Part I of a Two Part Article.
Part II. "Operation Libya" and the Battle for Oil
The US and NATO are supporting an armed insurrection in Eastern Libya, with a view to justifying a "humanitarian intervention".
This is not a non-violent protest movement as in Egypt and Tunisia. Conditions in Libya are fundamentally different. The armed insurgency in Eastern Libya is directly supported by foreign powers. Of significance:, the insurrection in Benghazi immediately hoisted the red, black and green banner with the crescent and star: the flag of the monarchy of King Idris, which symbolized the rule of the former colonial powers. (See Manlio Dinucci, Libya-When historical memory is erased, Global Research, Febraury 28, 2011)
US and NATO military advisers and special forces are already on the ground. The operation was planned to coincide with the protest movement in neighbouring Arab countries. Public opinion was led to believe that the protest movement had spread spontaneously from Tunisia and Egypt to Libya.
The Obama administration in consultation with its allies is assisting an armed rebellion, namely an attempted coup d'Etat:
"The Obama administration stands ready to offer "any type of assistance" to Libyans seeking to oust Moammar Gadhafi, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton [February 27] "we've been reaching out to many different Libyans who are attempting to organize in the east and as the revolution moves westward there as well," Clinton said. "I think it's way too soon to tell how this is going to play out, but we're going to be ready and prepared to offer any kind of assistance that anyone wishes to have from the United States." Efforts are under way to form a provisional government in the eastern part of the country where the rebellion began at midmonth.
The U.S., Clinton said, is threatening more measures against Gadhafi's government, but did not say what they were or when they might be announced.
The U.S. should "recognize some provisional government that they are trying to set already up..." [McCain]
Lieberman spoke in similar terms, urging "tangible support, (a) no-fly zone, recognition of the revolutionary government, the citizens' government and support for them with both humanitarian assistance and I would provide them with arms."
full article http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=23548
Stumble It!
Seriously? I don't think so.
I do think that the west wants to cozy up to whoever is in charge of the opposition as they will want access to the oil and has a vested interest in maintaining prices (just as they want to cozy up to the leadership in Tunisia and Egypt). But they won't do anything until AFTER it appears that the opposition has a leadership and is savvy enough to show that it can run a military operation and overthrow Ghadaffi. They won't jump into any apple cart until they know that they are backing a winner. There will be no boots on the ground (maybe SF to advise and/or co-ordinate air attacks), and there may be air force support to the opposition, but there will be no invasion as there is nothing to be gained. The west has survived on backing dictators for 40 years in the ME because it led to stability and a semi-friendly (at least business wise) relationship that gave us cheap oil. The powers that be don't care who runs these countries, only that we have access to resources. This theory of a coup d'etat isn't even given credence by Al Jazeera who can't exactly be called pro-west. Global Research needs to go smoke some more crack and keep talking truther nonsense. Any chance they get to bite the hand that feeds they take.
There is nothing to support claims that the US or Europe is in any way to blame for starting this violence. Although now that it is started...
I do agree that they will sit back and wait. Like I said before, they want to make sure that they are backing a winner. Whoever wins, they will try to deal with them. They don't really care who it is. Which is why I said that the premise that this violence was perpetrated by Western agents agitating under the cover of the Arab freedom movement is nonsense. They only want stability, because stability means profits. You are looking for conspiracy in places where there is none.
You contradict yourself. "Stability" and "profits" in the same sentence IS a conspiracy.
If the west wants Ghadafiduck gone, then just put a $50 million bounty on his head. There are enough mercenaries in Libya that several might attempt to make good on the bounty. It could be called a "fatwa".......
Really? I want stability in the economy and I want to make profit. Am I now a conspirator?
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Blum/ ... la_KH.html
Peace and profits - at any cost (to someone else).
BTW, does anyone know how to spell that guy's name? I've seen about 20 different spellings of it and it is not even consistent across a single news network? Are we just spelling it phonetically? Gadaffi, Ghadaffi, Gaddafi, Gadafi...????
So you now think what happened in Guatamala is happening in Libya?
Guatalama is the embodiment of how stability + profit = conspiracy.
Uh-huh, but what does that have to do with Libya? What evidence is there of a similar conspiracy?
You said:
That in itself swung us away from Libya per se, into the realm of generalization. There are far too many examples of creating "stability" for the sake of "profit" by either destablizing a region, or stablizing same - depending on the type of profits to be made. The west at present could care less about the so-called "freedoms" of the Libyan people. Just keep that oil flowing:
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/166515.html
But I will repeat, their lack of concern for the people or their freedoms does not necessarily breed a conspiracy. There is no evidence of any conspiracy in Libya. All evidence points to the Libyan people emulating the other Arab movements and rising up themselves to attempt to overthrow Gadhafi. That was the original post, and my only arguement.