On Iran - North Korea: NATO War in Libya Proves Disarming Is Unwise

B

blackascoal

The Force is With Me
Fears 'Tragic Consequences' If They Abandon Their Own Program

Addressing their recent nuclear weapons test and international demands that they abandon the program unconditionally, North Korea has issued a new statement citing Libya as an example of why that’s a really bad idea

Libya abandoned its nuclear program in 2003 as part of an effort to improve relations with Western nations. Though US and other officials gave lip-service to the idea of improved ties, by 2011 NATO was attacking Libya, imposing regime change in the nation.

North Korea’s statement termed that the “tragic consequences” of abandoning a nuclear program that is partially finished, insisting that keeping the program intact is the safer choice

The US has pushed sanctions against North Korea for the recent test, but the reality is that the nation is already so isolated that any sanctions would be extremely limited. The US had, after all, already cut off food aid to North Korea nearly a year prior. North Korea has informed China of its intention to conduct additional tests.
http://news.antiwar.com/2013/02/21/north-korea-nato-war-in-libya-proves-disarming-is-unwise/

The logic makes good sense absolutely.

As long as Noreiga, and Saddam, and Gaddafi as they were told .. we were their friends. Step out of line and you're locked away forever, or dead, or dead.

The west has clearly demonstrated that neither the NATO cannot be trusted. The attack and destruction of Libya clearly demonstrated to the entire world that NATO is controlled by pure capitalists. Many nations are now clammoring to get full membership into the SCO .. as protection fron NATO.

Anybody talking about attacking North Korea?

No?

I wonder why?
 
I get that you opposed the Libya intervention (I did too, albeit on different grounds). But assuming the Libya intervention was universally regarded as a good idea, the idea that we should not go through with it because North Korea would use it as a pretext to continuing their nuclear weapons program is ridiculous. North Korea would continue with their nuclear weapons program regardless.
 
Dungheap said:
I get that you opposed the Libya intervention (I did too, albeit on different grounds). But assuming the Libya intervention was universally regarded as a good idea, the idea that we should not go through with it because North Korea would use it as a pretext to continuing their nuclear weapons program is ridiculous. North Korea would continue with their nuclear weapons program regardless.
Click to expand...

I agree that they would .. and I agree that they should.

Libya is a glaring example of why they should .. and also why Iran MUST arm itself if it is to survive.

Libya is why NATO was stopped from doing to Syria what they did to Libya.

Now they target Africa .. so they took Mali instead .. and guess what?

The Mali Blowback: More to Come?

The French-led military offensive in its former colony of Mali has pushed back radical Islamists and allied militias from some of the country’s northern cities, freeing the local population from repressive Taliban-style totalitarian rule. The United States has backed the French military effort by transporting French troops and equipment and providing reconnaissance through its satellites and drones. However, despite these initial victories, it raises concerns as to what unforeseen consequences may lay down the road.

Indeed, it was such Western intervention—also ostensibly on humanitarian grounds—that was largely responsible for the Malian crisis in the first place.

The 2011 NATO military intervention in Libya effort went well beyond the UN Security Council mandate to protect civilian lives, as the French, British and U.S. air forces—along with ground support by the Saudi and Qatari dictatorships—essentially allied themselves with the rebel armies. The African Union—while highly-critical of Qaddafi’s repression—condemned the intervention, fearing that the resulting chaos would result in the Libya’s vast storehouse of arms might fueling local and regional conflicts elsewhere in Africa and destabilize the region.

This is exactly what happened.

Whereas the nonviolent revolution against the neighboring Tunisian dictatorship resulted in a positive contagion of unarmed pro-democracy civil insurrections, the violent intervention in Libya resulted in a negative contagion of armed rebellions.

This is particularly tragic since Mali was seen, until recently, as one of the more hopeful political stories in Africa.

---

On March 22, U.S.-trained Army Captain Amadou Sanogo and other officers staged a coup and called for U.S. intervention along the lines of Afghanistan and the "war on terror."

Sanogo's training in the United States is just one small part of a decade of growing U.S. military involvement with allied armies in the Sahel, increasing the militarization of this impoverished region and the influence of armed forces relative to civilian leaders. Gregory Mann, writing in Foreign Policy, notes how “a decade of American investment in special forces training, co-operation between Sahalien armies and the United States and counter-terrorism programs of all sorts run by both the State Department and the Pentagon has, at best, failed to prevent a new disaster in the desert and, at worst, sowed its seeds."

---

Then, with the Malian army routed and Tuareg forces stretched thin, radical Islamist groups—also flushed with new arms resulting from the Libya war—seized most of the towns and cities in the north. These extremists also overran additional U.S.-supplied Malian army posts, seizing 87 Land Cruisers, satellite phones, navigation aids, and other equipment provided by the American taxpayer.

Already, the Western intervention in Mali has prompted a retaliatory attack on a BP natural gas facility in neighboring Algeria, resulting in the deaths of 38 foreign hostages. The blowback could just be beginning.

more
http://www.fpif.org/articles/the_mali_blowback_more_to_come

Look at Iraq today.

Everywhere NATO steps it leaves chaos and destruction .. because they only care about profit. NATO doesn't give a damn about people.
 
Every time the West invades/bombs another islamic country, they prove the radicals right. Radicals need to have somebody to hate and we give them great targets, if we didn't do that they would get so many more new followers.

It would be like fighting communists by killing factory workers.
 
blackascoal said:
Fears 'Tragic Consequences' If They Abandon Their Own Program

Addressing their recent nuclear weapons test and international demands that they abandon the program unconditionally, North Korea has issued a new statement citing Libya as an example of why that’s a really bad idea

Libya abandoned its nuclear program in 2003 as part of an effort to improve relations with Western nations. Though US and other officials gave lip-service to the idea of improved ties, by 2011 NATO was attacking Libya, imposing regime change in the nation.

North Korea’s statement termed that the “tragic consequences” of abandoning a nuclear program that is partially finished, insisting that keeping the program intact is the safer choice

The US has pushed sanctions against North Korea for the recent test, but the reality is that the nation is already so isolated that any sanctions would be extremely limited. The US had, after all, already cut off food aid to North Korea nearly a year prior. North Korea has informed China of its intention to conduct additional tests.
http://news.antiwar.com/2013/02/21/north-korea-nato-war-in-libya-proves-disarming-is-unwise/

The logic makes good sense absolutely.

As long as Noreiga, and Saddam, and Gaddafi as they were told .. we were their friends. Step out of line and you're locked away forever, or dead, or dead.

The west has clearly demonstrated that neither the NATO cannot be trusted. The attack and destruction of Libya clearly demonstrated to the entire world that NATO is controlled by pure capitalists. Many nations are now clammoring to get full membership into the SCO .. as protection fron NATO.

Anybody talking about attacking North Korea?

No?

I wonder why?
Click to expand...

So why wasn't North Korea attacked in all the years before they had nuclear weapons?
 
blackascoal said:
I agree that they would .. and I agree that they should.

Libya is a glaring example of why they should .. and also why Iran MUST arm itself if it is to survive.

Libya is why NATO was stopped from doing to Syria what they did to Libya.

Now they target Africa .. so they took Mali instead .. and guess what?

The Mali Blowback: More to Come?

The French-led military offensive in its former colony of Mali has pushed back radical Islamists and allied militias from some of the country’s northern cities, freeing the local population from repressive Taliban-style totalitarian rule. The United States has backed the French military effort by transporting French troops and equipment and providing reconnaissance through its satellites and drones. However, despite these initial victories, it raises concerns as to what unforeseen consequences may lay down the road.

Indeed, it was such Western intervention—also ostensibly on humanitarian grounds—that was largely responsible for the Malian crisis in the first place.

The 2011 NATO military intervention in Libya effort went well beyond the UN Security Council mandate to protect civilian lives, as the French, British and U.S. air forces—along with ground support by the Saudi and Qatari dictatorships—essentially allied themselves with the rebel armies. The African Union—while highly-critical of Qaddafi’s repression—condemned the intervention, fearing that the resulting chaos would result in the Libya’s vast storehouse of arms might fueling local and regional conflicts elsewhere in Africa and destabilize the region.

This is exactly what happened.

Whereas the nonviolent revolution against the neighboring Tunisian dictatorship resulted in a positive contagion of unarmed pro-democracy civil insurrections, the violent intervention in Libya resulted in a negative contagion of armed rebellions.

This is particularly tragic since Mali was seen, until recently, as one of the more hopeful political stories in Africa.

---

On March 22, U.S.-trained Army Captain Amadou Sanogo and other officers staged a coup and called for U.S. intervention along the lines of Afghanistan and the "war on terror."

Sanogo's training in the United States is just one small part of a decade of growing U.S. military involvement with allied armies in the Sahel, increasing the militarization of this impoverished region and the influence of armed forces relative to civilian leaders. Gregory Mann, writing in Foreign Policy, notes how “a decade of American investment in special forces training, co-operation between Sahalien armies and the United States and counter-terrorism programs of all sorts run by both the State Department and the Pentagon has, at best, failed to prevent a new disaster in the desert and, at worst, sowed its seeds."

---

Then, with the Malian army routed and Tuareg forces stretched thin, radical Islamist groups—also flushed with new arms resulting from the Libya war—seized most of the towns and cities in the north. These extremists also overran additional U.S.-supplied Malian army posts, seizing 87 Land Cruisers, satellite phones, navigation aids, and other equipment provided by the American taxpayer.

Already, the Western intervention in Mali has prompted a retaliatory attack on a BP natural gas facility in neighboring Algeria, resulting in the deaths of 38 foreign hostages. The blowback could just be beginning.

more
http://www.fpif.org/articles/the_mali_blowback_more_to_come

Look at Iraq today.

Everywhere NATO steps it leaves chaos and destruction .. because they only care about profit. NATO doesn't give a damn about people.
Click to expand...

I am just wondering if it is only Western intervention that seems to bother you? So what about the Kenyan intervention in Somalia?

http://www.nation.co.ke/News/Kenya+declares+war+on+Al+Shabaab/-/1056/1255736/-/hofdtiz/-/index.html
 
We never broke the armistace because of the presence of the USSR and China. Now that the Soviets are gone, and China's love affair with NK is coming to an end, the problem has become the nuclear capabilities.
 
Aoxomoxoa said:
I am just wondering if it is only Western intervention that seems to bother you? So what about the Kenyan intervention in Somalia?

http://www.nation.co.ke/News/Kenya+declares+war+on+Al+Shabaab/-/1056/1255736/-/hofdtiz/-/index.html
Click to expand...

There are manner of interventions we could talk about. Exactly how much attention do you think will be paid on this board to the Kenyan intervention in Somalia?

I talk about lots of inter-African issues among appropriate audiences. This ain't one of them.

However, many here are concerned about the actions of THEIR government.
 
blackascoal said:
There are manner of interventions we could talk about. Exactly how much attention do you think will be paid on this board to the Kenyan intervention in Somalia?

I talk about lots of inter-African issues among appropriate audiences. This ain't one of them.

However, many here are concerned about the actions of THEIR government.
Click to expand...

Well seeing as Somalia hasn't had a functioning government for 20 years and was being run by jihadists, murderous warlords and pirates, I think the intervention was well overdue. Britain is taking a lead in this and should be actively supported in this quest. It is also providing training for the Libyan armed forces including the navy and air force.

I also know a lot more about Somalia than most, there is a sizeable population of Somalis near where I live, indeed quite a few go to the same school as my sons went to, many have not been able to go back to visit for many years.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/feb/07/britain-military-co-operation-libya

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/oct/01/rare-opportunity-somalia-piracy-terrorism
 
Aoxomoxoa said:
Well seeing as Somalia hasn't had a functioning government for 20 years and was being run by jihadists, murderous warlords and pirates, I think the intervention was well overdue. Britain is taking a lead in this and should be actively supported in this quest. It is also providing training for the Libyan armed forces including the navy and air force.

I also know a lot more about Somalia than most, there is a sizeable population of Somalis near where I live, indeed quite a few go to the same school as my sons went to, many have not been able to go back to visit for many years.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/feb/07/britain-military-co-operation-libya

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/oct/01/rare-opportunity-somalia-piracy-terrorism
Click to expand...

I know .. you're a big fan of western intervention and of the UK's 'follow the leader' foreign policy.

You're free to support whomever you want. That doesn't matter to me.

What matters is the blowback.

Congratulations on the UK's amazing success in Iraq and Afghanistan. :0)
 
blackascoal said:
I know .. you're a big fan of western intervention and of the UK's 'follow the leader' foreign policy.

You're free to support whomever you want. That doesn't matter to me.

What matters is the blowback.

Congratulations on the UK's amazing success in Iraq and Afghanistan. :0)
Click to expand...

As I have said about a zillion times already, I was totally against the 2003 invasion of Iraq. After 9/11 Bush should have gone into Afghanistan and concentrated on that when all the world was supporting him. Iraq was a terrible distraction from the main aim of removing the Taliban from power and keeping them out.

Of course I know full well that you believe that 9/11 was an inside job which really undermines your credibility as far as I'm concerned.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top