View Full Version : Civil War in Libya
"No regime change" and Kosovo was part of Serbia...
Defending civilians with airstrikes and missles is a really good way to kill the civilians you are defending. Boots on ground is how you defend civilians. Have we learned nothing of the last 20 years?
What he said.
Good for the Libyans that they have natural resources, so we in the west care. Well, enough to bomb some at least. Simultaneously same thing and worse goes on in other countries without our press hyping it.
Sad to see so many people who believe themselves to be clever so unquestioning.
So, your basic contention is that we should only intervene after genocide starts, not before?
Well yeah, you don't?
Well yeah, you don't?
No, I prefer to intervene before thousands are massacred rather than after. Seems a bit more useful that way.
Good for the Libyans that they have natural resources, so we in the west care. Well, enough to bomb some at least. Simultaneously same thing and worse goes on in other countries without our press hyping it.
Libya is full of desert sand and tiny bit of oil, not too much to get there. No other country has a situation similar to that in Libya, so those comparisons do not make sense.
Perhaps the situation in Darfur makes some sense to compare to, though one should really study the cases in detail before drawing such conclusions. Regardless, we have no capability to intervene every conflict in this world, go figure.
I suppose you are also one of those 'who believe themselves to be clever', so start questioning your own viewpoint for a second.
---
Meanwhile, the first loss of allied war-machinery has occurred, as a US warplane crash-lands in Libya (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12816226). Crew said to be fine.
A US warplane has crash-landed in Libya, a US military spokesman says.
The spokesman, Kenneth Fiddler, told the BBC there was no indication the F-15E Eagle had been brought down by hostile fire.
Both crew members ejected safely after what was believed to be a mechanical failure, US officials say.
The Daily Telegraph newspaper says the plane went down near the rebel stronghold of Benghazi. It follows a third night of allied air strikes.
No, I prefer to intervene before thousands are massacred rather than after. Seems a bit more useful that way.
Either way we have no business bombing Libyans. They are not a threat, and they never wronged us. Can think of places more deserving
Either way we have no business bombing Libyans. They are not a threat, and they never wronged us. Can think of places more deserving
I agree that they are not a threat and did not wrong "us." However, I believe that Gadaffi was about to order the wholesale masaccre of tens of thousands of people simply because they no longer supported him as dictator. For me, personally, that is a good enough reason to intervene in the manner that we did.
A story from The Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8397953/US-jet-crashes-in-Libya-airman-would-not-have-known-if-he-approached-friend-or-foe.html) detailing the crash-landing of the US fighter jet, fitting right into the pro-interventionist propaganda machinery. ~:thumb:
Behind him his F15 Strike Eagle was a burning wreck. He had parachuted into a field of sheep somewhere near Benghazi airbase and needed to escape - his fellow crew member had landed in another field nearby.
Raising his hands in the air he called out "OK, OK" to greet the crowd. But he need not have worried.
"I hugged him and said don't be scared we are your friends," said Younis Amruni, 27.
[...]
A queue formed to shake the hand of the airman, as locals thanked him for his role in the attacks.
Witnesses said it was around midnight when they heard two planes streak out of the Libyan sky.
Mohamed Breek came out of his home a couple of hundred yards away to see what was happening above his flower-studded meadow.
"It was on fire," he said. "We didn't hear any shots it just fell from the sky by itself and then there was a big explosion."
[...]
"We are so grateful to these men who are protecting the skies," he said. "We gave him juice and then the revolutionary military people took him away."
HoreTore
03-22-2011, 14:40
Defending civilians with airstrikes and missles is a really good way to kill the civilians you are defending. Boots on ground is how you defend civilians. Have we learned nothing of the last 20 years?
It's what we have learned these last two decades, in afghanistan and in iraq, that makes the civillian populations all over the world fearful of US "boots on ground". The civillian population in Libya wants airstrikes, but they have made it pretty damned clear that they don't want american troops involved on the ground.
I agree that they are not a threat and did not wrong "us." However, I believe that Gadaffi was about to order the wholesale masaccre of tens of thousands of people simply because they no longer supported him as dictator. For me, personally, that is a good enough reason to intervene in the manner that we did.
'Us' is us non-Libyans. Dunno what gotten into Sarkozy I am completely puzzled over what we are to ackomplish there. These rebels hold out pretty well the army who are they anyway, nobody in the army defected as far as I know, why are they so well-armed
nobody in the army defected as far as I know, why are they so well-armed
Many army units defected. Air Force and Navy as well.
Noncommunist
03-22-2011, 18:19
'Us' is us non-Libyans. Dunno what gotten into Sarkozy I am completely puzzled over what we are to ackomplish there. These rebels hold out pretty well the army who are they anyway, nobody in the army defected as far as I know, why are they so well-armed
Actually, he's wronged quite a few non-Libyans over the past few years. Invaded parts of Chad and Egypt and got driven back. Supported Idi Amin's invasion of Tanzania which was also driven back. And he's also supported terrorists around the world. He got better in the past few years but he's definitely wronged a few non-Libyans.
Tellos Athenaios
03-22-2011, 18:30
Plus had a few failed assassination attempts and a few successful assassinations/disappearances carried out around the globe. Why do you think Lebanon is so eager to support this intervention?
A story from The Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8397953/US-jet-crashes-in-Libya-airman-would-not-have-known-if-he-approached-friend-or-foe.html) detailing the crash-landing of the US fighter jet, fitting right into the pro-interventionist propaganda machinery. ~:thumb:
Hmm, something not quite as charming reported at Channel4 (http://www.channel4.com/news/third-night-of-bombing-in-libya):
EXCLUSIVE: Six villagers in a field on the outskirts of Benghazi were shot and injured when a US helicopter landed to rescue a crew member from the crashed jet, reports Lindsey Hilsum.
Channel 4 News International Editor, Lindsey Hilsum, says that the villagers were shot when a US helicopter picked up the pilot who had ejected from the F-15E Eagle plane after it experienced a mechanical failure.
The US aircraft crashed on Monday night and was found in a field outside Benghazi and landed in rebel-held territory.
The local Libyans who were injured in the rescue mission are currently in hospital. They are the first confirmed casualities of allied operations, almost four days after operations began. At the time of writing, no one had died as a result of the gunfire.
Wonder what the justifications are.
EDIT: found this in the twitter feed (http://twitter.com/robcrilly#) of a Telegraph journalist:
It was a second jet that opened fire, wounding locals, according to the witnesses. Not the rescue helicopter
That should explain it.
HoreTore
03-22-2011, 20:46
'Us' is us non-Libyans. Dunno what gotten into Sarkozy I am completely puzzled over what we are to ackomplish there. These rebels hold out pretty well the army who are they anyway, nobody in the army defected as far as I know, why are they so well-armed
Almost the entire army stationed in the east has defected. Also, all the equipment there is now in the hands of the rebels. In addition to that, individual Lybians have bought a ton of weapons in Egypt and handed them out to the population.
As for wronging non-lybians... Gaffy saw himself as the Che Guavara of his time, and wanted to emulate him. How he went about that was to invite every crack-pot group on the planet who opposed a government. The red army fraction, IRA, palestinian groups, latin rebels, various african rebel groups, maoist groups in Asia, etc etc, the list is nearly infinite. They were all provided with a safe haven in Libya, as well as weapons, funds and other assistance. This is why a lot of countries oppose him with a passion, because he funded their local terrorists, and also why he has so strong support in a lot of countries as well, as those he helped who succeeded naturally have a thing for him.
Major Robert Dump
03-23-2011, 03:23
....And some of the first casualties are civilians...shot from the air. This is why actions like this don't work if your true and real intention is to protect civilians. Didn't work in Iraw pre-9/11 and didn't work in belgrade. Either put a brigade on the ground in Libya and do it right or get the F out of the business.
PanzerJaeger
03-23-2011, 06:56
This thing seems to be turning more and more toxic (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/gaddafis-forces-bombed-but-not-broken-2250163.html) by the hour.
The Western allies yesterday struggled to find a coherent strategy in Libya as Colonel Muammar Gaddafi's forces renewed attacks on rebel strongholds despite a no-fly zone and a fourth day of allied strikes against government military targets. In Washington, top officials insisted the US intended to hand over command of the operation to its allies within days, but wrangling within Nato continued yesterday along with confusion over what the mission was increasingly clear that despite the scale of the damage inflicted on Colonel Gaddafi's forces, the rebels were highly unlikely to achieve a military victory.
In London, a Government minister acknowledged the crisis could end in stalemate, and partition of the country. "A stable outcome where they weren't killing each other would, in a sense, be one way of achieving the humanitarian objective," the armed forces minister Nick Harvey told the BBC.
Despite their rush to arms, no one in Europe seems to want to take the lead (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-03-22/allies-control-of-airspace-in-libya-puts-qaddafi-s-ground-forces-at-risk.html) on this one.
NATO Discord
The question of who assumes leadership in a U.S. handoff was unresolved, as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization inconclusively discussed whether to take charge. Norway and Italy said their participation in air operations depends on settling who will be in command.
France proposed a new political steering committee, outside NATO, take responsibility, Foreign Minister Alain Juppe told lawmakers in Paris, according to Agence France Press. Wrangling over the alliance’s possible role in the four-day-old air campaign had exposed divisions over the command structure and strategy for the fight against Qaddafi.
President Barack Obama, speaking in Santiago, Chile, yesterday said the U.S. would hand off its leadership role “in a matter of days, not a matter of weeks.”
“This command-and-control business is complicated, and we haven’t done something like this kind of on-the-fly before,” U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates told reporters in Moscow today. “It’s not surprising to me that it would take a few days to get it all sorted out.”
War Costs
The cost of initial U.S. strikes against Libyan air defenses exceeds $168 million, including the use of Raytheon Co (RTN) Tomahawk cruise missiles and Northrop Grumman Co. long-range B-2 bombers, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne told lawmakers in London today that the cost of U.K. operations in Libya are likely to run into “tens of millions of pounds” and that it will be met by the Treasury’s reserve fund, not the Ministry of Defense’s budget.
rory_20_uk
03-23-2011, 09:18
It's not as simple as "no one wants to take the leasd" it's also different people want different things to take the lead: Italy insits it's NATO, the arab league insists it's not. France wants to take the lead to appear important before elections, others don't want them to.
Understandably, some countries would like to know what the hell is going on before flying.
~:smoking:
Despite their rush to arms, no one in Europe seems to want to take the lead (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-03-22/allies-control-of-airspace-in-libya-puts-qaddafi-s-ground-forces-at-risk.html) on this one.
As I understand it, the French want to take the lead... it's just that not everyone wants to follow them.
What many on this thread are neglecting is the tribal and historical roots of this conflict.
http://files.myopera.com/nielsol/blog/Tripolitana-Cyrenaica-Fezzan-small.jpg
The uprising is very much in the old province of Cyrenaica. The flag the rebels are waving is the flag of the former King of Libya, a Cyrenaican. He used to rule giving Cyrenaica the biggest portion and Tripolitana the least. Also there was widespread prejudice against the black Fezzans. A prejudice that remains strong in the East today. This was reversed under Gaddafi. With Tripolitana being favoured and Cyrenaica being hung out to dry. It's said that Benghazi, a city of one million, pumps sewage directly into the sea as the infrastructure is so poor.
Gaddafi actually did a fair amount to reduce prejudice and encorporate Fezzans into Libya. Hence their large scale presence in his armies. When a Tripolitanan or a Fezzan see the Cyrenaican flag, they won't necessarily see liberation. It's a sticky situation and needs to be played very carefully.
rory_20_uk
03-23-2011, 13:30
So, it's three seperate areas with almost nothing in common bar mutual distrust and dislike. It's been held together by a strong man for the last 40 years.
Sounds familiar... Rather like Iraq or the Ottoman Empire.
Turn a frown upside down - if there is a natural part that the rebels hold that is a "sensible" division, get it recognised as an independant country and job done. Sudan is another recent case where a large country with no unifying reson detre bar force has finally split. Why not this one too? From what Idaho is saying, if the Rebels were to win they would probably start to favour themselves over the other two areas as was the case previously.
~:smoking:
HoreTore
03-23-2011, 13:45
......Or likr the United Kingdom, rory?
Strike For The South
03-23-2011, 13:50
That's funny
Why would 3 distinict regions join together to form one country?
Banquo's Ghost
03-23-2011, 13:51
......Or likr the United Kingdom, rory?
No, not remotely like the United Kingdom. The UK is a representative democracy held together by an elected Parliament which has shared its powers through devolution to the constituent kingdoms within. The vast majority of its people are reasonably happy with the movement so far (not the Cornish, obviously :wink:).
rory_20_uk
03-23-2011, 13:56
......Or likr the United Kingdom, rory?
I'd not shed a tear to see Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland go their own way. Of the three, Scotland would have something approaching a functioning economy. The other two are verging on being basket cases. What would England be loosing? A flag that initially there was uproar over as it was replacing the English flag, some naval ports in Scotland for the ships we no longer have and... that's about it.
It'd be good to have English politicians in Westminster and others in their respective parliments, rather than the current duplication.
~:smoking:
Strike For The South
03-23-2011, 13:58
Those Celts have no idea how good they have it
Bloody ingrates
~:)
Edit: And after seeing Welsh women I'd porbably lean more towards genocide, sheep are more preferable to those ghastly creatures
Which means all those jokes make sense to me now
rory_20_uk
03-23-2011, 14:01
That's funny
Why would 3 distinict regions join together to form one country?
That's how empires are formed isn't it? You don't just take what's yours, you take all that others can stop you from taking (e.g. New Mexico, Texas etc...) I am sure to some it might surprise some how much of the southern states of America was annexed from Mexico.
Although the Cornish do demand their independence more than most other areas, I do not know the percentage that wants it. Is it 90%, or a vocal 2%? Either way, good luck to surviving without the money that flows from the rest of the UK - although now the could exchange teats for the EU.
~:smoking:
That's funny
Why would 3 distinict regions join together to form one country?
The map perpetuates the lie imposed over a hundred years ago by European cartographers. They created straight line borders based on lines of lattitude and longitude. These places are largely desert. Tribes would have traditionally had areas where they traded, rested, grazed, etc. But these people were nomadic. They wouldn't have recognised (and indeed still don't recognise) these borders. It's only by the coast where you would have got fixed settlements.
http://www.phibetaiota.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/Libya_ethnic.jpg
What many on this thread are neglecting is the tribal and historical roots of this conflict.
http://files.myopera.com/nielsol/blog/Tripolitana-Cyrenaica-Fezzan-small.jpg
The uprising is very much in the old province of Cyrenaica. The flag the rebels are waving is the flag of the former King of Libya, a Cyrenaican. He used to rule giving Cyrenaica the biggest portion and Tripolitana the least. Also there was widespread prejudice against the black Fezzans. A prejudice that remains strong in the East today. This was reversed under Gaddafi. With Tripolitana being favoured and Cyrenaica being hung out to dry. It's said that Benghazi, a city of one million, pumps sewage directly into the sea as the infrastructure is so poor.
Gaddafi actually did a fair amount to reduce prejudice and encorporate Fezzans into Libya. Hence their large scale presence in his armies. When a Tripolitanan or a Fezzan see the Cyrenaican flag, they won't necessarily see liberation. It's a sticky situation and needs to be played very carefully.
I think you should tak a closer look at what's actually going on. The old flag has been flown in both Tripoli and Zawiya, most certainly in Misurata too - though it is not so easy to get images from the city. All the big revolting cities appear to be pretty united in their revolts - though I haven't seen reports from all the cities in the country. My challenge to you, is to find evidence of a newer date suggesting a split (the imbalance when it comes the number of rebel held cities, comparing west to east, may seemingly be easily explained by the fact the cities in the west lies considerably closer the loyal "elite" armies with their bases in Tripoli).
rory_20_uk
03-23-2011, 14:55
Currently everyone wants Gadaffi out. I imagine the old flag is a symbol of wanting him out, rather than a detailed understanding of life under the previous ruler. What percentage of the coutry's populace was even alive back in those days? Pretty small - and fewer old enough to really be able to offer an opinion.
As soon as he is out... probably a different story - the "Allies" wanted the Axis destroyed. As soon as he was they were almost instantly vying with each other.
~:smoking:
I have seen no one signaling that they want the old Libya back - flag's just a flag. The rebels in Benghazi wants Tripoli as the capital of the country, so they are hesitant about putting up too much of a new government there.
EDIT: Uh, I appear to have to have misread rory's post..
Can't even get a simple police action right. :no:
What percentage of the coutry's populace was even alive back in those days? Pretty small - and fewer old enough to really be able to offer an opinion.
It's a fair point. The population is very young in Libya.
gaelic cowboy
03-23-2011, 16:45
Although the Cornish do demand their independence more than most other areas, I do not know the percentage that wants it. Is it 90%, or a vocal 2%? Either way, good luck to surviving without the money that flows from the rest of the UK - although now the could exchange teats for the EU.
~:smoking:
Doesnt that have a legal point about it or something, I seem to remember reading somewhere I think it could have been in the Independent that Cornwall and the counties next to it were never formally joined to the UK??
Banquo's Ghost
03-23-2011, 16:52
Doesnt that have a legal point about it or something, I seem to remember reading somewhere I think it could have been in the Independent that Cornwall and the counties next to it were never formally joined to the UK??
No legal point at all. Cornwall was only the rump of the Celtic Dumnonii pushed back into the far west by the Saxon expansion. It was effectively England from about 800 AD, unlike Wales where the remnant Celts established tribal areas outside the control of the Mercians, only conquered by the Normans and then subsumed into England (eventually the UK).
There's about five people in Cornwall that truly want independence and that only when their medication wears off.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
03-23-2011, 16:59
Doesnt that have a legal point about it or something, I seem to remember reading somewhere I think it could have been in the Independent that Cornwall and the counties next to it were never formally joined to the UK??
That's a myth, they were all annexed by about 900 AD. Cornwall's independance claims lie with it's Stanery Parliament, when it was afforded a degree of Independance because of its Tin deposits. Sort of like an early form of Trade-Unionism.
gaelic cowboy
03-23-2011, 17:05
I not too sure there is something about the rights of the local Lord under the system Britain had before Henry mark 8 not been formally relinquished, didnt the sorta have a relationship like the Isle of Man until maybe 12/13 century
The question of Cornwall's constitutional status as a de facto county of England, as established by the Local Government Act 1888, a Duchy, i.e. the Duchy of Cornwall established in 1337 by Edward III of England for his son, Edward, Prince of Wales, or another constitutional entity of the United Kingdom is a complex one. In recent years there has been cross-party recognition of the issue at least as far as the calls for a Cornish Assembly are concerned. In addition there are also groups and individuals, including the Revived Cornish Stannary Parliament, the Cornish Constitutional Convention,[64] and John Angarrack,[67] who reject the present constitutional status of Cornwall, denying the legality of Cornwall's current administration as a county of England, and Cornwall's relationship to the Duchy of Cornwall.
I pulled that from wiki but I know there is some messy old leagl thingy somewhere I just cant for the life remember where I saw it.
That's a myth, they were all annexed by about 900 AD. Cornwall's independance claims lie with it's Stanery Parliament, when it was afforded a degree of Independance because of its Tin deposits. Sort of like an early form of Trade-Unionism.
Not neccessarily, Ireland was invaded but still had it's own parliment under the King therefore that meant Ireland had a relationship with the King and not the English parliment, in practice of course that did not happen and was finally removed with the Act of Union.
Tellos Athenaios
03-23-2011, 18:26
There's about five people in Cornwall that truly want independence and that only when their medication wears off.
Well there are only like 5 people on the whole of Sark and same goes for other such dependencies... but they get what they want.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
03-23-2011, 20:12
I not too sure there is something about the rights of the local Lord under the system Britain had before Henry mark 8 not been formally relinquished, didnt the sorta have a relationship like the Isle of Man until maybe 12/13 century
I pulled that from wiki but I know there is some messy old leagl thingy somewhere I just cant for the life remember where I saw it.
Not neccessarily, Ireland was invaded but still had it's own parliment under the King therefore that meant Ireland had a relationship with the King and not the English parliment, in practice of course that did not happen and was finally removed with the Act of Union.
Ireland was a Kingdom in its own right, Cornwall was really just a wilderness before it was nominally shired, there's a bit about this in the English version of the Polychronicon when the English translator goes on a bit of a rant about how Cornwall hasn't been included in a list of shires.
His name was Jon Trevisa, he was writing in 1387.
Louis VI the Fat
03-23-2011, 21:51
I am going to have to speak to Sarkozy about a bombing campaign over London on behalf of Cornwall. Nothing says re-election quite like scared, running Englishmen. Didn't even get to see any of that in this year's Six Nations, I need my annual quota.
The map perpetuates the lie imposed over a hundred years ago by European cartographers. They created straight line borders based on lines of lattitude and longitude. One should never underestimate the power of tribal affiliation, nationalism, regionalism. I don't know the extent of the role these play in the conflict.
But the division of North Africa into 'Algiers, Tunis and Tripoli' is not a European invention, but an Ottoman one, adopted by France and Italy. Libya was ruled as a single entity by the Ottomans for centuries. One can't blame it all on three decades of European modernisation and massive investments, erm, colonialism.
Egypt has an air force of what? Some 500 planes and more than 100 attack helicopters.
The Saudi air force is smaller, but still very potent.
Their combined amount of planes over Libya - 0.
The Arabic League urged for intervention - so how come they leave the west with the bill? It is after all their back yard. I guess they are not ready to deal with the civilian casualties bound to happen, or maybe they just prefer someone else to fund the whole deal.
Of course, I do not even want to imagine the mess the arabs would cause if they did intervene. It is after all not the most diciplined culture around. So for them to handle a major flight operation.. Oh well, could add some fun factor at the very least.
Of course, I do not even want to imagine the mess the arabs would cause if they did intervene. It is after all not the most diciplined culture around. So for them to handle a major flight operation.. Oh well, could add some fun factor at the very least.
Oh dear (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?134094-Murder-Gang-Collected-Fingers-of-Each-Victim-to-Make-Necklace).
rory_20_uk
03-24-2011, 13:19
Oh dear (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?134094-Murder-Gang-Collected-Fingers-of-Each-Victim-to-Make-Necklace).
We'd need a control group of what Arab troops get up to to compare.
I suppose we've got the Arab Lybian snipers shooting civillians. 16 dead yesterday in one town.
And the Syrians have opened up with live bullets. I think the same thing happened in Barhain.
Egypt? A few hundred died there.
~:smoking:
Oh dear (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?134094-Murder-Gang-Collected-Fingers-of-Each-Victim-to-Make-Necklace).
Mate, you are preaching to the choir.
But yes - I do believe Americans are more disciplined than the Arabs. See, they in an orderly fashion collected the fingers. Arab troops would probably have scattered them all over the place.
Jokes aside - I do believe the best thing to happen in Libya would be Arab boots on the ground and Arab jets controlling the skies. West only helping with intel and logistics, ie, refueling planes and AWACS as well as some SAS teams to paint remaining AA positions (if any). West could also help with the humanitarian aid needed. As an example, the women refugees are pretty much up for grabs, mass rapes have been reported. This is thanks to the charming cultural trait that a woman on her own are anyones property.
Mate, you are preaching to the choir.
But yes - I do believe Americans are more disciplined than the Arabs. See, they in an orderly fashion collected the fingers. Arab troops would probably have scattered them all over the place.
Jokes aside - I do believe the best thing to happen in Libya would be Arab boots on the ground and Arab jets controlling the skies. West only helping with intel and logistics, ie, refueling planes and AWACS as well as some SAS teams to paint remaining AA positions (if any). West could also help with the humanitarian aid needed. As an example, the women refugees are pretty much up for grabs, mass rapes have been reported. This is thanks to the charming cultural trait that a woman on her own are anyones property.
Ya, but they know we will eventually will put boots, language always says a lot and rethoric has changed from 'course not' to 'we just might' if you read between the lines.
Sarmatian
03-24-2011, 17:59
The Arabic League urged for intervention
Actually, they urged for a no-fly zone.
Sarmatian
03-24-2011, 19:29
Good thing they didn't ask for bombing then, they might have gotten a nuclear strike.
What Amr Moussa (sp??) objected to, was presumably the initial bombing of Tripoli, which was necessary given the AA installations in the city - thus a part of the NFZ.
There is some doubt about the stories of Gadaffi's mercenary hordes. Libya is a more complex place than many think.
Mercenaries or Libyans from Fezzan? (http://theclearview.wordpress.com/2011/03/04/gaddafis-african-mercenaries-or-are-they-libyans-from-fezzan/)
Idaho replied to one of my posts in the Bahrain thread, but his input is very relevant here.
I concede to Idaho that I gave the rebel propaganda department’s statements on supposedly African mercenaries more credit than they deserved. Nor was I critical enough of the sources on these “mercenaries”.
I know that there were mercenary contract adverts in newspapers in several countries, but it seems the rebels are now rounding up every dark-skinned man (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-libya-prisoners-20110324,0,5389027,full.story), Libyan or not, and presenting them to the world press as captured African mercenaries.
It reminds me of Afghanistan during the liberation in 2001. Locals would round up every Arab speaker, native Arab-Afghan or foreigner, and turn them in as “Al-Qaeda terrorists” to get a reward.
I'm not buying that one. I agree that the mercenary scare appears to be largely inaccurate, but I have seen many black skinned rebel fighters.
https://img51.imageshack.us/img51/6290/74142146libyanrebel.jpg
The stalemate has been broken in the east; with the aid of what has been described as "massive" allied aistrikes, the rebels recapture the city of Ajdabiya (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12869658); a city with about 100,000 inhabitants.
They are, or will soon, head for Brega - and probably Ras Lanuf after that. The loyalists should be unable to move up reinforcing tanks to the front, so I assume these two cities will fall without too much trouble.
The big question then, is Sirte. If the population there is largely loyal, and are willing to put up a fight - then it could become a tricky place, not the least given the UN mandate of 'protecting civilians'. If it isn't, then one could expect it to fall - and the road to Misrata will be relatively "open".
They are, or will soon, head for Brega - and probably Ras Lanuf after that. The loyalists should be unable to move up reinforcing tanks to the front, so I assume these two cities will fall without too much trouble.
Yes, Brega is a much smaller city (a few thousand, not 100,000) and it is off of the main road, not straddling it. It is therefore a much poorer defensive location than Ajdabiya. Ras Lanuf isn't really even a town, just an oil facility with some homes for workers. It's an even worse defensive location. So, both of those aren't likely to be serious hurdles for the rebels. Like you said, Sirte is the real test. If they can take Sirte, there are no other significant towns before they reach Misrata, which appears to be holding out adequately. If they can't, this will be a very long struggle.
PanzerJaeger
03-27-2011, 03:54
In an almost unbelievable twist of fate, the United States is now fighting in support of not only al-Qaeda fighters, but the same al-Qaeda fighters (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8407047/Libyan-rebel-commander-admits-his-fighters-have-al-Qaeda-links.html) that fought against our troops in Iraq.
Libyan rebel commander admits his fighters have al-Qaeda links
Abdel-Hakim al-Hasidi, the Libyan rebel leader, has said jihadists who fought against allied troops in Iraq are on the front lines of the battle against Muammar Gaddafi's regime.
In an interview with the Italian newspaper Il Sole 24 Ore, Mr al-Hasidi admitted that he had recruited "around 25" men from the Derna area in eastern Libya to fight against coalition troops in Iraq. Some of them, he said, are "today are on the front lines in Adjabiya".
Mr al-Hasidi insisted his fighters "are patriots and good Muslims, not terrorists," but added that the "members of al-Qaeda are also good Muslims and are fighting against the invader".
His revelations came even as Idriss Deby Itno, Chad's president, said al-Qaeda had managed to pillage military arsenals in the Libyan rebel zone and acquired arms, "including surface-to-air missiles, which were then smuggled into their sanctuaries".
Mr al-Hasidi admitted he had earlier fought against "the foreign invasion" in Afghanistan, before being "captured in 2002 in Peshwar, in Pakistan". He was later handed over to the US, and then held in Libya before being released in 2008.
US and British government sources said Mr al-Hasidi was a member of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, or LIFG, which killed dozens of Libyan troops in guerrilla attacks around Derna and Benghazi in 1995 and 1996.
Even though the LIFG is not part of the al-Qaeda organisation, the United States military's West Point academy has said the two share an "increasingly co-operative relationship". In 2007, documents captured by allied forces from the town of Sinjar, showed LIFG emmbers made up the second-largest cohort of foreign fighters in Iraq, after Saudi Arabia.
Earlier this month, al-Qaeda issued a call for supporters to back the Libyan rebellion, which it said would lead to the imposition of "the stage of Islam" in the country.
****. Just ****. :wall::wall::wall::wall::wall::wall::wall::wall::wall::wall::wall::wall::wall::wall::wall::wall::wal l::wall::wall::wall::wall::wall::wall::wall::wall::wall::wall::wall::wall::wall:
I hope all the "we are all democratic citizens of the world" bleeding hearts who pushed this **** are suitably pleased with themselves.
And this (http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/al-qaeda-snatched-missiles-in-libya/story-e6frfku0-1226028543204#ixzz1HlVWFTAM) is just all kinds or awesome!
'Al-Qaeda snatched missiles' in Libya
AL-QAEDA'S offshoot in North Africa has snatched surface-to-air missiles from an arsenal in Libya during the civil strife there, Chad's President says.
Idriss Deby Itno did not say how many surface-to-air missiles were stolen, but told the African weekly Jeune Afrique that he was "100 per cent sure" of his assertion.
"The Islamists of al-Qaeda took advantage of the pillaging of arsenals in the rebel zone to acquire arms, including surface-to-air missiles, which were then smuggled into their sanctuaries in Tenere," a desert region of the Sahara that stretches from northeast Niger to western Chad, Deby said in the interview.
"This is very serious. AQIM is becoming a genuine army, the best equipped in the region," he said.
His claim was echoed by officials in other countries in the region who said that they were worried that al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) might have acquired "heavy weapons", thanks to the insurrection.
In an almost unbelievable twist of fate, the United States is now fighting in support of not only al-Qaeda fighters, but the same al-Qaeda fighters (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8407047/Libyan-rebel-commander-admits-his-fighters-have-al-Qaeda-links.html) that fought against our troops in Iraq.
(IF true then) How exactly is that unbelievable? It seems exactly like how the same Mujahadeen that we armed to fight the Soviets have ended up fighting us in Afghanistan. It is hardly "unbelievable", more like...par for the course.
Anyway, our support or non-support of the revolution would not have changed the ability of AQIM to have grabbed those weapons, that was likely done long before our air support.
On the other hand, I am also more than a little surprised at how fast things went from "protecting civilians" to essentially supporting the revolution and regime change. I thought we would do the No fly zone and maybe throw some UN peacekeepers in between them like we did in Yugoslavia. I think this aversion to "putting boots on the ground" nixed that possibility and instead "they" thought it easier to just support the revolution rather than establish peace and help negotiate a settlement...
Louis VI the Fat
03-27-2011, 09:17
PJ - look at it on bright side.
Our expenses and lives spend on behalf of Muslim citizens will surely earn the West the respect of other Islamic nations, from dear befriended democracy Turkey to our trusted friends the Arab League. :idea:
In an almost unbelievable twist of fate, the United States is now fighting in support of not only al-Qaeda fighters, but the same al-Qaeda fighters (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8407047/Libyan-rebel-commander-admits-his-fighters-have-al-Qaeda-links.html) that fought against our troops in Iraq.
No, it's quite believable. You have found one AQ fighter among the rebels, with 25 others - among hundreds of thousands, if not millions of protesters across the country. Congrats. Perhaps you'll also come to the terrible realisation that whenever defending any country with military might, including your own, you'll also de facto be defending despicable people such rapist and paedophiles with the lifes of the soldiers as the ultimate price.
Let's also have a look at the source article for once, provided by Google translate (http://translate.google.com/translate?js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&sl=it&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ilsole24ore.com%2Fart%2Fnotizie%2F2011-03-21%2Freportage-ribelli-islamici-tolleranti-231527.shtml%3Fuuid%3DAa6nhTID%26fromSearch)
"I've sent them about 25 - states Haqim -. Some have returned and are now on the front of Ajdabiya, they are patriots and good Muslims, not terrorists. I condemn the September 11 attacks, and those against innocent civilians in general. But members of al-Qaeda are also good Muslims and fight against the invader. " An ambiguous speech. Yet it is unusual to hear a man accused of joining al Qaeda call for the imposition of a no-fly zones and international raid against strongholds of the rais.
who knows, is he sincere? That is, though, besides the point
Shaven, long hair, jacket and blue jeans, Ali Faraj, 42, did not look like an extremist. The head of the Central Committee of Derna immediately puts the record straight: "I do not deny that there are groups of fighters, but they have links to al Qaeda." Faraj Ali then introduced the new Libya "multiparty constitution, tripartite division of powers." The New York Times, in a recent article, wrote that "the Islamic groups are collaborating with their counterparts to call for a secular democratic constitution." Hasad Imam Mansour, 47, is very popular. From 1998 to 2002 he served four years in the prison of Abu Dis. "Enemies of the West? Gadhafi has prevented us from studying in Europe, sending students to Africa. I would raise a wall with Africa and the West would open. Derna is an example of cultural integration and religious. " "I've never seen extremism in this region - explains Biasioco Sister Celeste, 77, in Libya since 1964. - Here the people are tolerant. We consider it a great family. " In the barracks, Colonel Naser Al Baraja, commander of the province of Derma, is working to coordinate efforts: "Our young people fighting on the front with us against a common enemy: Gaddafi." Al Hasad however, proved realistic: "If the war goes on and on it is likely that foreign extremists from entering our borders." "Intolerance? The best teacher in the school my child is a woman - replies Imam Mansour -. I would be happy to see a woman president of the new Libya. We are Muslims, but not extremists. "
The Telegraph wants to scare people, and they've obviously managed to scare PJ, so congrats to them as well.
Pannonian
03-27-2011, 10:26
PJ - look at it on bright side.
Our expenses and lives spend on behalf of Muslim citizens will surely earn the West the respect of other Islamic nations, from dear befriended democracy Turkey to our trusted friends the Arab League. :idea:
Does anyone else think that the same Arab League who urged us to intervene will end up blaming us for intervening when it turns into a mess?
Pannonian
03-27-2011, 10:33
I am going to have to speak to Sarkozy about a bombing campaign over London on behalf of Cornwall. Nothing says re-election quite like scared, running Englishmen. Didn't even get to see any of that in this year's Six Nations, I need my annual quota.
We're not afraid of you. Unlike the French, we in England are used to bombing.
Bombing footage (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7UBLnDXiFRM)
rory_20_uk
03-27-2011, 13:15
Does anyone else think that the same Arab League who urged us to intervene will end up blaming us for intervening when it turns into a mess?
I don't think they really wanted us to intervene, merely to be seen to be asking us to intervene - fly a few planes in the empty sky and we can all say we did our best as the locals kill each other as God intended.
~:smoking:
Louis VI the Fat
03-27-2011, 18:29
We're not afraid of you. Unlike the French, we in England are used to bombing.
Bombing footage (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7UBLnDXiFRM)Better get used to bombing a bit more, 'cause I hear there's mass protests (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?134167-What-s-going-on-in-London) on the British streets. Ordinary Britons are getting fed up with the capitalism of the London kleptocracy.
A no-fly zone over Britain is getting closer as we speak. I hear (foreign minister) Juppé is mobilising that other instrument of global stability, the African Union, for support.
ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88
03-28-2011, 13:44
Let you Europeans take care of the No-Fly zone. You guys got the money to do it, so get to work.
Banquo's Ghost
03-28-2011, 19:51
:inquisitive:
We have money?
*hollers*
Hey, gaelic! We have money! Buy beer!
HopAlongBunny
03-28-2011, 20:11
If the rebels win I think the "spoils" phase will answer the question of "Why doesn't X put boots on the ground?"
Ugly, messy and likely looonnng civil unrest.
LittleGrizzly
03-29-2011, 01:08
So what exactly are we hoping for here... or to be exact what are western governments hoping for...
Are we hoping the rebels will go and take all of Libya... or do we hope they will only take towns that want rid of Gaddafi
What will happen if they make their way into pro-gaddafi areas and would we try to stop them if they start to go to far..... ?
PanzerJaeger
03-29-2011, 01:22
No, it's quite believable. You have found one AQ fighter among the rebels, with 25 others - among hundreds of thousands, if not millions of protesters across the country. Congrats. Perhaps you'll also come to the terrible realisation that whenever defending any country with military might, including your own, you'll also de facto be defending despicable people such rapist and paedophiles with the lifes of the soldiers as the ultimate price.
This is not about criminals incidentally benefitting from our actions, but the West launching missiles in direct support of people we're launching missiles against in Iraq and Afghanistan. It is insanity, and demonstrates how little we actually know about the people we are now obliged to protect in perpetuity. If you truly believe al-Qaeda is interested in civil participation in a secular, democratic Libya headed by a female president after this conflict is over, I've got some videos to show you on liveleak. I hope you've got a strong stomach.
ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88
03-29-2011, 01:23
:inquisitive:
We have money?
*hollers*
Hey, gaelic! We have money! Buy beer!
Got enough to retire early so.....
gaelic cowboy
03-29-2011, 01:58
:inquisitive:
We have money?
*hollers*
Hey, gaelic! We have money! Buy beer!
Already headin to Tesco for a couple of slabs as we speak.
This is not about criminals incidentally benefitting from our actions, but the West launching missiles in direct support of people we're launching missiles against in Iraq and Afghanistan. It is insanity, and demonstrates how little we actually know about the people we are now obliged to protect in perpetuity. If you truly believe al-Qaeda is interested in civil participation in a secular, democratic Libya headed by a female president after this conflict is over, I've got some videos to show you on liveleak. I hope you've got a strong stomach.
I still only count 26 AQ members. Where are the rest?
Does anyone else think that the same Arab League who urged us to intervene will end up blaming us for intervening when it turns into a mess?
In fairness to the members of the Arab League, they did wait 24 hours between urging us to bomb and denouncing us for bombing. Well, okay, maybe it was more like twelve hours. Who's counting anyway?
I guess it's normal for a forum troll like Colonel Gaddafi to confirm Godwin's law early and often (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/blog/2011/mar/29/libya-crisis-live-updates):
Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi has called for an end to the "barbaric offensive" against Libya in a letter addressed to international powers meeting in London today. AFP reported that in the letter, Gaddafi likened the Nato-led air strikes to military campaigns launched by Adolf Hitler during World War II.
While I share most of PJ's reservations about our third simultaneous undeclared, unfunded war against an arab nation, I think the AQ connection sounds overblown and sensationalized. There are plenty of reasons to be wary of our new BFFs in Benghazi without invoking the universal boogeyman.
I still only count 26 AQ members. Where are the rest?
Whenever I see a reporter from Al Jazeera on the frontlines, there are about 26 people with guns around, maybe that's the whole rebel army? ~;)
gaelic cowboy
03-29-2011, 15:13
Whenever I see a reporter from Al Jazeera on the frontlines, there are about 26 people with guns around, maybe that's the whole rebel army? ~;)
Maybe it's like that movie "Wag the Dog" where they use blue screen technology to invent a war in Albania to deflect attention at home.
Small bit of cursing
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M-FXkj-r9Mc
It's good to see that the US has brought in AC-130s to enforce this "no-fly zone". ~:rolleyes:
al Roumi
03-29-2011, 16:19
It's good to see that the US has brought in AC-130s to enforce this "no-fly zone". ~:rolleyes:
No man, those are to protect civilians! ...a la Schwarzeneger, quite literaly with a a minigun (or 2 - and an autocannon).
Edit: and it increasingly looks like NATO are using the reverse edge of the informal combatant coin, i.e. such that they can consider the rebel "army" civilians. They certainly don't seem to fight any better so...
It's good to see that the US has brought in AC-130s to enforce this "no-fly zone". ~:rolleyes:
I see a lot of confusion regarding the no-fly zone. The NFZ was talked alot about prior to the UNSC resolution - the resolution only mentions the NFZ as a part of the wider operations.
I don't think the stuff that we are doing over Libya has any name; but it could perhaps be callled something like an "air supremacy zone", meaning that we take over an airspace and will attack anyone not obeying...something.
No man, those are to protect civilians! ...a la Schwarzeneger, quite literaly with a a minigun (or 2 - and an autocannon).
Edit: and it increasingly looks like NATO are using the reverse edge of the informal combatant coin, i.e. such that they can consider the rebel "army" civilians. They certainly don't seem to fight any better so...
If that had been the case, the rebels would have pushed forward all the way to gates of Sirte - instead of retreating from Bin Jawad, as they are now. One could argue that, because the loyalist forces keep attacking civilians, every single unit of the loyalist army is to be considered a legit target. It be forces in advance, forces in retreat; armoured units aiming at cities or away from them. Individual soldiers and armour alike - target them all. Someone has to die as things are now - and it should not be civilians nor rebel fighters.
Things are not going too well in Misrata these days, so I wonder whether there's where the AC-130s enter the equation? If the city fall, it means that the only major city left in rebel hands in the west of the country will fall - a serious blow to the rebels and a great relief for Gaddafi.
It's good to see that the US has brought in AC-130s to enforce this "no-fly zone". ~:rolleyes:
and A10's.
all in all a very bad day to be sitting in a tank somewhere in government controlled Libya.
Noncommunist
03-29-2011, 21:36
While I share most of PJ's reservations about our third simultaneous undeclared, unfunded war against an arab nation
Iraq is winding down and we only have a few combat trainers left there anyways. Also, Afghanistan isn't an Arab nation.
Also, Afghanistan isn't an Arab nation.
Fair point, my bad. Should have said "Islamic nation" instead.
One wonders why the British and American governments do not present the campaign as revenge for Lockerbie. You would think there would be a rich vein of propaganda to mine from that particular tragedy.
rory_20_uk
03-30-2011, 18:20
I imagine because it'd then get into why Lockerbie was done - as it was revenge against an act that the USA / UK did. The USA especially exists in an absolutes where they are the Good Guys, not the Somewhat Better Guys... sort of.
~:smoking:
I don't the American media would go back too far in history. All they would need is revenge for terrorism; terrorism=bad; therefore, intervention is good.
A couple of funny/interesting quotes from Ben Wedeman (http://twitter.com/bencnn):
At western gate of Ajdabiya this afternoon was told every Libyan town will offer a wife to Nicolas Sarkozy in thanks. #Libya
In Ajdabiya the anti-Qaddafi fighters refer to the NATO aircraft as "our planes." #Libya
Comparisons to previous wars and interventions fall short, this is quite the special case (they all are, aren't they?).
PanzerJaeger
03-31-2011, 00:46
While I share most of PJ's reservations about our third simultaneous undeclared, unfunded war against an arab nation, I think the AQ connection sounds overblown and sensationalized. There are plenty of reasons to be wary of our new BFFs in Benghazi without invoking the universal boogeyman.
I was of the same belief until even the administration and military acknowledged it, seemingly the last group of people who would want the public to know about any al-Qaeda presence in the region.
This goes deeper than many may realize. Apparently, Libya's al-Qaeda allied faction, Libya Islamic Fighting Group, was fighting a losing battle against Gadaffi's regime in the mid to late '90s. As that insurgency crumbled, some fled to Algeria and others went to fight in Iraq and Afghanistan against the United States. (The largest percentage of foreign fighters in Iraq per capita were Libyan.) Now they're back, looking to finish what they started - all under the cover of US airstrikes.
The question is - after Gadaffi is gone, how will the democrats and the Islamists reconcile their conflicting visions for the future of Libya... the same way they did in Iraq? What is the West's responsibility to a post-Gadaffi Libya? After having removed the current government, are we then going to be comfortable watching it descend into violent chaos and/or Islamic fundamentalist control? Maybe al-Qaeda has decided to enter the democratic process in Libya (:laugh4:) or maybe their numbers are small enough where they can be easily policed (we have seen the carnage a relatively small number of AQ can cause in other wars), but I think there are valid concerns regarding the nature and future of the revolution.
Kind of reminds me of the fear for the Algerian Islamists back in '92. Y'know, those Islamists that had no ties at all with the Algerian government.
Sarmatian
03-31-2011, 08:33
This indeed looks less and less like a rebellion against a dictator and more and more as a very complicated internal power struggle. Rebels enjoy the support of the east of the country (oil richest part) while the rest more or less supports Gaddafi. Most of the leaders of the rebels are actually from eastern parts of Libya, a part of the country which used to have most of power and control in pre-Gaddafi era.
Even if they win, who guarantees that the rest of Libya will accept them? Keep in mind that although Libya isn't a tribal society in the full meaning of the word, tribal ties are still strong. I'm not convinced that even if Gaddafi is ousted, the country won't descend into chaos with conflicting interests from radical muslims, different tribes and western nations...
This indeed looks less and less like a rebellion against a dictator and more and more as a very complicated internal power struggle. Rebels enjoy the support of the east of the country (oil richest part) while the rest more or less supports Gaddafi.
Actually there were huge unrests in western cities as well, but then Gaddafi armed the few loyalists he has and made them patrol the streets and shoot people to keep those down, to me it looks like he just couldn't find any/enough loyalists in the east to do a similar thing there.
Add to that the fact that only his most loyal battalions/divisions were properly armed and it looks like he knew that a sizeable portion of the citizenry AND the army as well were not very fond of him and prepared accordingly.
That's not to say that I think we're heading in a good direction there, it just doesn't seem like he is as beloved in Tripoli as one would think, he just found enough thugs to make it look like that and hold the people hostage.
Sarmatian
03-31-2011, 10:50
Actually there were huge unrests in western cities as well, but then Gaddafi armed the few loyalists he has and made them patrol the streets and shoot people to keep those down, to me it looks like he just couldn't find any/enough loyalists in the east to do a similar thing there.
Add to that the fact that only his most loyal battalions/divisions were properly armed and it looks like he knew that a sizeable portion of the citizenry AND the army as well were not very fond of him and prepared accordingly.
That's not to say that I think we're heading in a good direction there, it just doesn't seem like he is as beloved in Tripoli as one would think, he just found enough thugs to make it look like that and hold the people hostage.
Protests and demonstrations are very different from armed uprisings. People may be annoyed over something, price of gas, smaller pensions, no health insurance, no job opportunities. There were massive protests in London just now and in France earlier. When they take up weapons it becomes a totally different game.
al Roumi
03-31-2011, 11:34
Protests and demonstrations are very different from armed uprisings. People may be annoyed over something, price of gas, smaller pensions, no health insurance, no job opportunities. There were massive protests in London just now and in France earlier. When they take up weapons it becomes a totally different game.
Yes, self arming populations are a different scenario to protests. But there were significant anti-Gaddafi protests in Western Libya 6 weeks ago -have you only now turned on the news or something?
The difference between what happened to the protests in the West and East is that Gaddafi was better able to suppress those in the west whereas pretty much the whole administration (including army units) of the east actually defected. Misrata (just to the East of Tripoli) is still held by the rebels, albeit under sustained attack from Gaddafi's forces. A couple of other western towns that rose up early on were suppressed with liberal use of tanks, artillery and (reportedly) airstrikes.
al Roumi
03-31-2011, 11:36
The question is - after Gadaffi is gone, how will the democrats and the Islamists reconcile their conflicting visions for the future of Libya... the same way they did in Iraq? What is the West's responsibility to a post-Gadaffi Libya? After having removed the current government, are we then going to be comfortable watching it descend into violent chaos and/or Islamic fundamentalist control? Maybe al-Qaeda has decided to enter the democratic process in Libya (:laugh4:) or maybe their numbers are small enough where they can be easily policed (we have seen the carnage a relatively small number of AQ can cause in other wars), but I think there are valid concerns regarding the nature and future of the revolution.
Very valid points!
HopAlongBunny
03-31-2011, 14:55
If Gadaffi is removed things will get very interesting.
AQ will of course be present, different tribal factions, whatever clique the CIA manages to cobble together and god only knows what other claimants. Of course, who will wield the "monopoly of force" when the Gad is gone?
Greyblades
04-01-2011, 01:08
If Gadaffi is removed things will get very interesting.
AQ will of course be present, different tribal factions, whatever clique the CIA manages to cobble together and god only knows what other claimants. Of course, who will wield the "monopoly of force" when the Gad is gone?
Hmph, I dont think killing him off would be a good idea, at least not this soon; Consider that it's likely gadaffi was prepared for this sort of thing, which most dictators these days are want to be, if we kill gadaffi he's probably has a list of sucessors ready to take up the lybian "throne". Knowing our luck the replacement would be someone who isnt as hated among the people as gadaffi, or worse, is alot smarter than Gad.
I'm probably wrong and worrying over nothing, Just my 2 cent.:2cents:
AQ will of course be present
Who are these al-Qaeda people anyway? Aren't we just using that name just to instill fear in people, the same way how we use "terrorists" to cease any debate on such issues?
Who are these al-Qaeda people anyway? Aren't we just using that name just to instill fear in people, the same way how we use "terrorists" to cease any debate on such issues?
PJ, what happened to your name? ;D
If I understood it correctly, it is a top-secret group of highly skilled and trained terrorists. UBL is leading them from some sort of Batman cave, a command bunker with Star Trek technology. Or was it Star Trekish? Or is it more like Matrix, with numbers and letters flowing down the screens.
Regardless, it is a very real threat, and we need to go all "whack-a-mole" on civilians rights, you know, to uphold those rights, in the long run, that is.
gaelic cowboy
04-02-2011, 13:40
Ha UBL are people still shaking that voodoo doll around nowadays
Sarcasm is always funny but we still don't know anything about 'the rebels'. Kinda remarkable these revolutions without a face. Kinda odd no? Most silent war evar, is it happening at all, all the quality media has time for here is a dispute in Amsterdam's local&lousy football-team.
Most silent war evar, is it happening at all, all the quality media has time for here is a dispute in Amsterdam's local&lousy football-team.
Heh. Not really. Ever heard about the Algerian Civil War and what happened there?
Heh. Not really. Ever heard about the Algerian Civil War and what happened there?
'We' didn't launch an international attack there, we have absolutely no business attacking Libya. They are no friends but not our enemies either. Gut says this is going to hit us back. These rebels,whoever they are, aren't friendly to us, we have been dragged into an ordinary clanwar and about to arm whoever. More weapons in Africa yay, causing more death congratulations, there is something wrong with us
Nothing that indicates they are not friendly. That said, it is not a major concern of mine - support people's rule.
Skullheadhq
04-05-2011, 19:24
Didn't read those 20 pages, but just wanna say I support the colonel.
Meneldil
04-05-2011, 19:30
This revolution isn't sexy. I'm not buying it.
Skullheadhq
04-05-2011, 19:34
This revolution isn't sexy. I'm not buying it.
Says le French :clown:
Didn't read those 20 pages, but just wanna say I support the colonel.
...indeed. And why do you do support Gadaffi?
but just wanna say I support the colonel.
He does make good chicken. :yes:
He does make good chicken. :yes:
I think he is actually talking about "THE Colonel"...meaning that he is a big fan of Kentucky Fried Chicken.
Of course, I could be wrong.
Banquo's Ghost
04-07-2011, 07:48
Well, it didn't take long for the rebels to start blaming us (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/divided-and-disorganised-libyan-rebel-military-turn-on-nato-allies-2264334.html). Next stops on the familiar path will be condemnation, hate and burning resentment for the next fifty years.
General Abdel Fattah Younes was scathing in his condemnation of Nato. "They have disappointed us. Nato has become our problem. Either Nato does its work properly or we will ask the Security Council to suspend its work."
:no:
Sarmatian
04-07-2011, 12:10
Why do I get the feeling that rebel leadership is full of wanna-be-Gaddafis...
Louis VI the Fat
04-07-2011, 12:29
Well, it didn't take long for the rebels to start blaming us (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/divided-and-disorganised-libyan-rebel-military-turn-on-nato-allies-2264334.html). Next stops on the familiar path will be condemnation, hate and burning resentment for the next fifty years.
General Abdel Fattah Younes was scathing in his condemnation of Nato. "They have disappointed us. Nato has become our problem. Either Nato does its work properly or we will ask the Security Council to suspend its work."
:no:Laughable and dissapointing.
But then, we're not there out of any illusions about the rebels. We are there because the Libyan too has the right not to be killed.
There are few conflicts which are fought between orcs and white knights. Important for the intervention in Libya are questions such as whether there will have been some net gain in human suffering averted, and if there is a way out at some point (a mere delay is pointless).
Banquo's Ghost
04-07-2011, 13:15
Laughable and dissapointing.
But then, we're not there out of any illusions about the rebels. We are there because the Libyan too has the right not to be killed.
There are few conflicts which are fought between orcs and white knights. Important for the intervention in Libya are questions such as whether there will have been some net gain in human suffering averted, and if there is a way out at some point (a mere delay is pointless).
I think you are in some danger of believing the propaganda. It's very clear that NATO leaders are doing their best to help the rebel side*.
However, your important question for the intervention is exactly right. The answer, which I think was apparent before intervening, is that we are prolonging the civil war on behalf of a collection of rag-tag groups who will shortly turn on themselves and us in frustration. The misery inflicted on civilian populations will continue to mount. Whereas that may also have happened with no intervention, our hands are now covered in the same blood. And the net result will be a Libya that hates the West whichever "winner" emerges.
It is precisely because this is not a fantasy novel that involvement is a snare and delusion. The bad guys do not always wear black hats, nor do grubby politicians expiate their sins by murdering foreigners in imagined wars of morally impeccable liberation.
* Having said that, the third incident (that we know about) of its type (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12997181) - the inevitable mistakes that happen in these wars - looks to have angered the rebels even more.
Sarmatian
04-07-2011, 13:35
Laughable and dissapointing.
But then, we're not there out of any illusions about the rebels. We are there because the Libyan too has the right not to be killed.
There are few conflicts which are fought between orcs and white knights. Important for the intervention in Libya are questions such as whether there will have been some net gain in human suffering averted, and if there is a way out at some point (a mere delay is pointless).
So, Nato countries may as well have supported Gaddafi. War over quicker, much less human suffering. I thought the intervention happened because rebel government was democratic and it, oh dear, turned out to be full of self-proclaimed leaders who want to be Gaddafi instead of Gaddafi...
Your ability to find excuses is truly astonishing...
Skullheadhq
04-07-2011, 13:46
...indeed. And why do you do support Gadaffi?
I think he's funny, rebels spoil the fun.
Besides, I always called an arab-looking friend of mine Gadaffi, which isn't that funny anymore when the real Gadaffi is gone.
Louis VI the Fat
04-07-2011, 14:11
So, Nato countries may as well have supported Gaddafi. War over quicker, much less human suffering. That's a good point.
One could claim this is exactly what we did, up until all hell broke lose two months ago. Gaddafi was tolerated/supported because there was no ready alternative, no net gain to be had.
All sorts of weirdos and freaks are tolerated because merely bombing them into oblivion would not solve anything, will not bring about any improvement. Perosnally I think we ought to guillotine one random autocrat every three months or so, just to keep them all scared and running, even if it only means the next one will take his place.
Sarmatian
04-07-2011, 14:19
That's a good point.
One could claim this is exactly what we did, up until all hell broke lose two months ago. Gaddafi was tolerated/supported because there was no ready alternative, no net gain to be had.
All sorts of weirdos and freaks are tolerated because merely bombing them into oblivion would not solve anything, will not bring about any improvement. Perosnally I think we ought to guillotine one random autocrat every three months or so, just to keep them all scared and running, even if it only means the next one will take his place.
Can't argue with that, I just don't like to see it done over other people's back.
I think you are in some danger of believing the propaganda. It's very clear that NATO leaders are doing their best to help the rebel side*.
However, your important question for the intervention is exactly right. The answer, which I think was apparent before intervening, is that we are prolonging the civil war on behalf of a collection of rag-tag groups who will shortly turn on themselves and us in frustration. The misery inflicted on civilian populations will continue to mount. Whereas that may also have happened with no intervention, our hands are now covered in the same blood. And the net result will be a Libya that hates the West whichever "winner" emerges.
It is precisely because this is not a fantasy novel that involvement is a snare and delusion. The bad guys do not always wear black hats, nor do grubby politicians expiate their sins by murdering foreigners in imagined wars of morally impeccable liberation.
* Having said that, the third incident (that we know about) of its type (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12997181) - the inevitable mistakes that happen in these wars - looks to have angered the rebels even more.
Actually, there seems to be some sort of idea that the coalition led by the U.S., France and the UK was doing it the right way. Then NATO came in, and things went downhill. There is also this idea that Turkey is to blame to NATO's inactivity (http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/n.php?n=meeting-libyan-rebels-turkey-supports-end-of-gadhafi-family-rule-in-libya-2011-04-06):
Ankara also conveyed its disappointment to Jibril about protests Wednesday in Benghazi against Turkey. Libyan rebels attacked the Turkish consulate in the city, removed the signs and demanded that the Turkish flag be lowered. Protesters also said Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan was a “persona non grata” for the Libyan people.
"The protestors are saying that Erdoğan disappointed them and are urging him to take his place alongside the Libyan revolutionaries," Turkish Consul Ali Davutoğlu.
Last week, Erdoğan said last week that NATO’s mission was not to arm the rebels, but protect them.
Nevertheless, many protesters chanted, “The revolutionaries want arms,” “Erdoğan don’t be blithe, look at Misrata” and “Erdoğan, don’t talk to Gadhafi.”
The consul also said that although the number protestors had decreased, many demonstrators have said they will not leave until the Turkish flag is lowered.
If the latest incident indeed is caused by a NATO airstrike rather than by loyalist forces, then that is a serious blow to our reputation. But lets not forget that we saved Benghazi from the battles ahead - and, most likely, defeat. So while we make mistakes, we have been a necessity for the revolution's success.
The gravest danger is not airstrikes that go wrong, but attempts to meddle in the internal political affairs of the country. As long as we avoid that - sticking to iron and explosives - and as long as Gaddafi is defeated - our reputation should end up being OK.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
04-07-2011, 17:58
* Having said that, the third incident (that we know about) of its type (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12997181) - the inevitable mistakes that happen in these wars - looks to have angered the rebels even more.
It's a pretty bloomin big incident, as well. I can see how people on the ground might become suspicious. It will be interesting to see if we find out who's plane and pilot was responsible. With the withdrawal of American forces the "Allies" must be reaching overstretch.
Also, notice how we're the "Allies" again now, and not a "Coalition"?
Whoop-de-do. Things like this are bound to happen when you consider the lack of effective command and control on the rebel side which is bound to make coordination with NATO extremely difficult. I doubt they even have much in the way of unified markings.
I believe that the term "Allies" is being used since NATO has now taken over operations.
NATO airstrike causing instant rout among loyalist forces:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xeua3Mi4sy4
could they not have opened machine gun fire on those pickup trucks? Too great altitude?
Are they nuts?
“In one particular strike near Misrata, our pilots observed Regime forces loading armoured vehicles onto equipment transporters to be taken forward into population centres. NATO pilots, observing many troops around the transporter, first engaged a tank concealed along a nearby hedge line. This strike destroyed the tank and forced the nearby troops to flee, allowing the second strike to destroy other vehicles with minimal loss of life. We will not always be able to limit loss of life but Regime forces should understand that if they continue to operate these vehicles and follow orders to attack their own people they will be targeted.
http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/news_72192.htm
Louis VI the Fat
04-10-2011, 15:56
Are they nuts?
http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/news_72192.htmIsn't that just about standard practise in any conflict in he Arab world in which the outside world takes an interest? The life of an Arab is worth more to the West than to Arab leaders. So when there are foreign eyes looking, theres an opportunity to be exploited. Put a tank next to a kindergarten and the Western commander has got a moral problem, not the Arab tank leader, to whom the lives of Arabian children are without worth.
The second mechanism is the insatiable Arab appetite for outrage and hysteria. Followers need to be regularly whipped into a frenzy with martyrs and blood and accompanying colourful language.
And it leaves room for the Western politician who let's his pr be conducted by a professional pr agency. The first thing these teach is that the truth is but a commodity. Never admit to the possibility that you may have made a mistake. Bombs are nowadays smart bombs, they understand the difference between good guys and bad guys and will explode only in the direction of the latter. Civilian casualties must mean the oppostion was so evil as to hide his equipment amongst civilians instead of neatly displaying them in open desert, far removed from any actual war zone.
Sarmatian
04-10-2011, 16:16
Isn't that just about standard practise in any conflict in he Arab world in which the outside world takes an interest? The life of an Arab is worth more to the West than to Arab leaders. So when there are foreign eyes looking, theres an opportunity to be exploited. Put a tank next to a kindergarten and the Western commander has got a moral problem, not the Arab tank leader, to whom the lives of Arabian children are without worth.
The second mechanism is the insatiable Arab appetite for outrage and hysteria. Followers need to be regularly whipped into a frenzy with martyrs and blood and accompanying colourful language.
And it leaves room for the Western politician who let's his pr be conducted by a professional pr agency. The first thing these teach is that the truth is but a commodity. Never admit to the possibility that you may have made a mistake. Bombs are nowadays smart bombs, they understand the difference between good guys and bad guys and will explode only in the direction of the latter. Civilian casualties must mean the oppostion was so evil as to hide his equipment amongst civilians instead of neatly displaying them in open desert, far removed from any actual war zone.
That was the standard practice in Bosnia, too. Bosnian muslims placed guns in school or hospitals. Most of the time it was ignored but sometimes it wasn't. Western media and Nato moved swiftly to capitalize on it, branding Serbs as Nazis. When Nato does it, it's the other way around. Gotta love the hypocrisy.
Isn't that just about standard practise in any conflict in he Arab world in which the outside world takes an interest? The life of an Arab is worth more to the West than to Arab leaders. So when there are foreign eyes looking, theres an opportunity to be exploited. Put a tank next to a kindergarten and the Western commander has got a moral problem, not the Arab tank leader, to whom the lives of Arabian children are without worth.
The second mechanism is the insatiable Arab appetite for outrage and hysteria. Followers need to be regularly whipped into a frenzy with martyrs and blood and accompanying colourful language.
I'd reply to this post, but I'm late for a massacre. Sorry.
could they not have opened machine gun fire on those pickup trucks? Too great altitude?
They could have launched another warhead into the midst of that group, but old-school strafing is not really in the doctrine anymore (except wth the old A-10s, which are heavily armoured for that purpose).
First off, fighters no longer have machine-guns, they have 20mm autocannons which fire explosive rounds. Performing low altitude strafing exposes the (very expensive) fighter to even small arms fire. While the risk of any one person bringing down a fighter this way is minute, overall it does result in losses. It is generally considered not to be worth the risk - especially when you can pound indefinately from high altitude with relative impunity.
Leet Eriksson
04-10-2011, 22:07
Nato's strategy is really hilarious, its not just incompetent rebels, but the whole nato/coalition/whatever it is they call themselves now gambled their whole strategy on displaying as much fireworks with as much shock value as possible to have gaddafi stand down or probably surrender, but it didn't work and now everyone is running around like headless chicken. Its almost too hilarious how a clown makes 3 world powers look like imbeciles.
Strike For The South
04-10-2011, 22:12
Nato's strategy is really hilarious, its not just incompetent rebels, but the whole nato/coalition/whatever it is they call themselves now gambled their whole strategy on displaying as much fireworks with as much shock value as possible to have gaddafi stand down or probably surrender, but it didn't work and now everyone is running around like headless chicken. Its almost too hilarious how a clown makes 3 world powers look like imbeciles.
That's the biggest problem though, NATO is being useless, anyone with half a brain could see that coming from half a mile away but the biggest problem is these rebels are the Larry, Moe, and Curly of rebelion movements. The colonel is just to weak to stop them right now
This whole thing is like a retard banging a drum set, At first you think the noise might turn into something but quickly you realise its just noise
Leet Eriksson
04-10-2011, 22:39
That's the biggest problem though, NATO is being useless, anyone with half a brain could see that coming from half a mile away but the biggest problem is these rebels are the Larry, Moe, and Curly of rebelion movements. The colonel is just to weak to stop them right now
This whole thing is like a retard banging a drum set, At first you think the noise might turn into something but quickly you realise its just noise
I just read this gem today, thanks for reminding me:
"People in rebel-held areas want to know what the revolutionary council – a 31-person body that functions around a core of 11 people who have been publicly named and meet regularly in Benghazi – is doing about it. But they are getting few answers. The council's two principal leaders, Mahmoud Jibril and Mustafa Abdul Jalil, are hardly visible. Both men are, in any case, regarded by those dealing directly with them as sincere and well-meaning but lacking in either charisma or authority.
One person working closely with the council's day-to-day operations was deeply frustrated at the fact that "they don't understand the need to communicate with the Libyan people.
"They don't understand that no one knows who they are. These lawyers and doctors in Benghazi who say they are a government, it's like kids playing dress-up for a lot of them. They don't understand the need to explain to the people what it is they are doing," the source said."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/apr/09/libya-rebels-vent-frustration-on-nato
Louis VI the Fat
04-11-2011, 04:58
Nato's strategy is really hilarious, its not just incompetent rebels, but the whole nato/coalition/whatever it is they call themselves now gambled their whole strategy on displaying as much fireworks with as much shock value as possible to have gaddafi stand down or probably surrender, but it didn't work and now everyone is running around like headless chicken. Its almost too hilarious how a clown makes 3 world powers look like imbeciles.Not quite.
The goal of NATO is to protect Libyan civilians while allowing for the establishment of a regime change, hopefully more democratic. Gaddafi's goal is to cling on to power at all costs. There is a disparity in the means the different parties can employ. NATO could force Gaddafi into surrender in the blink of an eye. However, unlike Gaddafi, NATO respects the life of Arabs.
It's really not hilarious, but tragic. Tragic how Libya is ruled by an autocrat, and how half the world changed from rooting for Arab Spring to the Arab autocrat simply for his standing up to NATO.
Louis VI the Fat
04-11-2011, 04:59
I'd reply to this post, but I'm late for a massacre. No you're not, because you live in the west where Arabs aren't habitually massacred by other Arabs.
It is why the Arabs are fed up and are having revolutions.
That was the standard practice in Bosnia, too. Bosnian muslims placed guns in school or hospitals. Most of the time it was ignored but sometimes it wasn't. Western media and Nato moved swiftly to capitalize on it, branding Serbs as Nazis. When Nato does it, it's the other way around. Gotta love the hypocrisy.The other way around? When has NATO hid its guns in schools or hospitals? :tongue:
This whole thing is like a retard banging a drum set, At first you think the noise might turn into something but quickly you realise its just noise Are you mocking our webcam conversation of last week? I told you I've only had that drum set for three weeks now, some day I'll be good at it, dammit.
Strike For The South
04-11-2011, 05:07
Im glad the Gaurdian agrees with me
Are you mocking our webcam conversation of last week? I told you I've only had that drum set for three weeks now, some day I'll be good at it, dammit
When you get angry, I get aroused :kiss:
PanzerJaeger
04-11-2011, 06:38
Isn't that just about standard practise in any conflict in he Arab world in which the outside world takes an interest? The life of an Arab is worth more to the West than to Arab leaders. So when there are foreign eyes looking, theres an opportunity to be exploited. Put a tank next to a kindergarten and the Western commander has got a moral problem, not the Arab tank leader, to whom the lives of Arabian children are without worth.
The second mechanism is the insatiable Arab appetite for outrage and hysteria. Followers need to be regularly whipped into a frenzy with martyrs and blood and accompanying colourful language.
:love:
We (the West) really need to stop caring about these people. They hate us when we prop up their leaders and they hate us when we overthrow them. They blame us for oppressing them, and they blame us when we deliver them freedom on silver platter and they are too incompetent to take it. Every time we try to help them (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1st_Gulf_War), it blows up (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11) in our face. The NeoCon's biggest mistake, imho, was their belief in universal human aspirations.
Just deal with whichever strongmen emerge in these nations and be done with it.
Banquo's Ghost
04-11-2011, 08:05
We (the West) really need to stop caring about these people. They hate us when we prop up their leaders and they hate us when we overthrow them. They blame us for oppressing them, and they blame us when we deliver them freedom on silver platter and they are too incompetent to take it. Every time we try to help them (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1st_Gulf_War), it blows up (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11) in our face. The NeoCon's biggest mistake, imho, was their belief in universal human aspirations.
Here we disagree. The neo-cons made a lot of big mistakes, but the belief in universal aspiration wasn't one of them. It was the belief that one nation can impose those aspirations on another for their own good.
In my opinion, the aspirations to human rights and liberty are universal, but must be earned by the people that then cherish and them. Sometimes this is through conflict, sometimes by enlightenment, but always by a great and personal struggle. It may take a shorter or longer time, and the character of the implementation may look very different in each culture.
Other - no matter how well intentioned - imposing those values by force of arms simply cause resentment and ultimately rejection for yet more generations. By far the best "imposition" is by living the values at home, and the myriad benefits that invariably arise become the driver for aspiration elsewhere.
We (the West) really need to stop caring about these people. They hate us when we prop up their leaders and they hate us when we overthrow them. They blame us for oppressing them, and they blame us when we deliver them freedom on silver platter and they are too incompetent to take it. Every time we try to help them (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1st_Gulf_War), it blows up (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11) in our face. The NeoCon's biggest mistake, imho, was their belief in universal human aspirations.
Just deal with whichever strongmen emerge in these nations and be done with it.
There is no "them".
Yet another war for oil.
If you say so.
Banquo's Ghost
04-11-2011, 09:07
Yet another war for oil.
I've seen that theory argued more and more as things have dragged on, and I am still not convinced. Whilst Libya has oil, it's not a significant overall stock and western oil companies have had access to it on favourable terms for some time. Dictators help the oil flow much more effectively than rabble.
No, my view is that this is a war of political weakness. A new and untested Tory Prime Minister, a loathed President begging at the altar of ancient republican principles and yet another embattled President paralysed by inability and lack of any recognisable principles - all resorting to the time-honoured distraction of attacking a smaller country to prove their machismo.
Not crude oil - snake oil.
I agree in part - it's regime change, pure and simple. The west spent decades breeding dictators like gadaffi and hussein, then when those dictators stop playing ball and become "evil dictators", "axis of evil" or whatever is in fashion at the moment, it's time to remove them. As to "why", well it's still oil, gas, minerals, I'm afraid otherwise the west wouldn't care and wouldn't get involved as is the case in bahrain, yemen, saudi, etc where the evil dictators are west friendly. If anyone really thinks that cameron, obama, sarkozy, et al, really give a flying **** as to what happens to Arabs and are not in this for economic reasons, then they are in need of a large dose of reality.
Every time we try to help them (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1st_Gulf_War),
Yeah, whatever.
And what did we do when the Shi'ites rose up in resistance after listening to Radio Free Iraq, hosted and serviced by the Americans? What happened to the Kurds in North Iraq who were tortured to death? Do you think those "pockets of resistance" are fighting the Coalition forces just out of spite?
Let's face it, when the Iraqis who desperately needed freedom and we were sick of seeing their families being murdered in shady prisons all over the country, when we told them to rise up against the Ba'athists and take up arms, we suddenly pulled back and instead of laying siege to Baghdad and ousting Saddam Hussein, we just slapped sanctions on the country that hurt not the government, but the kids who were dying of depleted-uranium induced cancers in Basra. What was on the list of forbidden goods to enter Iraq? Syringes not the least, but the list extens to thermometers, scientific magazines, toilet paper, tissue paper, soap, shampoo, miroscopes and much, much more.
So do you honestly believe that the Iraqi insurgents have no reason at all to possibly dislike the West? That it's just spiteful behaviour induced by too many readings of the Qur'an or by listening to a crazed imam calling for death to the west? Or even worse:
it blows up (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11) in our face
Saying that the First Gulf War was an accessory to the attacks of 9/11? Did you just try to link Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden? Excuse me, but you make no sense whatsoever. The only way you might suggest the two are linked was that when Saddam Hussein invaded Iraq that Bin Laden offered to fight for Saudi-Arabia but was rebuked. Okay, big deal.
They blame us for oppressing them, and they blame us when we deliver them freedom on silver platter and they are too incompetent to take it.
Oh yeah? Where were the beloved Geneva Conventions when the Iranians were gassed by the thousands during the Iran-Iraq war? When it was convenient to not talk about human rights, we didn't. Where was universal freedom when Iran Air Flight 655 was shot down, supposedly "accidental"? Only when Hussein paraded captured British pilots in Baghdad did we feel it necessary to cling onto the Conventions. Only then.
So if you think that the Arab population has no reason to hate the US, go ask the parents of the thousands of children that died of leukemia after touching pieces of shrapnel who died in Baghdad and Basra and all over Iraq. Imagine me and my family being tortured. You walk in with a gun, shoot my father, sister and mother. Then you talk a bit with the torturer about how evil those practices are, take some of his torturing equipment as well as my toilet and my bed, then leave, then come back some ten years later, decide to then shoot the torturer, imagine how I'd feel. How'd you feel?
rory_20_uk
04-11-2011, 13:26
That's why it's best to just deal with the countries and not ever bother with applying morals to the situations as frankly we don't have the time or resources to do things "properly", so best not do them at all.
The West always does the quick, easy, cheap PR stunts that get the voters at home happy. This often makes things worse abroad and creates false expectations. Now even the Rebels are blaming NATO for not doing enough! That NATO does anything is above and beyond what they need to do - unless Lybia has suddenly become a threat to a NATO member...
The West should operate a far more realistic foreign policy, with long term self interest the first determinant. Or we price ourselves out of markets that China is increasingly willing to fill. We help ourselves and protect ourselves. You sort yourselves out. We deal with those who have things to sell we want and can buy things we have. We'll only get involved in your squalid entanglements if you're stupid enough to lash out at us. Good long term relationships are of course good as we both benefit. But if we don't both benefit then expect money to do to those where it will benefit us.
~:smoking:
I agree in part - it's regime change, pure and simple. The west spent decades breeding dictators like gadaffi and hussein, then when those dictators stop playing ball and become "evil dictators", "axis of evil" or whatever is in fashion at the moment, it's time to remove them. As to "why", well it's still oil, gas, minerals, I'm afraid otherwise the west wouldn't care and wouldn't get involved as is the case in bahrain, yemen, saudi, etc where the evil dictators are west friendly. If anyone really thinks that cameron, obama, sarkozy, et al, really give a flying **** as to what happens to Arabs and are not in this for economic reasons, then they are in need of a large dose of reality.
A good first shot of reality would be to realise that Gaddafi toppled king Idris, whom the West had some control over. Gaddafi's ideas were pan-Arabic. Here's an extract from the BBC (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12882213):
Libya became independent in 1951, under King Idris, but still remained a British protectorate - with both the UK and the US maintaining their military bases and control over the country's foreign and defence policies.
Commercial oil discoveries in the late 1950s gave both governments even more incentive to keep things as they were - until a young signals captain called Muammar Gaddafi seized power in 1969.
His decision to nationalise oil production, to get a majority share of revenues, and to demand the closure of the British and American bases were widely popular.
As to how the West has helped the person of Saddam Hussein, you should point that out - because reading some details on Iraqi history, such a companionship does not exactly stand out.
Either way, it is neither Cameron, Sarcozy nor Obama who have had the final say in the past. Their exact motives are not clear, but I do believe they give a flying ****, as a minimum.
That's why it's best to just deal with the countries and not ever bother with applying morals to the situations as frankly we don't have the time or resources to do things "properly", so best not do them at all.
Not only is it the right thing to act in some cases rather than none, but it is also in our self-interest. Dictatorships tend to spend money on secret police rather than on education or other things that could aid technological and scientific advances, things that could benefit humanit as a whole. To put this in a larger perspective: when an asteroid threatens Earth, then the more countries that are like the West rather than Gaddafi's Libya, the greater the odds that we know how to deflect it. That's one example, but we also have threats like change in climate beyond human control - return of ice ages du to changes in Earth's orbit etc. In short: we do not want Gaddafi-style dictatorships, for the common good.
EDIT:
:love:
We (the West) really need to stop caring about these people. They hate us when we prop up their leaders and they hate us when we overthrow them. They blame us for oppressing them, and they blame us when we deliver them freedom on silver platter and they are too incompetent to take it. Every time we try to help them (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1st_Gulf_War), it blows up (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11) in our face. The NeoCon's biggest mistake, imho, was their belief in universal human aspirations.
Just deal with whichever strongmen emerge in these nations and be done with it.
Another reply to this. In Iraq, nobody requested outside help at the time. Take a look at this video from Benghazi today, and take a look at the flags in the background
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CNG44bf-ITQ
Not quite Iraq pre-invasion, is it?
Oh but they did. There were constant calls by Iraqis to liberate the country. It was, after all, our duty after mercilessly betraying them in 1991 and imposing a child-killing humantarian crisis on them thereafter. Freeing Iraq became our responsibility, and a moral imperative that could not be ignored any longer. :rolleyes:
That's another element of the Iraq saga that gets conveniently left out of the current narrative. Look up Ahmed Chalabi and the Iraqi National Congress. I would suggest Aram Roston's The Man Who Pushed America to War; The Extraordinary Life, Adventures, And Obsessions of Ahmad Chalabi.
Iraqis or the Iraqi people as a greater group? Then again, is it the majority of the Iraqi populace of today that engages in terrorist acts?
Report from a British TV team inside Misrata: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1XMbnBhpi2Q (can't be embedded)
Including everything from rebel snipers in a high building to a boy playing in a garden getting his leg blown off by an incoming mortar shell (and later dies).
Strike For The South
04-15-2011, 04:31
Take up the White Man's burden--
Send forth the best ye breed--
Go bind your sons to exile
To serve your captives' need;
To wait in heavy harness,
On fluttered folk and wild--
Your new-caught, sullen peoples,
Half-devil and half-child.
Take up the White Man's burden--
In patience to abide,
To veil the threat of terror
And check the show of pride;
By open speech and simple,
An hundred times made plain
To seek another's profit,
And work another's gain.
Take up the White Man's burden--
The savage wars of peace--
Fill full the mouth of Famine
And bid the sickness cease;
And when your goal is nearest
The end for others sought,
Watch sloth and heathen Folly
Bring all your hopes to nought.
Take up the White Man's burden--
No tawdry rule of kings,
But toil of serf and sweeper--
The tale of common things.
The ports ye shall not enter,
The roads ye shall not tread,
Go mark them with your living,
And mark them with your dead.
Take up the White Man's burden--
And reap his old reward:
The blame of those ye better,
The hate of those ye guard--
The cry of hosts ye humour
(Ah, slowly!) toward the light:--
"Why brought he us from bondage,
Our loved Egyptian night?"
Take up the White Man's burden--
Ye dare not stoop to less--
Nor call too loud on Freedom
To cloke your weariness;
By all ye cry or whisper,
By all ye leave or do,
The silent, sullen peoples
Shall weigh your gods and you.
Take up the White Man's burden--
Have done with childish days--
The lightly proferred laurel,
The easy, ungrudged praise.
Comes now, to search your manhood
Through all the thankless years
Cold, edged with dear-bought wisdom,
The judgment of your peers!
Banquo's Ghost
04-16-2011, 08:05
I have split the tangential discussion on Arab culture (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?134776-The-Development-of-Democratic-Institutions-in-Arab-Culture)off into its own thread. Let's keep this one for discussion of the politics and news reference Libya.
:bow:
rory_20_uk
04-17-2011, 11:13
Not only is it the right thing to act in some cases rather than none, but it is also in our self-interest. Dictatorships tend to spend money on secret police rather than on education or other things that could aid technological and scientific advances, things that could benefit humanit as a whole. To put this in a larger perspective: when an asteroid threatens Earth, then the more countries that are like the West rather than Gaddafi's Libya, the greater the odds that we know how to deflect it. That's one example, but we also have threats like change in climate beyond human control - return of ice ages du to changes in Earth's orbit etc. In short: we do not want Gaddafi-style dictatorships, for the common good.
The costs of removing dictatorships are front loaded, where as the advantages are back loaded, and are purely theoretical.
The number of dictators that replace distators regardless of how they were removed or the cost to the West.
If the vast amount of resources wern't squandered on futile missions abroad then we'd have a vast number of improvements. Google is going to double the renewable solar energy after investing under $200million. How many days - or is it hours - is that money spent in afghanistan or now Lybia?
~:smoking:
The costs of removing dictatorships are front loaded, where as the advantages are back loaded, and are purely theoretical.
The number of dictators that replace distators regardless of how they were removed or the cost to the West.
If the vast amount of resources wern't squandered on futile missions abroad then we'd have a vast number of improvements. Google is going to double the renewable solar energy after investing under $200million. How many days - or is it hours - is that money spent in afghanistan or now Lybia?
~:smoking:
Yet liberating countries is an investment, if done properly. In the longer run, the math is less clear - whether 200 mill USD spent directly on renewable energy yields better results than 200 mill USD spent on tomahawk missiles. There are also other things that enter the equation when considering yes or no to intervention. I have not mentioned Afghanistan, which is quite obviously a much more messy country with a weak central authority.
Tim Hetherington, one of the directors of Restrepo, died today in Misurata (http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/restrepo-director-tim-hetherington-killed-in-fighting-in-libya/2011/04/20/AFio26CE_story.html).
PanzerJaeger
04-20-2011, 23:36
Intelligence experts see Gaddafi rebuilding power (http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/04/20/us-libya-gaddafi-idUSTRE73J78Z20110420)
(Reuters) - Muammar Gaddafi has consolidated his position in central and western Libya enough to maintain an indefinite standoff with rebels trying to end his four-decade rule, U.S. and European officials say.
"Gaddafi's people are feeling quite confident," said a European security official who closely follows Libyan events.
A "de facto partition for a long time to come" is the likely outcome, the official said, because of Gaddafi's improving position and the weakness of the ill-equipped and largely untrained opposition forces.
Growing pessimism about the rebels' ability to challenge Gaddafi's control of a large section of the country has fueled calls for greater support of the opposition from the United States and its allies.
President Barack Obama continues to oppose sending U.S. soldiers to Libya but supports British and French moves to deploy small military contingents to advise the rebels, the White House said on Wednesday.
The State Department said it was recommending Obama approve $25 million in medical supplies, radios, body armor, halal ready-to-eat meals and other U.S. aid for the rebels that would not include weapons.
Despite NATO air strikes and moves to bolster anti-Gaddafi forces, U.S. and European intelligence agencies assess that the Libyan leader has solidified his control of Tripoli and most of western Libya.
The Gadaffi regime cannot rebuild its power when it everyday looses its tanks, rocket launchers, artillery and command and communication centres. Without the tanks and the artillery, Gaddafi's army is nothing. We saw a collapse in the army when Adjabiya fell to the rebels. The regime army managed to get itself back on its feet in the area, but we should expect to see more collapses sooner or later.
The regime is so desperate to retake Misrata that it launches shells seemingly at random into the city, not worried about civillian casualites. Yet despite the desperate attempts of the regime, the rebels appears to have been gaining ground in the city lately.
In Tripoli, there are reports of guerrilla warfare (http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/04/11/us-libya-guerrilla-idUSTRE73A3NU20110411)being waged by local rebels:
The proximity to the nerve center of Gaddafi's powerful military apparatus in the capital Tripoli makes it hard for fragmented dissenters to organize their actions into a movement.
But that may now be changing. Tripoli residents said there have been several attacks on army checkpoints and a police station in the past week, and gunfights can be heard at night.
In one attack a week ago, opposition supporters stormed a checkpoint in eastern Tripoli and seized arms, residents said.
"There have been attacks by Tripoli people and a lot of people have been killed on the Gaddafi army side," said a Libyan rebel sympathizer who lives in exile abroad and maintains daily contact with colleagues in the restive suburb of Tajoura.
Asked who the attackers were, he said they were local residents who wanted to topple the Libyan leader.
Either part of a broader rebel plan or simply a spontaneous evolution of tactics, the shift toward more urban resistance could add a new dimension to the two-month-old conflict and work to erode Gaddafi's support base in his main western stronghold.
Another resident said that in places like Tajoura, the government controlled only key junctions and roads, where it has checkpoints reinforced with anti-aircraft guns and tanks.
But smaller streets deep inside suburbs were outside their control.
These reports could not be verified independently. Information is difficult to piece together because the government does not allow journalists to report freely in the capital. Suburbs such as Tajoura are off limits to reporters.
EDIT: This is just in:
11:21am
Al Jazeera Arabic channel's reporter in Tunisia has said that about 100 Gaddafi forces have handed themselves over to the Tunisian borders’ guards after being chased by rebels.
He also said that the crossing area have been witnessing heavy clashes over the last few days. Some shells hit the Tunisian side of the borders.
11:06am Breaking news out of Libya - Al Jazeera's Sue Turton has reported that Libyan rebel forces have taken control of the Wazin border post on the Tunisian frontier after overrunning Gaddafi troops.
"The border crossing is 200km south of the main crossing. there have been reports of fierce fighting, several hundred anti-Gaddafi soldiers took control of this crossing.
"It is a mountainous area, which explains why they managed to take it. They have taken it before and it can go back to Gaddafi forces."
So much for consolidation.
PanzerJaeger
04-22-2011, 15:05
Fascinating video from Misurata. The battle looks to have been just as intense as it was portrayed in the media. Battle damage has always interested me, and I wish the camera man had focused on the destroyed AFVs a bit more. Also, I can't help but cringe every time I hear the celebratory gunfire. In a situation like that, you never, ever want to waste ammunition.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TBJc-v5G9KE
In the east, the regime foces has been unable to even reach the gates of Ajdabiya lately, with the previous short-lived advance that did just that under the cover of a sandstorm. In the west, in Misrata, regime forces has suffered significant setbacks - and are trying to cover it up with talk about non-existing tribes and 'halt of operations'. Even further west, they loose a border crossing to Tunisia - nothing less!
There are further 'reports' about problems for the regime: in Sirte, Zawiya and Bani-Walid - but these lack confirmation, so I treat them as rumours for now.
It seems clear to me, though, that it is just a matter of time. I fear Gaddafi might still be in power in two months from now, perhaps even twice that time or more - but the constant attrition caused by both rebels and NATO is going to kill the regime, eventually.
tibilicus
04-25-2011, 02:34
I have no problem Gaddafi dying a slow death, so long as he dies..
Reports that Tunisian troops have engaged Gadaffi forces on the Tunisian side of the border; and that a Tunisian woman was killed in shelling by the Gaddafi forces:
http://af.reuters.com/article/tunisiaNews/idAFLDE73S0PB20110429
TUNIS, April 29 (Reuters) - Tunisian troops fought forces loyal to Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi inside the Tunisian border town of Dehiba, a local resident told Reuters.
The resident, called Imed, said by telephone there was heavy fighting in the centre of the town, which is near a border crossing point into Libya.
http://af.reuters.com/article/tunisiaNews/idAFLDE73S0NK20110429
Forces loyal to Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi are attacking the Tunisian town of Dehiba, near the Libyan border, with small arms and artillery, two local residents told Reuters on Friday.
"Intense shooting is taking place now in central Dehiba. This started around two hours ago. People here cannot come out. The battle started after the (pro-Gaddafi) brigades attacked the rebels positioned in Dehiba."
A second local man, called Samy, told Reuters shells were falling on houses in Dehiba and a Tunisian woman had been killed.
Going to be interesting to see what Tunisia does, if anything.
What's a civil war without kittens (https://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=1962495694659)?
So, helicopters are being deployed (http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/05/23/us-libya-idUSTRE7270JP20110523).
France and other members of a NATO-led coalition will use attack helicopters in Libya, French officials said on Monday, a step meant to hit Muammar Gaddafi's forces more accurately from the air.
[...]
Confirming the proposed use of helicopter gunships, French Foreign Minister Alain Juppe told reporters in Brussels the move was in line with a United Nations resolution to protect Libyan civilians and NATO's military operations.
"What we want is to better tailor our ability to strike on the ground with ways that allow more accurate hits," he said. "That is the goal in deploying helicopters."
[...]
The French daily Le Figaro reported that 12 helicopters, which could launch more precise attacks on pro-Gaddafi forces and targets than fixed-wing aircraft, were shipped out to Libya on the French warship Tonnerre on May 17.
"It is not just French helicopters ... it's coordinated action by the coalition," the diplomatic source said, in response to the newspaper report. "It is at NATO level."
The source said the move could not be considered as part of a strategy to use ground troops in the conflict, now in its fourth month.
Being more risky to deploy than jets, one coud be led to think that they have some faith in this step - though I have personally really no idea. Will be interesting to see..
ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88
05-26-2011, 14:34
Video deleted. Too much "salty" language and broad stereotyping to conform to the standards of the BR. Patrons interested in this video are advised to search for "Howard Stern" Youtube and Libya -- at their own discretion. SF
:yes:
Strike For The South
05-26-2011, 21:10
Howard Stern?
Clearly a beacon of rational thought for all forigen policy animals
Al Jazeera claims to have footage of Brittish ground troops
not happy
Clearly a beacon of rational thought for all forigen policy animals
Obviously. Fear the Libyan Ayatollah, the country with close-to-100% Sunni Muslims!
TheLastDays
05-30-2011, 21:23
I have no problem Gaddafi dying a slow death, so long as he dies..
The problem ist, that others are suffering while he dies...
The problem ist, that others are suffering while he dies...
Ain't that true, black africans are going to love it, spoligies in advance you are screwed.
TheLastDays
05-30-2011, 22:32
Ain't that true, black africans are going to love it, spoligies in advance you are screwed.
I don't get it...
Tellos Athenaios
05-31-2011, 03:07
Prejudice amongst the Libyans. Now would not be a good time to be a black immigrant. What used to be contempt out of racism might now mix with collective anger towards Gadaffi's mercenary forces whose defining characteristic supposedly is their dark skin.
TheLastDays
05-31-2011, 08:07
Oh, ok, sorry that last post was a little hard to decipher...
True... well what I was basically saying is, the whole country and everyone in it isn't exactly profiting from the current ongoing situation, so it's better, imo, if you need to get rid of him, put in the effort (and that goes to the "western coalition") to make it quick... hence my comment on the statement that it doesn't matter how long it takes for Gaddafi to die
Al Jazeera claims to have footage of Brittish ground troops
not happy
Special forces communicating with the opposition. It has been clear for a while that Western special forces are on the ground, for various purposes - perhaps even conducting raids for what we know. All is good.
Prejudice amongst the Libyans. Now would not be a good time to be a black immigrant. What used to be contempt out of racism might now mix with collective anger towards Gadaffi's mercenary forces whose defining characteristic supposedly is their dark skin.
There are several black skinned opposition fighters. If this image is anything to go by, then also in the future police force.
https://img192.imageshack.us/img192/416/296604962.jpg
In short: let's not get carried away.
Those aren't negroes that are dark-skinned Arabs. Good advice for negroes: get the hell out of there now that you still can, UN will look the other way sides have been picked.
The guy on the left. There's only one.
The guy on the left. There's only one.
Also an Arab, it's like TA said, it's racism negroes are seen as sub-human even the islamic ones, they are slaves to Arabs, but also seen as mercenaries of the regime (and a lot are). Bad place to be right now
Arabs do not have a dark skin colour.
Arabs do not have a dark skin colour.
I don't want to sound racist but I can absolutely see the difference between a negroe and an arab and he's an arab.
Also an Arab, it's like TA said, it's racism negroes are seen as sub-human even the islamic ones
..what now?
This just doesn't make any sense, where would you get the idea that Arabs are supposedly more racist against blacks than any other ethnic group?
Those aren't negroes that are dark-skinned Arabs.
You can safely assume the guy on the left really is a negro.
I don't want to sound racist but I can absolutely see the difference between a negroe and an arab and he's an arab.
Apparently, you cannot. At 'best', he is a mix of an Arab and an African. Arabs have a lighter skin tone, like the other guys around him. As far as I can tell, 'black arabs' do not exist.
As far as I can tell, 'black arabs' do not exist.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_arabs
..what now?
This just doesn't make any sense, where would you get the idea that Arabs are supposedly more racist
Oh I would never, even the suggestion
Nice how you cherry-picked my comment there, could you include the full sentence the next time?
In any case, the guy on the left is certainly not Arab. While relatively dark-skinned Arabs do exist (dependent on the location, Arabs in Syria generally have a lighter skin than Arabs in southern Egypt or Somalia), and as Subotan pointed out, there are Arabs of mixed blood, that guy is really not Arab.
Nice how you cherry-picked my comment there, could you include the full sentence the next time?
In any case, the guy on the left is certainly not Arab. While relatively dark-skinned Arabs do exist (dependent on the location, Arabs in Syria generally have a lighter skin than Arabs in southern Egypt or Somalia), and as Subotan pointed out, there are Arabs of mixed blood, that guy is really not Arab.
Heh why don't you tell him, I hope he doesn't hurt you too much
PanzerJaeger
07-11-2011, 02:47
Fulfilling stereotypes? (http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/10/us-libya-idUSTRE7270JP20110710)
France tells Libya rebels to seek peace with Gaddafi
A French minister said on Sunday it was time for Libya's rebels to negotiate with Muammar Gaddafi's government, but Washington said it stood firm in its belief that the Libyan leader cannot stay in power.
The diverging messages from two leading members of the Western coalition opposing Gaddafi hinted at the strain the alliance is under after more than three months of air strikes that have cost billions of dollars and failed to produce the swift outcome its backers had expected.
French Defense Minister Gerard Longuet signaled growing impatience with the progress of the conflict when he said the rebels should negotiate now with Gaddafi's government and not wait for his defeat.
Skynews (http://news.sky.com/home/)is reporting on it's front page that the rebels coming from Zawiyah are now 10 km from the city centre of Tripoli; having encountered no resistance lately. Looks like the end is coming. I understand this information is coming from their correspondent Alex Crawford, who is on the scene.
Montmorency
08-21-2011, 20:27
Then there's about to be a heck of a lot of collateral damage. :glasses:
PanzerJaeger
08-21-2011, 20:40
I fear for the black Libyans who have found temporary respite in Tripoli. The lynch mobs are coming... and if their actions in other parts of the country are anything to go by, they'll have no mercy. :shame:
Adrian II
08-21-2011, 22:01
I fear for the black Libyans who have found temporary respite in Tripoli. The lynch mobs are coming... and if their actions in other parts of the country are anything to go by, they'll have no mercy. :shame:
Atrocities are committed during every civil war. But incidents are often exaggerated for propaganda reasons and it is usually only afterwards that the facts can be more or less established.
I am old enough to remember the gruelling stories we were fed about the 'systematic rape' of 200.000 Bosniak women by the Serbs in the early 1990's. All in all only a few thousand rapes have been documented during the entire civil war in the former Yugoslavia and the victims were more or less evenly spread over populations.
AII
P.S. By the way Al Jazeera is much better, they have people all over Libya who are reporting around the clock. Right now Tripoli is being massively invaded, some outskirts are already in rebel hands and celebrating, three of Gaddafi's sons have been captured. It's a matter of days at most, it seems, if not hours.
tibilicus
08-21-2011, 23:42
According to most majors news sites the people of Tripoli are now pouring out of their homes to join the rebel advance. It appears Tripoli was perhaps not that loyal to Gadaffi after all. Also unconfirmed reports his sons have been captured and are being held by the rebels.
Samurai Waki
08-21-2011, 23:45
Yep-- from some reports I've read, whats left of Gadaffi's army is out of basic necessities, food, water, ammunition, and most importantly, men. Any "mercenaries" he may have are probably either hiding and waiting for a moment to escape, or have slipped out of the Capital and are on their way out of the country as quickly as possible.
a completely inoffensive name
08-21-2011, 23:58
The End is Near.
tibilicus
08-22-2011, 00:17
Unconfirmed reports as of yet that Gadaffi himself has been captured. Not sure if true as it's literally just broken but either way it is game over.
Furunculus
08-22-2011, 00:21
i imagine that i will be hearing of gaddafi's end when i wake up in eight hours time.
HoreTore
08-22-2011, 00:29
This is simply wonderful.
Centurion1
08-22-2011, 00:33
Yay! Lets replace a crazed dictator with either another one or some fundamentalist theocratic ********.
Color me tickled pink that my tax dollars are hard at work installing what will likely be a government that hates my way of life and oppresses its people in new and wonderful ways.
Montmorency
08-22-2011, 00:46
Why do you hate freedom?
Also, do you really begrudge the $5 (or less) that you've contributed to our military efforts there?
Assuming you make an income in the mid-5-figures range, you will be spending about $5 per billion in discretionary spending.
a completely inoffensive name
08-22-2011, 00:50
Yay! Lets replace a crazed dictator with either another one or some fundamentalist theocratic ********.
Color me tickled pink that my tax dollars are hard at work installing what will likely be a government that hates my way of life and oppresses its people in new and wonderful ways.
Get off of it dude.
Seamus Fermanagh
08-22-2011, 01:56
Let us hope that the end result is truly better for the Libyan people and for the rest of us. My prayers for all of those killed in this violence.
Crazed Rabbit
08-22-2011, 02:05
Looks like Tripoli has pretty much fallen. A rather dramatic shift in fortune over the last several days it seems.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Wbb3xPkgr8&feature=player_embedded#!
CR
a BBC reporter that was just on live doesn´t seem to think the town has fallen completely.
as far as how this is gonna turn out...I´m predicting a "meet the new boss, same as the old boss" kind of thing.
The BBC had a delightful telephone interview with a Tripoli resident, Rana, who was obviously young and spoke completely without guile:
Reporter: "Tell me, what do you think is happening?"
Rana: "We are free. This is it. The day we have been waiting for."
And later on:
Rana: "We didn't expect it to be this way, we thought they were going to be attacking us, I thought there would be dead bodies all over the country but it was easy, thanks to Allah."
...I´m predicting a "meet the new boss, same as the old boss" kind of thing.
I don't think we'll get someone as grotesque and monstrous as Gadhafi, at least not yet. The rebels seem far too disorganised - there's no one party in waiting to assume absolute control. And I don't think all the young protesters will give up their demands for freedom and democracy so easily. I suspect we will get a mess - perhaps not unlike the rather unedifying attempts of the Iraqi politicians to get their act together or the Karzai regime to rule. But with a less traumatic history and less foreign meddling - at least on ground - perhaps, there will be enough good will and high aspiration to pull through.
Earlier on, the BBC had an Arab expert predicting another Somalia. That's the worst case scenario - where people would be glad of an "old boss" again.
PanzerJaeger
08-22-2011, 03:53
Why do you hate freedom?
The extremely limited, racist Libyan version? :laugh4:
Montmorency
08-22-2011, 03:59
I believe you owe Lemur royalties for that.
Banquo's Ghost
08-22-2011, 07:35
Earlier on, the BBC had an Arab expert predicting another Somalia. That's the worst case scenario - where people would be glad of an "old boss" again.
Indeed, I think that is the worry. The Western rebels are, apparently, distinct from those in the east and have a great disdain for them. Then there are the various tribes who have been bribed into peace by Gaddafi.
Populus Romanus
08-22-2011, 07:46
Damn, that was over quick. A very sudden turn of events, hopefully Libya can recover from this Civil War and flourish.
Montmorency
08-22-2011, 08:07
The man of the hour is still at large and fighting continues.
Oh, and here's (http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&msa=0&msid=214301650463033871851.0004aaf73e7ee9a96c942&vpsrc=0&ll=32.860114,13.217196&spn=0.076423,0.353879&source=embed)a map of it:
Furunculus
08-22-2011, 08:42
i imagine that i will be hearing of gaddafi's end when i wake up in eight hours time.
lol, no surprises there then.
congrats to libya, they can only thank their lucky stars that clare short is no longer in charge of DfID, actively preventing her department from aiding in the rebuilding of institutions as she did in 2003, they should have hung that woman.
HoreTore
08-22-2011, 10:03
All dictatorships live on borrowed time. Only democracies can stand the test of time.
Thankfully, Gadaffi's time is now up. The future is looking brighter in that part of the world at least, my guess is that the feeling in Libya now is about the same as it was here in 1945.
The end of an era of oppression, bloodshed and insanity.
Taking all bets on whether Gaddafi does a Ceauşescu within the next 24 hours.
Yay! Lets replace a crazed dictator with either another one or some fundamentalist theocratic ********.
Action --> Consequence.
Or did you think the Iranians hate(d) the US and UK "just because"?
Adrian II
08-22-2011, 13:25
The end of an era of oppression, bloodshed and insanity.
I wouldn't bet on it. Libya has nothing remotely resembling a civil society; everyone and everything was state-controlled since 1969. The country is rich and at the same time deeply divided between regions and tribes and local bureaucracies. That has never been a recipe for equitable development. Think of Iraq: who gets the oil, who gets the harbour(s), who sits across someone else's pipeline, who benefits from the proceeds?
The least we should hope for is that the country will now open up to the outside world and not hunker down behind a wall of new-found religious fundamentalism or tribal barriers.
AII
Papewaio
08-22-2011, 14:06
Oil is the quickest way to create wealth without effort. Oil doesn't require a middle class to make the upper class rich. Every other form of wealth requires some level of investment in the 'lowest' classes (Farm hands), and some of those forms of wealth require the formation of a 'middle' class (IT, Vets).
Oil always dictators to buy arms, and for other nations to turn a blind eye.
Tunisa had to create a middle class to become wealthy, it meant it's fall was quicker and I daresay it's future brighter.
If the US had been founded on oil wealth first, it might have evolved into a different nation. Having a diversity of natural resources tends to be one way of combating oil rot.
Most of the third world dictators need a form of easy cashflow... oil, blood diamonds or drugs.
So my guess is that Libya is screwed... unless we wean ourselves off our additictions including oil, we will be always aiding and assisting 'our bastard' dictators.
Montmorency
08-22-2011, 15:38
Top Ten Myths About the Libya War (http://www.juancole.com/2011/08/top-ten-myths-about-the-libya-war.html)
The secret of the uprising’s final days of success lay in a popular revolt in the working-class districts of the capital, which did most of the hard work of throwing off the rule of secret police and military cliques. It succeeded so well that when revolutionary brigades entered the city from the west, many encountered little or no resistance, and they walked right into the center of the capital. Muammar Qaddafi was in hiding as I went to press, and three of his sons were in custody. Saif al-Islam Qaddafi had apparently been the de facto ruler of the country in recent years, so his capture signaled a checkmate.
Moreover, those who question whether there were US interests in Libya seem to me a little blind. The US has an interest in there not being massacres of people for merely exercising their right to free assembly. The US has an interest in a lawful world order, and therefore in the United Nations Security Council resolution demanding that Libyans be protected from their murderous government. The US has an interest in its NATO alliance, and NATO allies France and Britain felt strongly about this intervention. The US has a deep interest in the fate of Egypt, and what happened in Libya would have affected Egypt (Qaddafi allegedly had high Egyptian officials on his payroll).
1. Qaddafi was a progressive in his domestic policies. While back in the 1970s, Qaddafi was probably more generous in sharing around the oil wealth with the population, buying tractors for farmers, etc., in the past couple of decades that policy changed. He became vindictive against tribes in the east and in the southwest that had crossed him politically, depriving them of their fair share in the country’s resources. And in the past decade and a half, extreme corruption and the rise of post-Soviet-style oligarchs, including Qaddafi and his sons, have discouraged investment and blighted the economy (http://www.jstor.org/pss/4007161). Workers were strictly controlled and unable to collectively bargain for improvements in their conditions. There was much more poverty and poor infrastructure in Libya than there should have been in an oil state.
2. Qaddafi was a progressive in his foreign policy. Again, he traded for decades on positions, or postures, he took in the 1970s. In contrast, in recent years he played a sinister role in Africa, bankrolling brutal dictators and helping foment ruinous wars. In 1996 the supposed champion of the Palestinian cause expelled 30,000 stateless Palestinians from the country. After he came in from the cold, ending European and US sanctions, he began buddying around with George W. Bush, Silvio Berlusconi (http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2011/03/06/can-buy-me-love.html) and other right wing figures. Berlusconi has even said that he considered resigning as Italian prime minister once NATO began its intervention, given his close personal relationship to Qaddafi. Such a progressive.
4. There was a long stalemate in the fighting between the revolutionaries and the Qaddafi military. There was not. This idea was fostered by the vantage point of many Western observers, in Benghazi. It is true that there was a long stalemate at Brega, which ended yesterday when the pro-Qaddafi troops there surrendered. But the two most active fronts in the war were Misrata and its environs, and the Western Mountain region. Misrata fought an epic, Stalingrad-style, struggle of self-defense against attacking Qaddafi armor and troops, finally proving victorious with NATO help, and then they gradually fought to the west toward Tripoli. The most dramatic battles and advances were in the largely Berber Western Mountain region, where, again, Qaddafi armored units relentlessly shelled small towns and villages but were fought off (with less help from NATO initially, which I think did not recognize the importance of this theater). It was the revolutionary volunteers from this region who eventually took Zawiya, with the help of the people of Zawiya, last Friday and who thereby cut Tripoli off from fuel and ammunition coming from Tunisia and made the fall of the capital possible. Any close observer of the war since April has seen constant movement, first at Misrata and then in the Western Mountains, and there was never an over-all stalemate.
6. Libya is not a real country and could have been partitioned between east and west.
Alexander Cockburn (http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn04012011.html) wrote,
“It requites no great prescience to see that this will all end up badly. Qaddafi’s failure to collapse on schedule is prompting increasing pressure to start a ground war, since the NATO operation is, in terms of prestige, like the banks Obama has bailed out, Too Big to Fail. Libya will probably be balkanized.”
I don’t understand the propensity of Western analysts to keep pronouncing nations in the global south “artificial” and on the verge of splitting up. It is a kind of Orientalism. All nations are artificial. Benedict Anderson dates the nation-state to the late 1700s, and even if it were a bit earlier, it is a new thing in history. Moreover, most nation-states are multi-ethnic, and many long-established ones have sub-nationalisms that threaten their unity. Thus, the Catalans and Basque are uneasy inside Spain, the Scottish may bolt Britain any moment, etc., etc. In contrast, Libya does not have any well-organized, popular separatist movements. It does have tribal divisions, but these are not the basis for nationalist separatism, and tribal alliances and fissures are more fluid than ethnicity (which is itself less fixed than people assume). Everyone speaks Arabic, though for Berbers it is the public language; Berbers were among the central Libyan heroes of the revolution, and will be rewarded with a more pluralist Libya. This generation of young Libyans, who waged the revolution, have mostly been through state schools and have a strong allegiance to the idea of Libya. Throughout the revolution, the people of Benghazi insisted that Tripoli was and would remain the capital. Westerners looking for break-ups after dictatorships are fixated on the Balkan events after 1989, but there most often isn’t an exact analogue to those in the contemporary Arab world.
8. The United States led the charge to war. There is no evidence for this allegation whatsoever. When I asked Glenn Greenwald (http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/04/15/libya)whether a US refusal to join France and Britain in a NATO united front might not have destroyed NATO, he replied that NATO would never have gone forward unless the US had plumped for the intervention in the first place. I fear that answer was less fact-based and more doctrinaire than we are accustomed to hearing from Mr. Greenwald, whose research and analysis on domestic issues is generally first-rate. As someone not a stranger to diplomatic history, and who has actually heard briefings in Europe from foreign ministries and officers of NATO members, I’m offended at the glibness of an answer given with no more substantiation than an idee fixe. The excellent McClatchy wire service reported (http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/03/02/v-print/109737/despite-reluctance-us-could-be.html)on the reasons for which then Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, the Pentagon, and Obama himself were extremely reluctant to become involved in yet another war in the Muslim world. It is obvious that the French and the British led the charge on this intervention, likely because they believed that a protracted struggle over years between the opposition and Qaddafi in Libya would radicalize it and give an opening to al-Qaeda and so pose various threats to Europe. French President Nicolas Sarkozy had been politically mauled, as well, by the offer of his defense minister, Michèle Alliot-Marie, to send French troops to assist Ben Ali in Tunisia (Alliot-Marie had been Ben Ali’s guest on fancy vacations), and may have wanted to restore traditional French cachet in the Arab world as well as to look decisive to his electorate. Whatever Western Europe’s motivations, they were the decisive ones, and the Obama administration clearly came along as a junior partner (something Sen. John McCain is complaining bitterly about).
A bizarre turn of events - Gadhafi's son Saif appears in the presidential compound and says he was not arrested; that the loyalists have been leading the rebels into a trap. He's handing out guns to his supporters and sending them out to fight. I suspect people power will crush them, but it's messy.
One of the news channels reported that the rebel leader had dismissed his entire cabinet and had not yet appointed replacements. :wall:
Louis VI the Fat
08-23-2011, 02:18
A bizarre turn of events - Gadhafi's son Saif appears in the presidential compound and says he was not arrested; that the loyalists have been leading the rebels into a trap.
It's a trap! They've lured the rebels into a trap!
https://img15.imageshack.us/img15/1114/pvw12080.jpg
Cute Wolf
08-23-2011, 07:13
It's a trap! They've lured the rebels into a trap!
https://img15.imageshack.us/img15/1114/pvw12080.jpg
it's funny because I still remember that Admiral Akbar in EB is Libyan
I'm with Ronin, see no good comming out of this. Don't we have better things to do than picking sides in civil war anyway
Adrian II
08-23-2011, 10:59
A bizarre turn of events - Gadhafi's son Saif appears in the presidential compound and says he was not arrested; that the loyalists have been leading the rebels into a trap. He's handing out guns to his supporters and sending them out to fight. I suspect people power will crush them, but it's messy.
One of the news channels reported that the rebel leader had dismissed his entire cabinet and had not yet appointed replacements. :wall:
I'm wierdified.
I keep hearing that Saif has 'escaped house arrest'. Did they put an electronic tag on him and tell him to report to his local police station every 24 hours? :rolleyes:
ICantSpellDawg
08-23-2011, 12:12
I'm with Ronin, see no good comming out of this. Don't we have better things to do than picking sides in civil war anywayAbsolutely not
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
08-23-2011, 13:55
Indeed, I think that is the worry. The Western rebels are, apparently, distinct from those in the east and have a great disdain for them. Then there are the various tribes who have been bribed into peace by Gaddafi.
That's interesting, because the Libyans themselves say otherwise, they were quick early on to scotch the idea that the "Western" rebels wanted to move the capital, establish a seperate state, etc., etc.
These people have fought a bloody war against their oppressor, the provisional authority seems not only administatively competant but also keen to avoid new fissures and breaches either between the rebels and the Gadaffi forces, or within the rebel movement itself. Even more though, unlike Egypt and Tunisia these people have fought a bloody war for their independence, they will not be easily cowed again... but nor do they want more bloodshed.
As to the lack of a middle class, I dissagree, the NTC itself is made up of academics, lawyers and doctors trying very hard to be politicians.
We shall see what happens but it is imperative that the West does NOT impose a settlement, no UN authority, no peacekeepers, no meddling.
If we can avoid our pathlogical need to "be colonial" then I think Libya has more hope of being a decent society than either Egypt or Tunisia, who are both currently veering between Islamist state and Military Junta every other week.
Seamus Fermanagh
08-23-2011, 16:27
A civil war within a decade following the overthrow of the oppressor/colonial power is the norm -- a peaceful transition of power afterwards is the exception.
The blood and strife will continue even after Kadaffi's ouster. Picking sides would involve re-colonializing Libya. Messy and expensive business.
HoreTore
08-23-2011, 17:45
Top Ten Myths About the Libya War (http://www.juancole.com/2011/08/top-ten-myths-about-the-libya-war.html)
Excellent read, thank you for providing it.
HoreTore
08-23-2011, 17:48
I'm wierdified.
I keep hearing that Saif has 'escaped house arrest'. Did they put an electronic tag on him and tell him to report to his local police station every 24 hours? :rolleyes:
The revolutionaries are not navy seals, and the situation is rather chaotic. I don't find it very etrange that he managed to escape..
Also, hell is frozen; I agree with PVC!
Gaddafi has lost some of his bling bling
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YhoGNlWsObg&feature=youtu.be
Seamus Fermanagh
08-23-2011, 21:04
The revolutionaries are not navy seals, and the situation is rather chaotic. I don't find it very etrange that he managed to escape..
Also, hell is frozen; I agree with PVC!
I thought Helle (http://www.maplandia.com/norway/aust-agder/helle-59-3-0-n-7-34-0-e/) froze up pretty regularly. Which you should know better than I norseman!
HoreTore
08-23-2011, 21:16
I thought Helle (http://www.maplandia.com/norway/aust-agder/helle-59-3-0-n-7-34-0-e/) froze up pretty regularly. Which you should know better than I norseman!
Nah, Helle is in the south. Hell (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hell,_Norway), on the other hand, is in Trøndelag in the middle of the country, and thus quite cold most of the time....
Oh yes it's far north, I don't think I've ever been further north than Trøndelag. I hear there are polar bears in the streets further north, and that Sami shamans can cast nasty spells on you. The Sun doesn't rise every day, either.
Anyway, here's a terrible racist scene that played out in Tripoli today, as predicted by PJ earlier in this thread. EXTREMELY GRAPHIC stuff, you are warned.
https://img834.imageshack.us/img834/8800/31583919449301728318913.jpg
Montmorency
08-23-2011, 22:03
OH MY GOD HE'S ABOUT TO BEAT THAT WHITE LADY.
Seamus Fermanagh
08-23-2011, 22:11
,.Actually, PJ was suggesting that the victorious rebels might be hanging chads.
Sorry, I live in Florida now, land of the recount election. Please forgive me, or at least try not to take it out on my children.
I keep hearing that Saif has 'escaped house arrest'.
One rebel leader said that the story of Saif's "arrest" helped the rebels a lot, in encouraging the pro-Gadafi soldiers to surrender. But whether the rebels were showing a mastery of black propaganda or Saif bribed his way out, I don't know.
There was an interesting piece from a British woman reporter giving her impressions of Saif over the previous months. She said she found him strangely childlike. She told an anecdote about how he drove her alone to the most pro-opposition part of Tripoli (before the current rebel advances) and took her to talk to people in the street. Then he seemed to become a bit discomforted and took her back to the car, where he nervously asked if she had a gun.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YhoGNlWsObg&feature=youtu.be
It's strange how the journalists are so much better armored than the rebel fighters. There's a picture on the BBC news website of one equipped as in the above video, next to a sign written in Arabic "Don't shoot, we are journalists!". They do look rather more like Stormtroopers than journalists.
Papewaio
08-24-2011, 03:27
Seems the rebels have a UAV for spying out positions:
http://m.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/08/libyan-rebels-are-flying-their-own-mini-drone/
A Canadian military vet got the $100k machine into the country.
The most amazing thing is they are using a windows tablet to control it.
PanzerJaeger
08-24-2011, 05:31
Anyway, here's a terrible racist scene that played out in Tripoli today, as predicted by PJ earlier in this thread. EXTREMELY GRAPHIC stuff, you are warned.
https://img834.imageshack.us/img834/8800/31583919449301728318913.jpg
Awesome! Here's how they're faring in Benghazi.
Warning: Extremely disturbing and violent video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=avnHiPFwsyk&skipcontrinter=1). This is not a joke as above. BG
Our tax dollars at work.
And ever more information (http://derstandard.at/plink/1308680482845?sap=2&_pid=21929887) is coming to light that debunks the 'mercenaries' excuse as nothing more than a cover to exercise long held racist cleansings (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304887904576395143328336026.html) by the Arab rebels, who have long resented the presence of African workers in their country.
derStandard.at: Can you confirm reports that Gaddafi uses African mercenaries?
Rovera: Yes. We have carefully examined and found no evidence. The opposition has spread everywhere these rumors, which had dire consequences for African migrant workers: it was held a regular hunt on immigrants, some were even lynched, arrested many. Meanwhile, there is even the opposition, that the mercenaries were not, almost all were released and have returned to their home countries because the investigations have revealed nothing against them.
Eight or nine suspected mercenaries are still incarcerated, I'm assuming that they are migrant workers. The Africans who work on construction sites in Libya, agriculture or factories were exposed before the start of the conflict, racism and xenophobia, but these rumors have worsened their situation even further.
Centurion1
08-24-2011, 05:59
Oh yes it's far north, I don't think I've ever been further north than Trøndelag. I hear there are polar bears in the streets further north, and that Sami shamans can cast nasty spells on you. The Sun doesn't rise every day, either.
Anyway, here's a terrible racist scene that played out in Tripoli today, as predicted by PJ earlier in this thread. EXTREMELY GRAPHIC stuff, you are warned.
https://img834.imageshack.us/img834/8800/31583919449301728318913.jpg
YOUR RIGHT!!!!!!!!
And here's evidence in the form of a solitary picture that Racism is dead in America too!
http://www.worldofstock.com/slides/PCH4329.jpg
Talk about anecdotal evidence...... for all you really know those are pro-gaddafi loyalists.
Montmorency
08-24-2011, 06:03
Sorry, that's unauthorized.
And for all you know, Allah may be the only god.
Here's how they're faring in Benghazi.
They? One man? And who; Got his ID? Would suck if he turned out to be a mercenary, eh?
And ever more information (http://derstandard.at/plink/1308680482845?sap=2&_pid=21929887) is coming to light that debunks the 'mercenaries' excuse as nothing more than a cover to exercise long held racist cleansings (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304887904576395143328336026.html) by the Arab rebels, who have long resented the presence of African workers in their country.
lol, you can't be serious. Firstly, a lack of evidence as seen by one person, does not debunk anything at all. Secondly, there is nothing in the first link nor the second to support such a confident conclusion (there are no obvious links between the two articles, either). One should not be surprised at the lack of captured mercenaries, why would a man getting paid by a tyrant to fight his people want to get captured by said people?
Here's evidence of mercenaries from Chad, ID papers shown to camera at 03:13 (http://www.nrk.no/nett-tv/indeks/256892/) (from outside Adjabiya in March)
But not only sub-Saharan African countries are accused of providing mercenaries, there has also been claims that Algerians have been fighting for Gaddafi; and early on in the conflict, it was claimed that the pilots of a regime yet that was shot down had Syrian passports. A couple of days ago, they also claimed to have capture mercenaries from Ukraine in Tripoli. I cannot confirm any of this stuff, but of course it would be convinient for the opposition fighters to convince themselves that most of the men they are fighting are not countrymen, but rather foreigners - making their fight more noble.
YOUR RIGHT!!!!!!!!
And here's evidence in the form of a solitary picture that Racism is dead in America too!
http://www.worldofstock.com/slides/PCH4329.jpg
Talk about anecdotal evidence......
Way to miss the point. From the very start of this war, PJ has tried to discredit the opposition fighters, first by claiming that they were al-Qaeda sympathisers, and when that turned out not to be so efficient, they were racists instead. It's all black and white, which is precisely something a simple picture can disprove - nuance is unsurprisingly required, so my picture fulfills its task most elegantly. Anecdotal evidence is exactly what PJ's video is, no details on the surroundings are provided.
for all you really know those are pro-gaddafi loyalists.
Really? With the opposition flag at the stock of his weapon? The image is from yesterday, inside Bab Al-Aziziya (http://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.194492360616588.51950.133738650025293).
Furunculus
08-24-2011, 08:51
article on the implications of success for france and britain of the libyan intervention:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8717986/We-have-proved-in-Libya-that-intervention-can-still-work.html
"The truth, however, is that Libya is not a successor to Kosovo or Sierra Leone. Instead, it is the prototype for a new kind of intervention, one that reflects the very different world that we find ourselves in today."
Indeed, the Libyan intervention is the template by which Britain and France will continue to justify their veto-wielding permanent UNSC seats, by providing exactly the capabilities you note below:
"There is now an immense opportunity for Britain and France to live up to their responsibilities in the Security Council, and to provide the core of a well-equipped rapid reaction force, under UN auspicies, pledging planes and where necessary an aircraft carrier from their navies."
Better still, this conflict has given legitimacy and legal-standing to the normative framework through which this liberal-intervention can utilised; Responsibility to Protect, or R2P in shorthand.
Both Britain and France will sink from the top five to the top ten, or thereabouts, in economic power over the next forty years, and will cease to be technology leaders in the same time-frame remaining only peer nations in a much larger group.
If they want to to justify the retention of their seats they will have to bring something to the party, and they have decided that can only be military intervention in the advancement of UN mandated goals.
Thus the need for Armed Forces configured for sovereign and strategic power-projection.
Libya is a success story for Britain and France, in more ways than one!
Papewaio
08-24-2011, 09:14
I think twitter trumps them there it being more responsible for the Arab Spring and all the low tech converted utes.
So are we going to give the social media barons a seat on the council?
France and UK will maintain there seats until bigger nuclear armed nations take their place. If that place is based on military might, well the biggest economies can afford the bigger militarys. So you hope it isn't just done on who supplies the UN with the most peacekeepers.
I can see India and Brazil being logical contenders.
Centurion1
08-24-2011, 09:20
Your entire argument is the biggest house of **** I have ever read. Everything you present is anecdotal. I missed nothing. You however, seem to have missed the concept of anecdotal evidence. There are Al-Qaeda supporters in the rebel groups.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8414583/Libya-al-Qaeda-among-Libya-rebels-Nato-chief-fears.html
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/feb/24/al-qaeda-offers-aid-to-rebels-in-libya/
Hell, I can link entire articles not one freaking facebook photo. Yes, you sir, based your entire freaking argument upon the back of a facebook photo from a rebel support group.
One should not be surprised at the lack of captured mercenaries, why would a man getting paid by a tyrant to fight his people want to get captured by said people?
Do you realize the absurdities of this statement. Why the hell would a mercenary want to die rather than be captured. I don't know what fantasy land you live in where people can always escape capture in battle because I would sure love to join it. The statistical probability of not a single mercenary being captured is so hilariously small its not worth calculating. So one should be very surprised there are no captured mercenaries.
Here's evidence of mercenaries from Chad, ID papers shown to camera at 03:13 (from outside Adjabiya in March)
This is glorious. I am going to take your word for it because the video won't play. Once again anecdotal evidence. I would be far from surprised if they planted the damn passport. Why would a foreign national gun for hire carry around his ID papers declaring him to be Chad native. Where precisely is the logic buried to carry around papers to make him loathed by everyone he fights against even more than before.
Libya will go down as some sort of victory for democracy and the west and will soon become a theocratic dominated or otherwise terrible place all at the cost of the actually noble intentioned rebels.
What I want to know is how is the wests reaction to this superior to Iraq or Afghanistan..... both of those wars immensely unpopular from the get go yet lets look at the facts.
1. Saddam Hussein was quite clearly an immensely more evil human being than even scum of the earth Gaddafi.
2. The libyan rebels could have eventually overthrown gaddafi as he was not as harsh or as well emplaced as saddam
3. Hussein and his Ba'aths' were much more systematic in destroying opposition and no rebel movement would have stood a chance without considerable backing and aid.
4. Placing troops on the ground saved countless lives in the long run instead of this bull air campaign in which the Libyans shed the blood and we westerners cheer on the sidelines and open our wallets.
Then Afghanistan
1. Taliban once again a terribly evil group.
2. Afghanistan even poorer than the Libyans they needed help
3. There was even a large scale war going on this time already between the northern alliance and the Taliban......
4. Women and other disenfranchised groups were far more harshly treated than their Libyan counterparts in many cases.
So what makes this superior besides demonstrating we hold a lower value on the lives of foreigners than our own fellow citizens. Then throughout the last couple pages we have gems like this,
The future is looking brighter in that part of the world at least, my guess is that the feeling in Libya now is about the same as it was here in 1945.
Why do you hate freedom?
This is simply wonderful.
This is hilarious. Most of you people did not even know who Qaddafi was before all of this. Those of you who did know who he was probably never mentioned once how much you would like to see him overthrown. I only knew who the SOB was because I asked my father why a colonel would be in control of a country after I read about Reagan bombing the little cretin. Why does Gaddafi's regime falling herld some great new time. WE HAVE NO IDEA WHAT THIS HERALDS GOOD OR BAD
There are several black skinned opposition fighters. If this image is anything to go by, then also in the future police force.
Seriously dude what is your hard on for single pictures being your argument
Furunculus
08-24-2011, 09:31
I think twitter trumps them there it being more responsible for the Arab Spring and all the low tech converted utes.
So are we going to give the social media barons a seat on the council?
France and UK will maintain there seats until bigger nuclear armed nations take their place. If that place is based on military might, well the biggest economies can afford the bigger militarys. So you hope it isn't just done on who supplies the UN with the most peacekeepers.
I can see India and Brazil being logical contenders.
lol, twitter does not trump the commitment of britain and france, and it is one thing to provide peacekeepers, bangladesh does that, it is quite another to provide warfighters, and ones capable of being employed to war-winning effect the world over!
Centurion1
08-24-2011, 09:34
article on the implications of success for france and britain of the libyan intervention:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8717986/We-have-proved-in-Libya-that-intervention-can-still-work.html
Indeed, the Libyan intervention is the template by which Britain and France will continue to justify their veto-wielding permanent UNSC seats, by providing exactly the capabilities you note below:
Better still, this conflict has given legitimacy and legal-standing to the normative framework through which this liberal-intervention can utilised; Responsibility to Protect, or R2P in shorthand.
Both Britain and France will sink from the top five to the top ten, or thereabouts, in economic power over the next forty years, and will cease to be technology leaders in the same time-frame remaining only peer nations in a much larger group.
If they want to to justify the retention of their seats they will have to bring something to the party, and they have decided that can only be military intervention in the advancement of UN mandated goals.
Thus the need for Armed Forces configured for sovereign and strategic power-projection.
Libya is a success story for Britain and France, in more ways than one!
Your a cute little nationalist aren't you.
Indeed, the Libyan intervention is the template by which Britain and France will continue to justify their veto-wielding permanent UNSC seats, by providing exactly the capabilities you note below:
So the entire point of this exercise was to prove that Britain and France's penile length is indeed long enough to justify carrying a glorified ban hammer.
Better still, this conflict has given legitimacy and legal-standing to the normative framework through which this liberal-intervention can utilised; Responsibility to Protect, or R2P in shorthand.
A completely bogus mandate made to justify force. According to that we better hurry on over to N. Korea, China, Myanmar, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Most of Sub Saharan Africa, a few South American countries, and hell lets throw the United States onto that list since citizens rights are restricted all the time and trampled upon!
And before you get too carried away with how awesome you are why don't you consider some things about how this all went..... like these tidbits
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/apr/05/nato-lacking-strike-aircraft-libya
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/nato-runs-short-on-some-munitions-in-libya/2011/04/15/AF3O7ElD_story.html
I think you all are fantastic fellows though!
Edit: This all also reminds me of how depressingly stupid NATO is to maintain. It's like a group of old ladies who have been meeting to go for runs for 40 years but they are all in Wheelchairs now and even the most fit one is starting to use a cane to get about...................
Papewaio
08-24-2011, 10:34
lol, twitter does not trump the commitment of britain and france, and it is one thing to provide peacekeepers, bangladesh does that, it is quite another to provide warfighters, and ones capable of being employed to war-winning effect the world over!
Gaddafi was in power for 42 years. He supported the IRA, he had an airliner blown up above Scotland.
Social media allowed the rebels to organise and attack. Yes NATO helped out getting rid of the heavy units and that is a good thing. But the win was on the ground, by the people.
To use this as a reason for the UK and France to remain permanent members on the security council is a poor choice... again 42 years of provocation and only the med to sail across... still couldn't do it. People power did.
Furunculus
08-24-2011, 10:41
Gaddafi was in power for 42 years. He supported the IRA, he had an airliner blown up above Scotland.
Social media allowed the rebels to organise and attack. Yes NATO helped out getting rid of the heavy units and that is a good thing. But the win was on the ground, by the people.
To use this as a reason for the UK and France to remain permanent members on the security council is a poor choice... again 42 years of provocation and only the med to sail across... still couldn't do it. People power did.
you fail to understand.
the libya intervention was justified using R2P.
its success will set a precedent.
therefore 'minor' nations have now carved themselves a new role on the SC - enforcement of UNSC resolutions.
3. Hussein and his Ba'aths' were much more systematic in destroying opposition and no rebel movement would have stood a chance without considerable backing and aid.
Interesting that you should mention this. In fact, there was a rebel movement centered around Basra that rose up against Saddam Hussein. For some reason, considerable backing and aid never came.
Papewaio
08-24-2011, 11:26
you fail to understand.
the libya intervention was justified using R2P.
its success will set a precedent.
therefore 'minor' nations have now carved themselves a new role on the SC - enforcement of UNSC resolutions.
So by doing what they should be enforcing resolutions, they should retain a seat that was determined by the winners of a conflict over 60 years ago. Why not in the modern world let Germany have a permanent seat or Japan?
UK and France are not minor powers (yet). What you're not seeing is that the permanent members are major ones and that minor ones come and go on non-permanent seats. Lose that power though and you can expect to lose the seat no matter how much you hump the UN's leg.
My guess is that UK and France probably won't lose their permanent seats (because they have powerful Allies), other nations instead will get one. For instance India could be added in the next twenty to forty years.
However it is not without precedent that they could lose them... it would take them to do something stupid first however like leaving the UN.
Furunculus
08-24-2011, 11:59
So by doing what they should be enforcing resolutions, they should retain a seat that was determined by the winners of a conflict over 60 years ago. Why not in the modern world let Germany have a permanent seat or Japan?
UK and France are not minor powers (yet). What you're not seeing is that the permanent members are major ones and that minor ones come and go on non-permanent seats. Lose that power though and you can expect to lose the seat no matter how much you hump the UN's leg.
My guess is that UK and France probably won't lose their permanent seats (because they have powerful Allies), other nations instead will get one. For instance India could be added in the next twenty to forty years.
However it is not without precedent that they could lose them... it would take them to do something stupid first however like leaving the UN.
because germany and japan have neither the will nor the capability for sovereign and strategic power projection, obviously.
neither does china or russia for that matter, but they have a lot of territory and a lot of people/nukes.
i used the word 'minor' deliberately, by 2050 the UK will be the 7-9 largest economic power, and france the 8-12 largest (likewise Germany), we will be very small compared to US, India, China and Brazil. We won't have huge landmass or massive populations, we will no longer be recognised leaders in tech innovation, just one among many. if we want to keep those seats it will be because of R2P.
Papewaio
08-24-2011, 12:29
The Arab spring is just a start.
The internet is still young too.
If we are lucky we won't hit a singularity by 2050.
So my guess by then there just won't be enough places to R2P to justify a permanent membership in the UN security council, I think it will have to be found through different means... and ones that don't reek of colonialistic intent either... Gaddafi was one of the longest running dictators in history whose people rose up against him... those events are not the norm they are the exception where R2P looks good... the vast majority of the time things are a lot more messy... of course the UK has a much better streak of interfering and improving whilst the USA is out for a duck on that one.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
08-24-2011, 13:05
The Arab spring is just a start.
The internet is still young too.
If we are lucky we won't hit a singularity by 2050.
So my guess by then there just won't be enough places to R2P to justify a permanent membership in the UN security council, I think it will have to be found through different means... and ones that don't reek of colonialistic intent either... Gaddafi was one of the longest running dictators in history whose people rose up against him... those events are not the norm they are the exception where R2P looks good... the vast majority of the time things are a lot more messy... of course the UK has a much better streak of interfering and improving whilst the USA is out for a duck on that one.
The Libyan intervention is not Colonialistic, it sits along with the Ivory Coast one as an example of Western Powers using UN resolutions to pressure despots, and then supporting their removal through force.
Here's someone from the Guardian who doesn't get it: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/aug/23/gaddafi-downfall-britain-intervention
Gaddafi could not have been felled without outside intervention to level the field between him and his opponents, that is all the UK and France did, not "Western armies" were used to oust him, Libyans bled and died for his removal and all the West did was take away his trump cards, his planes tanks and artillery.
Also from the Guardian, happy thoughts: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/aug/24/libya-iraq-revolution-arab-uprisings
Fisherking
08-24-2011, 13:35
Yes, the Rebels started their own central bank back in March. I hear Goldman Sachs has control. I have also heard that oil companies are already negotiating deals.
I guess we just sit back and see how it all goes.
I just expect another dictator ship only one that the west feels more secure with.
Furunculus
08-24-2011, 13:37
The Libyan intervention is not Colonialistic, it sits along with the Ivory Coast one as an example of Western Powers using UN resolutions to pressure despots, and then supporting their removal through force.
Here's someone from the Guardian who doesn't get it: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/aug/23/gaddafi-downfall-britain-intervention
Gaddafi could not have been felled without outside intervention to level the field between him and his opponents, that is all the UK and France did, not "Western armies" were used to oust him, Libyans bled and died for his removal and all the West did was take away his trump cards, his planes tanks and artillery.
Also from the Guardian, happy thoughts: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/aug/24/libya-iraq-revolution-arab-uprisings
^ wot he said ^
at the end of the day the SC boils down to the threat of force in the face of non-compliance against UN resolutions.
to do that you need to be able to project power, the three most capable nations in this are the US, UK, and France, and we will struggle to justify a permanent veto via any other criteria, so we will push military interventions.
ergo R2P is essential
ergo Libya was damned handy
HoreTore
08-24-2011, 13:56
Yes, the Rebels started their own central bank back in March. I hear Goldman Sachs has control. I have also heard that oil companies are already negotiating deals.
I guess we just sit back and see how it all goes.
I just expect another dictator ship only one that the west feels more secure with.
Goldman Sachs is, for all its recent scumbaggery, still a renowned and incredibly huge bank. Besides, all the other ones with the size, experience and power to help an upstart government are also scumbags. The new government has shown wisdom in consulting financial matters with someone outside, I really don't think they would've been able to handle the economy alone in the first year.
Libya is an oil country. They'll have to sell it of course, so it's only logical that they're making deals. Why on earth wouldn't they?
None of this is a cause for concern. On the contrary, it's a sign that things are progressing towards a functioning state.
Papewaio
08-24-2011, 14:04
The Libyan intervention is not Colonialistic, it sits along with the Ivory Coast one as an example of Western Powers using UN resolutions to pressure despots, and then supporting their removal through force.
Yes and I stated that there is going to be very few like oppourtunites in the future the rest will either be more complex or reek of colonial interference.
"So my guess by then there just won't be enough places to R2P to justify a permanent membership in the UN security council, I think it will have to be found through different means... and ones that don't reek of colonialistic intent either"
So there is going to be very little oppourtunities to get involved in situations like this... and typically the UN has not gotten involved in civil wars either until they are sure war crimes are being committed.
So lets look at it:
First you need a dictator and they seem to be a dying breed.
Second there has to be no hint of colonial intervention to keep it smelling like roses.
Third you need both China and Russia to not veto it.
Fourth you don't want either of them actually doing the force projection as they will steal your thunder.
Fifth you need no other nation to step up to the plate and outperform either the UK or France.
Sixth, Fusion isn't invented because no one is going to intervene for heavy water.
Yeah, I can see this is a game winning plan with no chances that anything can go wrong... good luck for the next fifty years on that one.
tibilicus
08-24-2011, 14:16
Awesome! Here's how they're faring in Benghazi.
And ever more information (http://derstandard.at/plink/1308680482845?sap=2&_pid=21929887) is coming to light that debunks the 'mercenaries' excuse as nothing more than a cover to exercise long held racist cleansings (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304887904576395143328336026.html) by the Arab rebels, who have long resented the presence of African workers in their country.
A single youtube video in a different language is pathetic evidence for something you claim is wide spread. If this sort of thing happened on a large scale, do you not think the news agencies would have caught wind of it considering there is no real internal security to stop such information leaking? It's not like the Qaddafi era where journalists movement is restricted, in the East the journos could move freely.
Yes, ISOLATED incidents of such attacks have been reported but it isn't widespread and more importantly orchestrated as you suggest. The coordination of affairs and the administrative functions of the NTC has been pretty impressive considering the lack infrastructure. Those rebels also seem pretty disciplined too, or would you care to explain why the "lynch mobs" you predicted haven't been seen on my tv screen yet? or is it some sort of NATO conspiracy?
I find it remarkable that you, an American, are trying to sing the praises of a regime which is directly responsible for the death of hundreds of your countrymen. I can't comprehend why you herald the death of the Desert Dog with almost a sense of remorse. Sure, things could get worse, but is all of it not even a little bit worth it if in a decades time we can look at Libya and say yes, what happened here was a good thing? I guess some believe it's better to die a slave, subservient and obedient than a free man. These things may take place in isolated incidents but you have to remember, this is war. Look what happened when the Russians swept into Germany..
tibilicus
08-24-2011, 14:18
Goldman Sachs is, for all its recent scumbaggery, still a renowned and incredibly huge bank. Besides, all the other ones with the size, experience and power to help an upstart government are also scumbags. The new government has shown wisdom in consulting financial matters with someone outside, I really don't think they would've been able to handle the economy alone in the first year.
Libya is an oil country. They'll have to sell it of course, so it's only logical that they're making deals. Why on earth wouldn't they?
None of this is a cause for concern. On the contrary, it's a sign that things are progressing towards a functioning state.
It should also be noted that Libya is in a very strong position economically. Whilst it lacks infrastructure and wealth distribution it does have zero debts, $120 Billion in frozen assets and massive oil reserves. With a little bit of help in management and administration and without the need for direct aid, Libya has the opportunity to become a reasonably developed economy.
Furunculus
08-24-2011, 14:59
Yes and I stated that there is going to be very few like oppourtunites in the future the rest will either be more complex or reek of colonial interference.
"So my guess by then there just won't be enough places to R2P to justify a permanent membership in the UN security council, I think it will have to be found through different means... and ones that don't reek of colonialistic intent either"
So there is going to be very little oppourtunities to get involved in situations like this... and typically the UN has not gotten involved in civil wars either until they are sure war crimes are being committed.
So lets look at it:
First you need a dictator and they seem to be a dying breed.
Second there has to be no hint of colonial intervention to keep it smelling like roses.
Third you need both China and Russia to not veto it.
Fourth you don't want either of them actually doing the force projection as they will steal your thunder.
Fifth you need no other nation to step up to the plate and outperform either the UK or France.
Sixth, Fusion isn't invented because no one is going to intervene for heavy water.
Yeah, I can see this is a game winning plan with no chances that anything can go wrong... good luck for the next fifty years on that one.
you have just argued for doing without the UNSC altogether, or, having a UNSC of just the US.
your argument doesn't fly.
Your entire argument is the biggest house of **** I have ever read. Everything you present is anecdotal. I missed nothing. You however, seem to have missed the concept of anecdotal evidence.
lol of course it is anecdotal "evidence", I have never claimed it to be anything else. In a black and white argument, anecdotal evidence is all that is needed to show that reality is not black and white. It does not disprove occurence, it disproves a 100% probability of occurence. This is what you missed for a second time, going for a third? One black swan does not make all swans black.
There are Al-Qaeda supporters in the rebel groups.
Yes there are, but that does mean the rebels are [a bunch of] (this has been implicit) Al-Qaeda sympathisers, god gamnit.
Yes, you sir, based your entire freaking argument upon the back of a facebook photo from a rebel support group.
I could post still photos from BBC, Sky News, Fox News etc. that would all show similar things - black skinned rebel supporterts and fighters. It is of course though more convenvient to put up a still photo of good quality that I've found. Are you going to be brave enough to suggest that the photo is staged?
I can tell you that I've been following the group that posted those images for a long time, and I've evaluated them as trustworthy. They give their source as Reuters; and while I'm been unable to locate the exact same photo on the Reuters website; I've found another of the photos in the Facebook collection here (http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/23/us-libya-un-dabbashi-idUSTRE77M59O20110823). I've done my research before I posted that photo.
Do you realize the absurdities of this statement. Why the hell would a mercenary want to die rather than be captured. I don't know what fantasy land you live in where people can always escape capture in battle because I would sure love to join it. The statistical probability of not a single mercenary being captured is so hilariously small its not worth calculating. So one should be very surprised there are no captured mercenaries.
"lack" does not mean zero. I do expect that mercenaries are in opposition custody, and that the issue will be clearer in the future. I am not talking about escaping here, I am talking about fighting to the death (read: being braver/more desperate) in the hope that they can get a way out after all. Native regime forces would be more likely to surrender in such a scenario.
This is glorious. I am going to take your word for it because the video won't play. Once again anecdotal evidence. I would be far from surprised if they planted the damn passport. Why would a foreign national gun for hire carry around his ID papers declaring him to be Chad native. Where precisely is the logic buried to carry around papers to make him loathed by everyone he fights against even more than before.
They were bombed in their tanks by NATO and killed. As for carrying a passport in a foreign country, I do not see why that would be weird. If he was alive, his language would give him away.
1. Saddam Hussein was quite clearly an immensely more evil human being than even scum of the earth Gaddafi.
2. The libyan rebels could have eventually overthrown gaddafi as he was not as harsh or as well emplaced as saddam
3. Hussein and his Ba'aths' were much more systematic in destroying opposition and no rebel movement would have stood a chance without considerable backing and aid.
"more systematic"? There did not exist any Libyan opposition, beat that. As for your suggestions, they need evidence.
4. Placing troops on the ground saved countless lives in the long run instead of this bull air campaign in which the Libyans shed the blood and we westerners cheer on the sidelines and open our wallets.
Placing troops on the ground in Iraq did not go well, did it? Look what state the country is in - terrorist attack after terrorist attack on innocent civilians. Piece of advice: wait months/years before you make a comparison between Iraq and Libya, it will become clearer then.
1. Taliban once again a terribly evil group.
I am sure they had horns.
2. Afghanistan even poorer than the Libyans they needed help
3. There was even a large scale war going on this time already between the northern alliance and the Taliban......
4. Women and other disenfranchised groups were far more harshly treated than their Libyan counterparts in many cases.
The reasons for entering Afghanistan was the Taliban, not any of the stuff you list above.
So what makes this superior besides demonstrating we hold a lower value on the lives of foreigners than our own fellow citizen.
I don't, and that is why I support the intervention in the first place.
This is hilarious. Most of you people did not even know who Qaddafi was before all of this. Those of you who did know who he was probably never mentioned once how much you would like to see him overthrown. I only knew who the SOB was because I asked my father why a colonel would be in control of a country after I read about Reagan bombing the little cretin. Why does Gaddafi's regime falling herld some great new time. WE HAVE NO IDEA WHAT THIS HERALDS GOOD OR BAD
It was bad, and there's a golden opportunity for it to get better. I mean, you're saying that we should have surrendered to the Nazis in WWII because then we wouldn't have to cope with the dreadful war, right? There were no guarantees what so ever that putting up a fight would not have put us in a even worse state than what surrendering to the nazis would have.
Seriously dude what is your hard on for single pictures being your argument
It's a part of the evidence, and it must be used combined with a lack of evidence to the contrary position. It is of course the latter that is by far most important. As I point out again.
EDIT: One article on mercenaries here (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8349414/African-mercenaries-in-Libya-nervously-await-their-fate.html). There should be more sources out there with similar indicatoins, but I cannot remember them.
Crowded into an empty classroom which was stinking of unwashed bodies and reeking of fear, Colonel Muammar Gaddafi's defeated mercenary killers awaited their fate.
A week earlier the men – Libyan loyalists of the dictator and black African recruits – had been landed at airports throughout eastern Libya and sent out into the streets to shoot protesters in a murderous rampage. They killed dozens before they were overwhelmed by anti-Gaddafi militias.
The survivors were exhausted, filthy, far from home, and fearful of execution, even though they had been assured of good treatment. Fifty of them lay on mattresses on the floor in one classroom alone, with nearly 100 more in the same school building which was being used as a temporary prison. Most looked dazed. Some were virtually children.
"A man at the bus station in Sabha offered me a job and said I would get a free flight to Tripoli," said Mohammed, a boy of about 16 who said he had arrived looking for work in the southern Libyan town only two weeks ago from Chad, where he had earned a living as a shepherd.
Instead of Tripoli, he was flown to an airport near the scruffy seaside town of Al-Bayda and had a gun thrust into his hands on the plane.
HoreTore
08-24-2011, 18:30
I don't know who Gaddafi was before this, Centurion? Please, do not include me in your ignorance.
First of all, my brother-in-law is a former Libyan political prisoner. I have known him since 2004. I like politics, he likes politics, so we discuss politics. Unsurprisingly, a lot of it has centered around Libya. Secondly, Gaffy and many other arab leaders(saddam, nasser, etc) were allied with the USSR. As a leftie with an interest in modern history, there's simply no getting around a figure like him. Just like there's no getting around Allende, for example.
Seamus Fermanagh
08-24-2011, 19:35
...I find it remarkable that you, an American, are trying to sing the praises of a regime which is directly responsible for the death of hundreds of your countrymen. I can't comprehend why you herald the death of the Desert Dog with almost a sense of remorse. Sure, things could get worse, but is all of it not even a little bit worth it if in a decades time we can look at Libya and say yes, what happened here was a good thing? I guess some believe it's better to die a slave, subservient and obedient than a free man. These things may take place in isolated incidents but you have to remember, this is war. Look what happened when the Russians swept into Germany..
Tib:
To be fair to PJ, I haven't seen him asserting that Quaddafi is a paragon of virtue or that the current regime -- now in it's death throes -- is noble in any sense.
He has been arguing that the revolutionary coalition that is taking Quaddafi out of Libya is not a collection of do-gooders, universally inspired by the hope engendered in the "Arab Spring" and steadfastly working for a republican democracy based on ecumenical application of the rule of law.
You can make a good case that his argument is supported with too much anecdotal evidence and takes too cynical a turn, but accusing him of being an apoligist for Muammar and sons really isn't on target.
The Time magazine just posted something really interesting... I'd prefer it confirmed from multiple sources, but here it goes:
Gaddafi's Fleeing Mercenaries Describe the Collapse of the Regime (http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2090205,00.html?xid=fblike)
Right from the start, Mario, an ethnic Croatian artillery specialist from Bosnia, suspected it was a lost cause.
"My men were mainly from the south [of Libya] and Chad, and there were a few others from countries south of Libya," said Mario, who spoke on condition that his last name not be published. A veteran of the wars of the former Yugoslavia, he had been hired by the Gaddafi regime to help fight the rebels and, later, NATO. "Discipline was bad, and they were too stupid to learn anything. But things were O.K. until the air strikes commenced. The other side was equally bad, if not worse. [Muammar] Gaddafi would have smashed the rebels had the West not intervened."
...
Mario said that Gaddafi had hired several former Yugoslav fighters, most of them Serbs, to help him in his fight against NATO and the rebels. One by one, Mario said, these foreign advisers and commanders left Tripoli.
...
"Two weeks ago, a friend who brought me here told me I should leave Tripoli, as things were going to rapidly change and that deals have been made," he said. He noticed Gaddafi's South African mercenaries beginning to leave.
Louis VI the Fat
08-24-2011, 23:12
article on the implications of success for france and britain of the libyan intervention:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8717986/We-have-proved-in-Libya-that-intervention-can-still-work.html
Indeed, the Libyan intervention is the template by which Britain and France will continue to justify their veto-wielding permanent UNSC seats, by providing exactly the capabilities you note below:
Better still, this conflict has given legitimacy and legal-standing to the normative framework through which this liberal-intervention can utilised; Responsibility to Protect, or R2P in shorthand.
Both Britain and France will sink from the top five to the top ten, or thereabouts, in economic power over the next forty years, and will cease to be technology leaders in the same time-frame remaining only peer nations in a much larger group.
If they want to to justify the retention of their seats they will have to bring something to the party, and they have decided that can only be military intervention in the advancement of UN mandated goals.
Thus the need for Armed Forces configured for sovereign and strategic power-projection.
Libya is a success story for Britain and France, in more ways than one!* high fives Furunculus *
Louis - Thoroughly enjoys all of this imperialist powermongering. As apparantly do the natives. Somebody please remind me why we gave up on imperialism again?
Papewaio
08-24-2011, 23:21
you have just argued for doing without the UNSC altogether, or, having a UNSC of just the US.
your argument doesn't fly.
The security council has 5 permanent members and ten non-permanent ones. If UK & France lose their permanent positions it does not just leave the US on the UNSC. One permanent member has already changed, there is nothing to stop more being added or removed.
What I've argued for is that to remain on the UNSC as permanent members will require something more then economic and hence military might. The ability to stay will rely on more on goodwill and the two nations seen as stable leaders who others can negotiate with and have vetos placed on their behalf. Relying on something as infrequent as a R2P mission with enough positive spin to create the goodwill is not the way forwards.
Yes increasing stability in the world will help so outside of this current mission what can UK and France do to increase stability? Not all of these are found at the barrel of a gun. Cure Malaria, fresh water... increase the quality of life... literacy.... remove the root causes of tribal warfare..food, literacy, transparency & accountability... only the last of which requires the use of force.
There are a lot of things that can be done to get the positive image set... so like most votes the permanent seat will require winning the populace once you've slipped down the totem pole.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.