematically disarming them.
This is now one of the most serious forms of the struggle against fascism. When workers' arsenals will begin to stock up at the expense of the fascist arms depots, the banks nd trusts will be more prudent in financing the armament of their murderous guards. It would even be possible in this case -- but in this case only -- that the alarmed authorities would really begin to prevent the arming of the fascists in order not to provide an additional sources of arms for the workers. We have known for a long time that only a revolutionary tactic engenders, as a by-product, "reforms" or concessions from the government.
But how to disarm the fascists? Naturally, it is impossible to do so with newspaper articles alone. Fighting squads must be created. An intelligence service must be established. Thousands of informers and friendly helpers will volunteer from all sides when they realize that the business has been seriously undertaken by us. It requires a will to proletarian action.
But the arms of the fascists are, of course, not the only source. In France, there are more than one million organized workers. Generally speaking, this number is small. But it is entirely sufficient to make a beginning in the organization of a workers' militia. If the parties and unions armed only a tenth of their members, that would already be a force of 100,000 men. there is no doubt whatever that the number of volunteers who would come forward on the morrow of a "united front" appeal for a workers' militia would far exceed that number. The contributions of the parties and unions, collections and voluntary subscriptions, would within a month or two make it possible to assure the arming of 100,000 to 200,000 working-class fighters. The fascist rabble would immediately sink its tail between its legs. The whole perspective of development would become incomparably more favorable.
To invoke the absence of arms or other objective reasons to explain why no attempt has been made up to now to create a militia, is to fool oneself and others. The principle obstacle -- one can say the only obstacle -- has its roots in the conservative and passive character of the leaders of the workers' organizations. The skeptics who are the leaders do not believe in the strength of the proletariat. They put their hope in all sorts of miracles from above instead of giving a revolutionary outlet to the energies pulsing below. The socialist workers must compel their leaders to pass over immediately to the creation of the workers' militia or else give way to younger, fresher forces.
A strike is inconceivable without propaganda and without agitation. It is also inconceivable without pickets who, when they can, use persuasion, but when obliged, use force. The strike is the most elementary form of the class struggle which always combines, in varying proportions, "ideological" methods with physical methods. The struggle against fascism is basically a political struggle which needs a militia just as the strike needs pickets. Basically, the picket is the embryo of the workers' militia. He who thinks of renouncing "physical" struggle must renounce all struggle, for the spirit does not live without flesh.
Following the splendid phrase of the great military theoretician Clausewitz, war is the continuation of politics by other means. This definition also fully applies to civil war. It is impermissable to oppose one to the other since it is impossible to check at will the political struggle when it transforms itself, by force of inner necessity, into a political struggle.
The duty of a revolutionary party is to foresee in time the inescapability of the transformation of politics into open armed conflict, and with all its forces to prepare for that moment just as the ruling classes are preparing.
The militia detachments for defense against fascism are the first step on the road to the arming of the proletariat, not the last. Our slogan is:
"Arm the proletariat and the revolutionary peasants!"
The workers' militia must, in the final analysis, embrace all the toilers. To fulfill this program completely would be possible only in a workers' state into whose hands would pass all the means of production and, consequently, also all the means of destruction -- i.e., all the arms and the factories which produce them.
However, it is impossible to arrive at a workers' state with empty hands. Only political invalids like Renaudel can speak of a peaceful, constitutional road to socialism. The constitutional road is cut by trenches held by the fascist bands. There are not a few trenches before us. The bourgeoisie will not hesitate to resort to a dozen coups d'etat. aided by the police and the army, to prevent proletariat from coming to power.
A workers' socialist state can be created only by a victorious revolution.
Every revolution is prepared by the march of economic and political development, but it is always decided by open armed conflicts between hostile classes. A revolutionary victory can become possible only as a result of long political agitation, a lengthy period of education and organization of the masses.
But the armed conflict itself must likewise be prepared long in advance.
The advanced workers must know that they will have to fight and win a struggle to the death. They must reach out for arms, as a guarantee of their emancipation.

opinion guy

Mervyn -> tl;dr

Have to say - truly staggering times. Lebanon helping draft a resolution for aciton in Libya. UK, US, France, Norway and Canada on board. Watar willing to help, Egypt itself taking its first footsteps into democracy helping the rebels. Who knew 2011 was going to be a year of such drama ?

Euroland

Mervyn Crawford wrote: »

The revolution in the Mahgreb and the Middle East is in its infancy. Gadaffi can make gains against the revolution primarily because the working class does not have its own political party.

Would you believe that the right-wing politicians in Britain or France would ever support the working class in Libya? Don’t make me laugh. Gaddafi made for the Libyan working class much more that all of his predecessors.

Euroland

Overheal wrote: »

You think people would vote him in if he chose to do nothing and still took the money? Don't be silly.

Sarkozy will loose in next elections.

Overheal

Euroland wrote: »

Sarkozy will loose next elections.

Not my point.

Killer Pigeon

So the UN is going to overthrow Gaddafi ... does this mean oil prices will go down?

... 'bout time really.

recedite

Yes, and the price of dates is outrageous at the moment too.

Einhard

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I think they're completely different situations. The decision to invade Iraq was practically unilateral, and had no mandate, either from the UN or, in a sense, the Iraqi people themselves. With Libya, the people are demanding action, and the UN has sanctioned it. Not to mention the fact that the Arab League is in support. Also, the intervention will be very limited. I'd be hugely surprised if regular foreign troops set foot on Libyan soil as part of this.

The thing I'm wondering though, is what the U expect out of this? They've basically demanded that Gadaffi accept the status quo, the division of the country. He's clearly not going to do so, and air support will hardly swing it for the rebels. This isn't likely to end anytime soon, and those involved have made an open-ended commitment.

Pete M.

Killer Pigeon wrote: »

So the UN is going to overthrow Gaddafi ... does this mean oil prices will go down?

... 'bout time really.

Yip I reckon it's all about the oil as well.

If the disaffected kick off in Saudi, will the UN be as quick and decisive?

karma_

You know, it's not that I object to Ghadaffi being done away with, I really don't. What I can't stomach is these bastards on TV telling us that it's time to stop an evil dictator from killing his people, the same people who did absolutely nothing during Rwanda or Darfur. They must think us thick to be honest.

Quiet you

karma_ wrote: »

You know, it's not that I object to Ghadaffi being done away with, I really don't. What I can't stomach is these bastards on TV telling us that it's time to stop an evil dictator from killing his people, the same people who did absolutely nothing during Rwanda or Darfur. They must think us thick to be honest.

Although I'm sure plenty have been thinking it you're the only one to have mentioned it. Guess that means most are.

Einhard

Euroland wrote: »

It looks like Sarkozy just forgot about Gaddafi financing his election campaign.

Oh, but I thought Gadaffi wasn't friendly with Western powers? Seems strange that an enemy of Sarkozy would so obviously fund his political ambitions. You really can't have it both ways...

nacho libre wrote: »

No. Saleh is a US ally. So there will continue to be calls for restraint and respect peoples right to protest peacefully.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12787015
Meanwhile there doesn't seem to be any immediate sign of a UN resolution against Gbagbo in the Ivory Coast. Could it be the killing of civilians in a country without strategic interests for the West isn't as serious a crime?

You realise that the West doesn't control the UN? Anyway, such points always forget that the West were having their interests fulfilled by Gadaffi. Why would they, after decades spent tolerating him as an enemy, wish to topple him so soon after he sought to rehabilitate his image, and cosy up to the West. It makes absolutely no sense.

Also, as another poster has pointed out, there are major differences between Libya and the Ivory Coast. The Arab League has called for a no-fly zone over the former; the AU hasn't done so for the latter. Secondly, a no-fly zone over the Ivory Coast would not be anyway as effective as one targetting Libya, especially one without the support of neighbouring nations.

Euroland wrote: »

The reality is that Libya has a lot of Oil and still is not a colony/ally to the West.

Seriously, if you're going to present an argument, at least get the basic facts correct. Gadaffi has been cosying up to the West for years now. It's not exactly a big secret.

Euroland wrote: »

Egypt Said to Arm Libya Rebels

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704360404576206992835270906.html?mod=WSJEurope_hpp_LEFTTopStories

Another US muppet is desperate to join the incoming bloodshed:

Qatar Lines Up Behind U.N. Push

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703512404576208312973386744.html

The "incoming" bloodshed?

I really hate the way so many ideologues allow their reaction to bloodshed and murder to be influenced according to who is doing the bloodletting. If those responsible are ideological allies, or better still, just happen to incur a negative reaction in the West, then it's ok and can be excused.

Euroland wrote: »

Gaddafi made for the Libyan working class much more that all of his predecessors.

Yeah, 'cos the working class like nothing more than having diverse political opinions silenced, and their right to elect their own leaders supressed.

karma_ wrote: »

You know, it's not that I object to Ghadaffi being done away with, I really don't. What I can't stomach is these bastards on TV telling us that it's time to stop an evil dictator from killing his people, the same people who did absolutely nothing during Rwanda or Darfur. They must think us thick to be honest.

As I noted, the situations are very different. I'm not sure how a no-fly zone would have affected Janjaweed militia. Unless their horses have wings!;)

Also, China has huge commercial interests in Sudan, and would certainly veto any action against Khartoum.

junder

I wonder if ground troops will be used

Einhard

Pete M. wrote: »

Yip I reckon it's all about the oil as well.

If the disaffected kick off in Saudi, will the UN be as quick and decisive?

I think that's pretty lazy reasoning to be honest. Gadaffi has signed huge deals with foreign companies, and understandings with foreign states in recent years, and has been supplying 16% of Europe's oil (think that figure is correct). Libya was on friendly terms with much of the West, and things, in a commercial sense, were running along nicely. It's not as if Gadaffi was being truculent or witholding oil. So why would the international community launch a hugely expensive military force in order to secure something that they already have? Makes absolutely no sense to me.

karma_

Einhard wrote: »

As I noted, the situations are very different. I'm not sure how a no-fly zone would have affected Janjaweed militia. Unless their horses have wings!;)

Also, China has huge commercial interests in Sudan, and would certainly veto any action against Khartoum.

They could should have done something. I'm not specifically talking about a no fly zone, as you well know.

opinion guy

karma_ wrote: »

You know, it's not that I object to Ghadaffi being done away with, I really don't. What I can't stomach is these bastards on TV telling us that it's time to stop an evil dictator from killing his people, the same people who did absolutely nothing during Rwanda or Darfur. They must think us thick to be honest.

See this annoys me.
Rwanda or Darfur. 1994 and 2003.

Guess what...... THEY WERE NOT THE SAME PEOPLE.
That I'm aware of all Americans/British/"Westerners" are not joined in some kind of collective consciousness. This being the case and through something called the democractic process, DIFFERENT people, yes D-I-F-F-E-R-E-N-T people are in charge now. Obama != Bush. Cameron !- Blair. Kenny != Cowen != Ahern. And so forth. Different people make different decisions. Its strange, but true!!!!


Far, FAR too many people are unable to distinguish between the individual and the system.

karma_

opinion guy wrote: »

See this annoys me.
Rwanda or Darfur. 1994 and 2003.

Guess what...... THEY WERE NOT THE SAME PEOPLE.
That I'm aware of all Americans/British/"Westerners" are not joined in some kind of collective consciousness. This being the case and through something called the democractic process, DIFFERENT people, yes D-I-F-F-E-R-E-N-T people are in charge now. Obama != Bush. Cameron !- Blair. Kenny != Cowen != Ahern. And so forth. Different people make different decisions. Its strange, but true!!!!


Far, FAR too many people are unable to distinguish between the individual and the system.

When you get to my age you realise that one politician is much like another.

Thanks nonetheless, for focusing on the one part of my post that was less than important. They may not be exactly the same people but they all have the same agendas.

karma_

opinion guy wrote: »

See this annoys me.
Rwanda or Darfur. 1994 and 2003.

Guess what...... THEY WERE NOT THE SAME PEOPLE.
That I'm aware of all Americans/British/"Westerners" are not joined in some kind of collective consciousness. This being the case and through something called the democractic process, DIFFERENT people, yes D-I-F-F-E-R-E-N-T people are in charge now. Obama != Bush. Cameron !- Blair. Kenny != Cowen != Ahern. And so forth. Different people make different decisions. Its strange, but true!!!!


Far, FAR too many people are unable to distinguish between the individual and the system.

Ohh and by the way, Darfur is ongoing.

Einhard

karma_ wrote: »

They could should have done something. I'm not specifically talking about a no fly zone, as you well know.

What should they have done? Sent troops in?

And, as China and Russia would not have sanctioned such actions, should they have done so without a UN mandate, and thus violated international law?

The world isn't a black and white place, and one can't just transfer one set of actions onto every seemingly similar situation, or indeed, insist that all such situations are essentially the same.

Oh, Bashir has been referred to the International Criminal Court. So something is being done. ironically though, it's probably exacerbated the political situation in Sudan.

Einhard

Euroland wrote: »

I won’t be surprised if at the end the number of dead from French-British-American “peaceful” mission would be thousand-fold higher than the number of dead from the actions of “dictator” Gaddafi.

Why do you put dictator in inverted commas? Why is it that, as long as a dictator shares one's ideology, or is disliked by the West, some people seek to excuse his actions?

karma_

Einhard wrote: »

What should they have done? Sent troops in?

And, as China and Russia would not have sanctioned such actions, should they have done so without a UN mandate, and thus violated international law?

The world isn't a black and white place, and one can't just transfer one set of actions onto every seemingly similar situation, or indeed, insist that all such situations are essentially the same.

Oh, Bashir has been referred to the International Criminal Court. So something is being done. ironically though, it's probably exacerbated the political situation in Sudan.

UN troops were already present in Rwanda at the time, and I think that there are African UN troops in Darfur but with almost next to no actual support.

I'm not saying that there should have been a full scale invasion force sent, but Libya is going a month now and in that time they have made more effort there than Rwanda and Darfur combined and I'll not apologise for being angry about that. However is does beg the question as to why they are so quick to intervene in Libya, we know it's most likely not for humanitarian reasons, otherwise Rwanda and Darfur would have been awash with troops.

Einhard

karma_ wrote: »

UN troops were already present in Rwanda at the time, and I think that there are African UN troops in Darfur but with almost next to no actual support.

AU troops were in Sudan with the agreement of the Sudanese government, and nowhere near the levels needed to interene in a more muscular fashion.

In Rwanda, somethng should have been done. However, the UN troops were too small in number to make much of a difference. I don't think it's reasonable though, to point to decisions made 20 years ago in order to support an argument on a contemporary situation.

I'm not saying that there should have been a full scale invasion force sent, but Libya is going a month now and in that time they have made more effort there than Rwanda and Darfur combined and I'll not apologise for being angry about that. However is does beg the question as to why they are so quick to intervene in Libya, we know it's most likely not for humanitarian reasons, otherwise Rwanda and Darfur would have been awash with troops.

Well, I'm as cynical as the next person, but I fail to see how the West, or the international community in general, will benefit from Gadaffi's downfall. Maybe a decade ago when he was persona non grata, but since then economic and political ties have been built with Libya. Why waste billions on military action, when Gadaffi was more than happy to play ball? Doesn't make sense to me.

Also, I don't think you're being very consistent. South Sudan has massive reserves of oil. So, if such interventions are based on economic reasons, then Sudan would have been dealt with long ago. A similar case could be made for the Democratic Republic of the Congo. But people ignore such instances when they assert that Western intervention is based purely on economic factors.

greendom

So Gadaffi's troops are in Benghazi and still no response from the UN. Unless they get their act together very soon Gadaffi will have destroyed the uprising. Come on guys, get a move on

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12793919

Ghost Train

Fighter plane shot down over Benghazi

Dr. Greenthumb

There is a few thing on this uprising that confuses me a bit.

1. The other uprisings in Egypt, Tunisia etc. have been carried out by a majority of peaceful protesters while in Libya it got violent almost immediately. If this were the case in another country they would probably be called terrorists.

2. It would be understandable if there were guns etc on the side of the uprising but fighter jets (the one shot down today was reportedly an opposition jet), tanks etc along with people trained to operate these seems to show there is a more sinister force behind this.

3. The UN / NATO has ordered a no fly zone but no mention was made why the rebels broke this and was attacking government forces. Also the government forces and completely within their rights to shoot down the plane if it was carrying out attacks on government troops.

4. Gaddafi, if he wanted, could have used the full force of his military and suppressed this already if he was so inclined. Compared to other dictators he has been quite restrained. There is no official reports of how many casualties there are only assumptions by western news agencies.

5. News stations today are showing smoke over Benghazi and linking it to the governments attack on the city while the same looks suspiciously like the smoke from the jet that was shot down.

A lot of this doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. While I understand he's not the most stable man in power there were no recent major issues about Gaddafi prior to this and it appears to be a bit of opportunism on the behalf of western powers to get him out.

If Gaddafi is ousted who will run Libya, from what I know (I may be wrong) it is a country fractured by various tribes etc. If Gaddafi is overthrown the whole country could descend into civil war. What will the west do then, walk away thinking their job is done having overthrown an evil dictator?

Apologies if this seems sympathetic towards Gaddafi but I haven't seen any reports etc prior to this highlighting him as a tyrant (a political oppressor maybe) that murders his own people etc.

However I am open to correction on the above.

whiteonion

The west should not intervene. Things get worse from intervention. When the Americans helped the Russians fight off the nazis it lead to the rise of communism in Europe which was even worse the nazism. Helping rebel fighters in Afghanistan kick out the Russians led to the rise of the Taliban. Nothing good can come from intervention in other countries affairs.

Dr. Greenthumb

Dr. Greenthumb wrote: »

3. The UN / NATO has ordered a no fly zone but no mention was made why the rebels broke this and was attacking government forces. Also the government forces and completely within their rights to shoot down the plane if it was carrying out attacks on government troops.

4. Gaddafi, if he wanted, could have used the full force of his military and suppressed this already if he was so inclined. Compared to other dictators he has been quite restrained. There is no official reports of how many casualties there are only assumptions by western news agencies.

5. News stations today are showing smoke over Benghazi and linking it to the governments attack on the city while the same looks suspiciously like the smoke from the jet that was shot down.

A lot of this doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. While I understand he's not the most stable man in power there were no recent major issues about Gaddafi prior to this and it appears to be a bit of opportunism on the behalf of western powers to get him out.

If Gaddafi is ousted who will run Libya, from what I know (I may be wrong) it is a country fractured by various tribes etc. If Gaddafi is overthrown the whole country could descend into civil war. What will the west do then, walk away thinking their job is done having overthrown an evil dictator?

Apologies if this seems sympathetic towards Gaddafi but I haven't seen any reports etc prior to this highlighting him as a tyrant (a political oppressor maybe) that murders his own people etc.

However I am open to correction on the above.

That has to be the most naive post I've read in a while.
BBC correspondents have reported Gadaffi tanks in suburban Benghazi.
Your assertion that the rebels broke the ceasefire comes from Ghadaffi.
You believe him?
Lol

greendom

whiteonion wrote: »

The west should not intervene. Things get worse from intervention. When the Americans helped the Russians fight off the nazis it lead to the rise of communism in Europe which was even worse the nazism. Helping rebel fighters in Afghanistan kick out the Russians led to the rise of the Taliban. Nothing good can come from intervention in other countries affairs.

What about Yugoslavia ? Countless thousands of lives were saved in Bosnia and Kosovo

I'd like to hear more about Nazism being better than Communism though