Civil War in Libya

[ICantSpellDawg]

Anarchy in Libya. This is about to get real. The President's men are using overwhelming force against protesters and a military unit has defected. Thousands of people are going to die and Gaddafi will be dragged into the street and hung. I can see it now. This will not be as gentle as Egypt and will happen much, much faster if it hasn't already.

Link (http://blogs.aljazeera.net/middle-east/2011/02/17/live-blog-libya)

[Greyblades]

Do you have a news link or something?

[ICantSpellDawg]

Do you have a news link or something?

Link (http://blogs.aljazeera.net/middle-east/2011/02/17/live-blog-libya)

Read what's happening there. The Ambassador to China has resigned on live TV and said that the President has fled the country and that his sons have been involved in a gunfight. Armed units are defecting, the protests have spread to Tripoli and are getting so bloody that people are startign to fire back. Tribes are declaring Gaddafi "no longer a brother"

"Online reports claim remaining pro-Gaddafi militia in Benghazi, around the Elfedeel Bu Omar compound, "are being butchered by angry mobs""

[Strike For The South]

THANK GOD THE US WENT IN ALL THESE PLACES TO SPUR DEMOCRACY

[ICantSpellDawg]

C'mon man, doesn't all of this revolution give you a chubby?

[Strike For The South]

C'mon man, doesn't all of this revolution give you a chubby?

Very much so, 0000s of dead Americans and trillions spent does not

[ICantSpellDawg]

What does that have to do with anything? Are you crediting the wars with spuring on this change and then ruing the cost to our lives and treasure? I wasn't talking about that.

[CountArach]

It is always heartening to see a people trying to take their own future into their hands, and with the military defecting it is likely to only be a matter of time before the entire Government is overturned. Now it is just a matter of waiting to see whether what takes the place of Gaddafi is any different.

[CountArach]

I'm reading on twitter from several eyewitness sources that protesters have taken over State TV.

[rory_20_uk]

Further evidence that the best way of overthrowing dictators is to... DO NOTHING.

Trade with the country freely, don't isolate them. Then slowly over time the people themselves will get fed up with things as their standard of living / understanding increases. Whose fault is it? No, not the USA / EU / other bogeyman as they've not done anything. It is the leaders.

Anger is then at their leaders, and being against their own isn't being a pawn of the USA / whoever.

Thankfully the UK is too broke to even think about getting involved in these quagmires.

~:smoking:

[aimlesswanderer]

Further evidence that the best way of overthrowing dictators is to... DO NOTHING.

Yep, no invasions, just a better spread of information, and the ordinary people can figure things out and organise themselves.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Further evidence that the best way of overthrowing dictators is to... DO NOTHING.

Trade with the country freely, don't isolate them. Then slowly over time the people themselves will get fed up with things as their standard of living / understanding increases. Whose fault is it? No, not the USA / EU / other bogeyman as they've not done anything. It is the leaders.

Anger is then at their leaders, and being against their own isn't being a pawn of the USA / whoever.

Thankfully the UK is too broke to even think about getting involved in these quagmires.

~:smoking:

It's like 'Nam all over again isn't it?

[Rahwana]

I suspect that was another Zionist/Western/American plots to overthrown the righteous Khaddafi. I myself support him, and it was his own right to slaughter those rebellious mob. Sometimes, they need to have some lessons.

PS: I bet Khaddafi will just need to take his Tanks out and crush those western puppets, he don't want bad publications though, and instant rebel defeat ain't a good story to news coverage.

[Idaho]

I suspect that was another Zionist/Western/American plots to overthrown the righteous Khaddafi. I myself support him, and it was his own right to slaughter those rebellious mob. Sometimes, they need to have some lessons.

PS: I bet Khaddafi will just need to take his Tanks out and crush those western puppets, he don't want bad publications though, and instant rebel defeat ain't a good story to news coverage.

What? Are you for real?!?

The lesson of the Arab winter has been that gambling on the self certification of people is perhaps less risky than invading or propping up dictators.

[Rahwana]

What? Are you for real?!?

The lesson of the Arab winter has been that gambling on the self certification of people is perhaps less risky than invading or propping up dictators.

yeah, Khadaffi was widely supported by his people before this sudden rebeliousness, plus the circumstances in middle east recently is very2 suspicious.

[Idaho]

Paranoia and ignorance. Gaddafi has never been popular but while people were making money they were prepared to tolerate the repression.


The west and Israel have had little to do with it. And your comments make me think you are probably young, and probably connected to the regimes whose time has come.

[Rahwana]

Paranoia and ignorance. Gaddafi has never been popular but while people were making money they were prepared to tolerate the repression.

The west and Israel have had little to do with it. And your comments make me think you are probably young, and probably connected to the regimes whose time has come.

darn, you just blow my cover! yes, I am M Khadaffi myself :clown:
now I'll just summon the tanks to run over those rebels :devil:

[Hax]

darn, you just blow my cover! yes, I am M Khadaffi myself :clown:
now I'll just summon the tanks to run over those rebels :devil:

Please, in the future, just leave this to the Arabs. We know how to deal with this kind of stuff.

[Lemur]

I've always admired your fashion sense, Colonel.

Meanwhile, a good analysis (http://www.spectator.co.uk/alexmassie/6717879/endgame-in-libya.thtml):


You cannot accept the need for reform and start shooting people in the streets. But unless the army keeps shooting it's hard to see how or why the protestors will return home. Even if they did the respite for the regime would, surely, be only temporary. For that matter, shooting people in the streets is also a sign of weakness, not strength. Increasingly it seems that the Gaddafis options amount to choosing the manner and moment of their defeat and eclipse. Eventually, failure carries a price. Even in authoritarian states. The alternative, as Saif warns, might be full-blown civil war. That's something the regime and only the regime can choose or authorise.

[Beskar]

The Raise of the Neo-Caliph Superpower is upon us?

[LeftEyeNine]

Whatever USA favors, I take it with a pinch of salt.

And, sorry, that's not my fault.

[ICantSpellDawg]

This is incredibly interesting. All over the world, oppressed people are starting to go ballistic. The lesson after Egypt for regimes was; if you are gentle, the opposition will win. After Libya, the lesson will hopefully be; If you are brutal, the opposition will win faster and your bloated corpse will hang in the public square. Those are good lessons, both with the same logical summary: REFORM.

After Iran in 2009 I was completely demoralized. This Revolution will hearten opposition there, in Saudi Arabia and in Syria, IMO, because the opposition is faced with brutality along a similar lines.

Foreign policy is an area where I usually agree with progressives.

[Viking]

The question is what will replace Gaddafi in case this thing "succeeds". Indeed, what are the goals of the protesters - what is accpeted as success? Will any new kids in the lead want to play with the West, or will they try to nick our favourite toys?

[ICantSpellDawg]

Who cares? Free people tend to like one another. I imagine that our relationship with Egypt will get much better after their revolution, in spite of the popular expectations. A free middle east will be an economic powerhouse over time. Freedom to think, get an education and troubleshoot the problems that face humanity is essential to our progress as a species. Currently, too many potentially bright minds are oppressed and left stagnating in squalor all over the world.

Doesn't this stuff make you want to get on a flight and go over there to fight and protest with them? Like Orwell in the Spanish Civil War.

[Banquo's Ghost]

I like your optimism, TuffStuffMcGruff, but one fears it is much too early to say how these revolutions are likely to end. Egypt is currently in the grip of a military government (not much change there then bar Mubarak) Bahrain is facing a sectarian rebellion which may well end with a theocratic satellite of Iran and Libya could indeed dissolve into civil war and tribal conflicts. On the hopeful side, Tunisia appears calm if unfocussed.

None of these countries have any tradition of democracy as the West understands it. The optimistic view is that they will be left alone to develop their own philosophies of representative government - but more cynically, they have too much oil and Islam for us to leave them alone.

[LeftEyeNine]

BG speaks of wisdom.

But this still does not warrant any other country to "export democracy" there.

Mind your own business and we're fine.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

There were supposed to be protests in china too (arranged over internet), but a ton of police/paramilitary turned up and very few protesters they said.

[ICantSpellDawg]

We are their democratic tradition. People pretend that other people from other cultures are from another planet. Our tradition is theirs and theirs is ours. We will see what will happen, but any nation not jumping into the information revolution will be at a debilitating disadvantage in the developing global economy. People are starting to get this fact all over the world. Many arab kids who use the internet have more in common with American kids who use the internet than either of them do with their own parents. Adults don't seem to understand the world in the ways that the youth do. Years ago it was in reverse, but now while the adults have increased their understanding in a linear way, youth has recieved exponential benefits.

Most people want the same things. 'Not having a democratic tradition" is the worst excuse ever, the same a it was in Japan during WW2, Korea, Eastern Europe, Turkey, etc. Libyans can look to Turkey, look to Indonesia, look to Morrocco, look to any number of Arab muslim, non-arab muslim, western, etc for guidance and "alien tradition" for human inspiration.

Western reluctance to support these protests is primarily based on fear of the unknown, greed and an indifference to global events. I have more confidence that we will get over that.

[Idaho]

It's not about western interests or the wests worst fear or regional balances of power. We've been manipulating nation states and their people for years in the name of these things - and usually with disastrous results. Let these people work it out for themselves.

[Banquo's Ghost]

We are their democratic tradition. People pretend that other people from other cultures are from another planet. Our tradition is theirs and theirs is ours. We will see what will happen, but any nation not jumping into the information revolution will be at a debilitating disadvantage in the developing global economy. People are starting to get this fact all over the world. Many arab kids who use the internet have more in common with American kids who use the internet than either of them do with their own parents. Adults don't seem to understand the world in the ways that the youth do. Years ago it was in reverse, but now while the adults have increased their understanding in a linear way, youth has recieved exponential benefits.

Most people want the same things.

I'm fascinated by the assertion that "we are their democratic tradition". Could you expand on the thesis?

Whereas there are some common threads in Western democracies, each is a product of the individual country's history and culture. Even quite closely related cultures such as the UK and the USA have significantly different democracies and traditions.

The internet is merely a form of communication - it does not surmount cultural biases (any review of the Backroom demonstrates that). I would also note that Western democracies are in a state of (perhaps terminal) decline in the face of corporate power expressed through narrowing oligarchies. None of this is a model - in my opinion - for emerging popular movements in nations which have, for too long, been reliant on autocratic central powers rather than the citizenry and its expressed will.

LEN is entirely right - we have no right to attempt an "export" of our flawed version of democracy to cultures that have entirely different histories and economic conditions. That will not stop the Western powers trying to influence and meddle, because we have too much of our own economies tied up in the region (not to mention the thorny problems of Israel's security and how we view any "will of the people" that installs an Islamic theocracy).

[Viking]

Who cares? Free people tend to like one another. I imagine that our relationship with Egypt will get much better after their revolution, in spite of the popular expectations. A free middle east will be an economic powerhouse over time. Freedom to think, get an education and troubleshoot the problems that face humanity is essential to our progress as a species. Currently, too many potentially bright minds are oppressed and left stagnating in squalor all over the world.

Doesn't this stuff make you want to get on a flight and go over there to fight and protest with them? Like Orwell in the Spanish Civil War.

I am primarily concerned with what the alternatives to Gaddafi are - whether or not this will end with the birth of a new democracy. Cf. Banquo

[ICantSpellDawg]

It will result in a governemnt and a people that sees the power of unfettered global communication. That's all we could ever hope for.

I'm confused, we have no right or obligation to spread democracy, but we have a right and obligation to look after the interests of Israel? Why is that?

The idea that we are their tradition and theirs ours is based on my understanding of influence in personal relationships. Our friends are our tradition, wouldn't you say? This has nothing to do with direct blood relations, but rather ther inspiring amount of influence our contacts have on us specifically. As we begin to speak with those outside of our culture, our cultures merge and our tradition becomes shared. Go to any museum to see how this works. These boards show us how. A myriad of technological advancements are showing us how.

I hate sports, but there are Cowboy fans in the heart of Cowboy country.

[Idaho]

I am primarily concerned with what the alternatives to Gaddafi are - whether or not this will end with the birth of a new democracy. Cf. Banquo

You would prefer Gaddafi or someone similar because the alternative might be bad? Its hard to imagine how an alternative can be worse.

[ICantSpellDawg]

thank you. Before Turkmenbashi died and Saddam was executed, he and Kim jong il shared 2nd place for the most batcrap crazy national leader award. It would be like living in a nightmare.

[Rahwana]

It will result in a governemnt and a people that sees the power of unfettered global communication. That's all we could ever hope for.

I'm confused, we have no right or obligation to spread democracy, but we have a right and obligation to look after the interests of Israel? Why is that?

The idea that we are their tradition and theirs ours is based on my understanding of influence in personal relationships. Our friends are our tradition, wouldn't you say? This has nothing to do with direct blood relations, but rather ther inspiring amount of influence our contacts have on us specifically. As we begin to speak with those outside of our culture, our cultures merge and our tradition becomes shared. Go to any museum to see how this works. These boards show us how. A myriad of technological advancements are showing us how.

I hate sports, but there are Cowboy fans in the heart of Cowboy country.

I myself would say some western minds are behind that, these coincidences of protests must be somewhat orchestrated.


You would prefer Gaddafi or someone similar because the alternative might be bad? Its hard to imagine how an alternative can be worse.

yeah, replace me and you'll got plain taliban or somalia like condition in Libya

[Hax]

Update: Gaddafi's airforce is bombarding Tripoli. Several jet fighters have defected to Malta.

The ambassadors to the United Kingdom and Indonesia have resigned.

Update 2: Ambassador of the UK has not resigned, apparently. The ambassador of Bangladesh did confirm his resignation.


I myself would say some western minds are behind that, these coincidences of protests must be somewhat orchestrated.
Of course. Because The Muslim Brotherhood just loves the west.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Don't watch this (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h-jGewoG3O4) or this (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wz_3E490UGk) if you don't want nightmares.

Keep these people in your prayers. It's time for a no-fly zone. Even out the playing field.

[Viking]

You would prefer Gaddafi or someone similar because the alternative might be bad? Its hard to imagine how an alternative can be worse.

You are assuming too much. I am interesting in finding out what the alternatives are - because if Gaddafi is forced to leave, I have at present not the slightest idea of what's going to follow. I like to know things - curiousity.

[ICantSpellDawg]

People are being eviscerated in the streets. Aircraft are incinerating large groups of people. At what point do we step in? Do we do nothing and let men, women and children be killed en-mass? Le tthe Libyan people sacrifice their blood and bodies to the cause of freedom? Can we at least do an emergency no-fly zone on short notice? We as in Europeans and Americans.

What does everyone think? Go to youtube and look at the most recent videos comign out. Heads on the floor, bodies disemboweled. Horrifying stuff, something needs to be done. They are fighting our common fight.

[rory_20_uk]

Sorry, UK is not the "world police" any more. Nasty imperials, eh? Let the locals take care of it - always better that way...

Any other countries want to get into that quagmire, feel free.

~:smoking:

[Viking]

From the BBC live feed (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12307698):


Further to Mr Dabashi's comments, Libya's team at the UN has called on the bloc to impose a no-fly zone over Tripoli, following reports that warplanes were being used against protesters there.

If there is a genuine split in the population on this issue, then I suppose the danger of intervention is that might discredit the people calling for change - they could be labeled traitors co-operating with foreign forces. But if there is no such genuine split, the Libyans could thank us in the future, even if they, or most of them, would oppose intervention at present.

EDIT: and of course I am having the extreme scenarios like outright butchering in mind. In general, it is indeed probably best to avoid pulling too many strings.

[Hax]

Benghazi declared independence, apparently calling themselves "The Islamic Emirate of Benghazi". Pre-Gaddafi flags are flown from the time of the 1951 - 1969 Kingdom of Libya.

[Rahwana]

this was obviously rebellion, not just peaceful demonstrations. And as legal government of Libya, Khaddafi had every rights to defend Libya's unity against rebellions.

well, westerners quickly point out muslim brotherhood, but who donate to Osama in 1980's? and we all know that westerners want destabilizations because Khaddafi is very critical with them

[Banquo's Ghost]

Let me remind members that whilst unpopular views are not excluded from the Backroom, deliberate attempts to provoke and troll will be.

[Rahwana]

ok, ok, I'm admit I'm a bit overdone that

but still, the things goes in Libya is no civilian demonstration, that was human wave tactics used as part of rebellions

[Banquo's Ghost]

I'm confused, we have no right or obligation to spread democracy, but we have a right and obligation to look after the interests of Israel? Why is that?

Just to be clear, I am not advocating that we look after the interests of Israel - just noting that our entire foreign policy in the region has been shaped to that end, and I see little evidence that will stop because of popular Arab uprisings.

As for your other calls for intervention, I entirely understand the sentiment and emotion, but it is not the West's job to police the wickedness of dictators - even if we could do so. This is a fight that belongs to the Libyan people.

It is a terrible choice, to be sure.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I hope that they can do it themselves quickly. The United States and the European Union have a responsibility to defend people from mass extermination if this goes on much longer. Reagan would do it, Clinton would do it, Bush would do it, Obama will do it if he needs to. Bank on it.

Libyans have already advocated for the UN to declare a no-fly zone. We are at a death toll of est 1000 with 10000 injured.

[Hax]

well, westerners quickly point out muslim brotherhood, but who donate to Osama in 1980's? and we all know that westerners want destabilizations because Khaddafi is very critical with them

Ah, you're talking about the struggle of the Muhajideen against the Soviets? While it is correct that the CIA contributed (financially) to the struggle of the Muhajideen, they never got involved with Osama bin Laden.

[tibilicus]

The West's fear is staggering. Are we really afraid of some new Arab Caliphate as some would lead us to believe? So what if, in an unlikely scenario (my personal opinion anyway) some of the Arab nations turn to "extremist Islam"? So long as that's what the majority want, why should I care? Am I meant to believe that such new "extremist" nations would pose a threat to me in my Western citadel? If such new nations were hostile, would they threaten my way of life? The answer is no. Due to the security these days I doubt they could even attack the West seriously via terrorism.

Let's relax, there will be no new enemy from the Arab world which can threaten the West, the days of that conflict are long gone. The West, and for the most part its ideals has won out.

[HoreTore]

TV2, Norways second largest broadcaster, was at my family's house today to interview my sister and her boyfriend about the situation in Libya. He was interviewed on the phone yesterday, today it was a live interview including my sister and tomorrow he will appear on the morning show.

AWESOME.

Libya is shut in completely, and phone contact with family members living abroad(my sisters boyfriend) is about the only way to get news of whats happening out to the world.

Edit: oh, and for added lols: the reporters name was Khaddafi....

[Idaho]

I think its too soon to talk about intervention. Reports arent reliable at the moment.

As for this terror of Islamic states; we need to work out how to get along with them and they need to work out to get on with us. Both of us are going to be around for while.

[Boohugh]

The West's fear is staggering. Are we really afraid of some new Arab Caliphate as some would lead us to believe? So what if, in an unlikely scenario (my personal opinion anyway) some of the Arab nations turn to "extremist Islam"? So long as that's what the majority want, why should I care? Am I meant to believe that such new "extremist" nations would pose a threat to me in my Western citadel? If such new nations were hostile, would they threaten my way of life? The answer is no. Due to the security these days I doubt they could even attack the West seriously via terrorism.

Let's relax, there will be no new enemy from the Arab world which can threaten the West, the days of that conflict are long gone. The West, and for the most part its ideals has won out.

The West's fear is indeed staggering, but I personally don't believe it to be entirely unfounded. You are right that a wave of extremist Islamic states in that region would stuggle to pose any sort of military threat to us, but it isn't the threat of violence or conflict that we should be afraid of.

The simple fact is, in the world today, our way of life is intrinsically linked with stability all around the world. Wealth always has been, currently is, and always will be created on the basis of trading stability. If we want to preserve our way of life, we need to preserve that stability as much as possible. North Africa and the Middle East are important not just because of oil but also because a huge amount of trade passes through the region. Make no mistake, if that region of the world erupts into a series of hostile, unstable states (either to us or each other), it will have consequences for you and me sitting pretty in our Western citadel.

Edit: Just want to add I don't think military intervention is the best way to achieve this, far from it, but I also don't think a policy of sitting back and just saying "ooh, don't do that please" is the way ahead either.

[LeftEyeNine]

@ Mad Arab

Well first of all we can't exactly know what CIA may have done or not during that period. Recently, Turkish Ministry of Transport (the one I'm working in) was the target of questions as rumours of flights for the "abduction" of people by CIA to Guantanamo via Incirlik base were permitted. We may never know. I also do not trust any intelligence agency at all. What I feel for sure that the fanatic islamic uprising was fed by anyone anti-communist, based on the view to use anti-religion fundementals of communism as a means of countering it in those cultures.

Freedom is pricey. People have died in numbers and will be dying further. No union or country was neither powerfully peaceful nor was only interested in keeping the peace, regarding the sore truth about what happened to Bosnians during the post-Yugo years in the middle of Europe.

Sorry, you have to watch this. Innocent people are dying every moment; what is the difference between an innocent being killed in a burglary or a thousand innocent lives getting slaughtered ? Numbers define how much more important human life can be compared to another incident ?

Africa and Middle Asia is bathed in Western ways of meddling for centuries now.

Stop. We have seen how you could handle it the first moment it backfired on your homelands.

Stop. Let us die on lands WE live.

[Idaho]

The fear is from the small elite who currently profit hugely from oil. They fear that new popular governments will nationalise it to pay for the kinds of projects that should have begun 40 years ago.

[Strike For The South]

Well first of all we can't exactly know what CIA may have done or not during that period. Recently, the Ministry of Transport (the one I'm working in) was the target of questions as rumours of flights for the "abduction" of people by CIA to Guantanamo via Incirlik base were permitted. We may never know. I also do not trust any intelligence agency at all. What I feel for sure that the fanatic islamic uprising was fed by anyone anti-communist, based on the view to use anti-religion fundementals of communism as a means of countering it in those cultures.

Freedom is pricey. People have died in numbers and will be dying further. No union or country was neither powerfuly peacful nor was only interested in keeping the peace, regarding the sore truth about what happened to Bosnians during the post-Yugo years in the middle of Europe.

Sorry, you have to watch this. Innocent people are dying every moment; what is the difference between an innocent being killed in a burglary or a thousand innocent lives getting slaughtered ? Numbers define how much more important human life can be compared to another incident ?

Africa and Middle Asia is bathed in Western ways of meddling for centuries now.

Stop. We have seen how you could handle it the first moment it backfired on your homelands.

Stop. Let us die on lands WE live.
+1

I dont need to be bothered with a 3rd round of American blood

[HoreTore]

Jet Fighters ar reportedly on the way from Tripoli to Benghazi again for another bombing run.

[gaelic cowboy]

The West's fear is indeed staggering, but I personally don't believe it to be entirely unfounded. You are right that a wave of extremist Islamic states in that region would stuggle to pose any sort of military threat to us, but it isn't the threat of violence or conflict that we should be afraid of.

The simple fact is, in the world today, our way of life is intrinsically linked with stability all around the world. Wealth always has been, currently is, and always will be created on the basis of trading stability. If we want to preserve our way of life, we need to preserve that stability as much as possible. North Africa and the Middle East are important not just because of oil but also because a huge amount of trade passes through the region. Make no mistake, if that region of the world erupts into a series of hostile, unstable states (either to us or each other), it will have consequences for you and me sitting pretty in our Western citadel.

Edit: Just want to add I don't think military intervention is the best way to achieve this, far from it, but I also don't think a policy of sitting back and just saying "ooh, don't do that please" is the way ahead either.

Even if the entire Maghreb, Middle East and Central Asia tumbled into some kind of Caliphate the place would still struggle economically it would tumble in a few years too.

[HoreTore]

Even if the entire Maghreb, Middle East and Central Asia tumbled into some kind of Caliphate the place would still struggle economically it would tumble in a few years too.

Not to mention that all the states who are crumbling now are based on the idea of pan-arabic nationalism.... It's like saying we should keep the banana because if we lose it, we might end up with a banana.

[gaelic cowboy]

Not to mention that all the states who are crumbling now are based on the idea of pan-arabic nationalism.... It's like saying we should keep the banana because if we lose it, we might end up with a banana.

"Oh my god they may end up in islamic dictatorship" well big :daisy: deal I say, if they do then Libya can just stay isolated simple as that, how would that be any differ to now.

[Strike For The South]

I guess all thats left to say is


NO WHAMMY NO WHAMMY NO WHAMMY NO WHAMMY NO WHAMMY

[Strike For The South]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8339096/Libya-Colonel-Gaddafi-flees-to-Venezuela-as-cities-fall-to-protesters.html



“About whether Col. Gaddafi, is in Venezuela, I have no information that says he is although I have seen some information that suggests he is on his way there,” he said.

British officials stressed that Mr Hague was referring “not to media reports but information from other channels”. “This is credible information,” said a diplomat.



Meanwhile CNN is talking about celebrities :(

[Furunculus]

“About whether Col. Gaddafi, is in Venezuela, I have no information that says he is although I have seen some information that suggests he is on his way there,”

Nice, if he wasn't on his way to Venezuela then he certainly will be now that Hague and the foreign office have leaked, briefed and tweeted this across the interwebs.

Lots of otherwise dispirited Libyans will of course be getting hot and moist at the thought that their perverse clown is beginning to lose his nerve!

Psyops or idle chit-chat, the choice is yours........

[ICantSpellDawg]

I don't beleive that he is travelling to Venezuela. Venezuela has denied it, Gaddafi's spokesman has said he is in Tripoli and that he will be making an address shortly. It's not as if any of them would lie to us...

I'd believe Hague, but if Gaddafi had left what would be the purpose of the mass killings? After the leader leaves the game is over. Gaddafi is in it for keeps and will most likely be killed at some point this week in Libya, I'd bet.

[PanzerJaeger]

The West's fear is staggering. Are we really afraid of some new Arab Caliphate as some would lead us to believe? So what if, in an unlikely scenario (my personal opinion anyway) some of the Arab nations turn to "extremist Islam"? So long as that's what the majority want, why should I care? Am I meant to believe that such new "extremist" nations would pose a threat to me in my Western citadel? If such new nations were hostile, would they threaten my way of life? The answer is no. Due to the security these days I doubt they could even attack the West seriously via terrorism.




Newly anti-Western governments in the Middle East (whether Islamic theocracies or not) can inflict serious damage on Europe and America without ever lifting a finger in violence.

The support these protests have received from much of the public and press in the West, while not surprising, is extremely shortsighted. People do not seem to realize that many if not most of these protestors hate the West only slightly less than they hate their own governments. Further, the governments that are falling are not our enemies (Iran, Syria, and Hezbollah-controlled Lebanon are fine), but some of our closest allies in the region - allies that have not only fought against radical Islam but have kept oil flowing and prices stable. Radical changes in the latter could have disastrous and far reaching consequences far greater than the 9/11 or any terrorist attack.

[Lemur]

People do not seem to realize that many if not most of these protestors hate the West only slightly less than they hate their own governments.
Certainly, in the short term our interests may be damaged. But in the long term these revolts are for the best. Autocracies are brittle things, as these protests show. Democracies/republics are generally much more stable. So we aren't popular? So what? Or to quote my favorite essay (http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2011/01/egypt_protests) on the subject: "We should be cheered when other nations start to 'find their voice', not because it is in our interests, but despite the fact that it may not be."


Radical changes in the latter could have disastrous and far reaching consequences far greater than the 9/11 or any terrorist attack.
Three thoughts:

(1) What's your alternative? More of the same for ever and ever, ad infinitum?

(2) These revolts utterly demolish the myth of Al Qaeda, that only jihad and suicide bombings can bring change. The young people bringing down their autocracies pull the rug out from under Islamist extremist ideology rather completely.

(3) Do you think the USA is in a position to prevent or shape these revolts? How so? Since these appear to be legitimate, homegrown revolutions, how would we go about preventing or squashing them? And what would be the long-term cost if we failed, but were seen to help the corrupt ancien regimes?

[Hax]

The support these protests have received from much of the public and press in the West, while not surprising, is extremely shortsighted. People do not seem to realize that many if not most of these protestors hate the West only slightly less than they hate their own governments.

That's not very likely. Most of the youth in the Arab countries of northern Africa are generally well-educated, speak English and aren't prejudiced against the West. Most of the people I met a couple of years back don't even really care about Israel and such things.

It's unlikely that new governments in these Arab countries will be anti-western. They certainly won't be America's lapdogs, but neither will they call for holy war against the great satan. Keep in mind that the Iranian line of thought is generally not followed in the Arab, Sunni-majority, post-colonial countries. And the Iranians have some very good reasons to distrust the US and UK. In the Arab world? Less so.


The support these protests have received from much of the public and press in the West, while not surprising, is extremely shortsighted.

The day I can hop on a train from Salah ad-Din's tomb in Damascus, to visit what remains of Baghdad, and going on from there to see the blue-domed mosques of Espahan to gaze upon old Buddhist remains in Mazar-i Sharif and Kabul will be the same day that the Israeli prime minister and Iranian prime minister shake hands. That day cannot come soon enough for me. But it is shortsighted to suggest that days of peace will come closer when the power lies in the hands of corrupt autocrats and their allies and not in the hands of the people.

There's a long and hard path ahead. But something tells me that's what the Founding Fathers may have said, too.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Certainly, in the short term our interests may be damaged. But in the long term these revolts are for the best. Autocracies are brittle things, as these protests show. Democracies/republics are generally much more stable. So we aren't popular? So what? Or to quote my favorite essay (http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2011/01/egypt_protests) on the subject: "We should be cheered when other nations start to 'find their voice', not because it is in our interests, but despite the fact that it may not be."

Excellent. Couldn't have said it better myself.



(3) Do you think the USA is in a position to prevent or shape these revolts? How so? Since these appear to be legitimate, homegrown revolutions, how would we go about preventing or squashing them? And what would be the long-term cost if we failed, but were seen to help the corrupt ancien regimes?

You're point about Al-Qaeda is a good one. Animals are more likely to lash out when you have them cornered and they have no options. The apple doesn't fall far from the tree with people; give them some freedom and they might not lash out at the first thing they see.

You're point about what we can actually do to stop the events is even better. We can do nothing to stop them. We don't have the legitimacy to stop them and we really don't have the ability. I'm in favor of the events for ideological reasons, but the practical reason is; what can we do? Piss the inevitable future leaders off before we even have the chance to get to know them? Lets start off on the right foot and give these people, with a rich culture and an important geopolitical position, the respect that they deserve. They are fighting our fight.


I consistently like the Muslims that I meet. I've always wondered - are they the only ones over there who are sensible? Am I missing something? These recent events have answered that question with a resounding NO! They are bright people with so many similarites and so much to offer. They aren't any more radical than I am. We are, more or less, the same.

[PanzerJaeger]

Certainly, in the short term our interests may be damaged. But in the long term these revolts are for the best. Autocracies are brittle things, as these protests show.

As are economies, ours in particular. It is all well and good to proclaim that at some point in the distant future we'll all be holding hands as democratic citizens of the world, but we are not exactly in a strong position to absorb huge shifts in oil prices in the short and medium terms.

It is also far from certain that these protests will yield actual democracies. We may just end up with similar autocratic governments, only with little interest in dealing with the West. We are no longer the only wealthy power in the world willing to trade support for advantageous oil and trade deals.


So we aren't popular? So what?

So we may find ourselves in an even more strategically disadvantageous position in the region than we already are. Crude was up 6% today. We may not pay for these revolutions in blood, but we certainly will in treasure.



(1) What's your alternative? More of the same for ever and ever, ad infinitum?

Yes. Back when I was young and dumb I bought into idealist notions of the benefits of a democratic Middle East, but the results have been less than positive. At this point, realpolitik and national self interest trump such romanticism.


(2) These revolts utterly demolish the myth of Al Qaeda, that only jihad and suicide bombings can bring change. The young people bringing down their autocracies pull the rug out from under Islamist extremist ideology rather completely.

Or it simply validates the Al Qaeda position that pro-Western leaders in Muslim nations must be violently overthrown. I don't think either you or I are in a position to say how these events will shape opinions in the region.


(3) Do you think the USA is in a position to prevent or shape these revolts?

No, I just don't think they are anything to celebrate.

[ICantSpellDawg]

No, I just don't think they are anything to celebrate.

Nonsense.

Next 4th of July? You aren't invited.

[Ronin]

Nonsense.

Next 4th of July? You aren't invited.

I have to agree with Panzer here......it is not clear how this will turn out.....there is nothing to celebrate at this point.
and frankly the "chearleader" mentality I see the western media take towards these events is disturbing to say the least.

[PanzerJaeger]

Nonsense.

Next 4th of July? You aren't invited.

We shall see. The American founders were unique in their commitment to the (albeit limited) form of democracy they established, even when they did not get what they wanted. Most revolutions do not turn out so well. The real test of democracy does not occur in the revolution itself, but when disagreements emerge between the victorious revolutionaries.

[Hax]

So we may find ourselves in an even more strategically disadvantageous position in the region than we already are. Crude was up 6% today. We may not pay for these revolutions in blood, but we certainly will in treasure.

Ah, good, so now we've something to spend all the money we were giving Mubarak on!


Yes. Back when I was young and dumb I bought into idealist notions of the benefits of a democratic Middle East, but the results have been less than positive. At this point, realpolitik and national self interest trump such romanticism.

Okay, regardless from your age, let's talk about something different. How involved have you been when it comes to the Middle East? Do you regularly speak people from Yemen, Oman, Egypt or Algeria? Have you ever been to Lebanon, Syria or Morocco? Do you check on events happening as they are in the Middle East, even when there's not that much to report? Do you visit congresses or talk with opposition leaders in exile?

There's been a struggle for freedom longer than just today, you know. The only alternative is not al-Zarqawi or bin Laden. It's not a choice between radical, sword-swinging, kalashnikov-wielding afghan jihadis. There's a sizeable intellectual, young, and generally well-educated movement.

Strategically, it's even dumber to suggest that it's in the best interests to support your frenemies. It's what the US did when Khomeini returned to Iran, and you know, that worked out quite well. Y'know, if you can look over the use of chemical weapons on the battlefield, something not seen since World War I. Maybe if we'd condemned Iraq then, and there, the Iranian people would have no reason to hate the US. Or when the Kurds got slaughtered Halabja and the blame was put on Iran. Maybe if we'd listen to Robert Fisk and his colleagues, Ahmadinejad wouldn't have been elected in the first place. Wouldn't have been necessary.

There's no moral high ground to take anymore, and you know it as well as I do. The Libyans know, the Egyptians know, the Tunisians know and the Yemenis know too. It's time for people to deal mano-a-mano. Like real people. Not master to servant, but man to man. Or woman to woman! I'd support that, too.

[Husar]

Well, these people have been revolting because they had no jobs, useless degrees and their leaders kept all the money.

And now I'm supposed to think that after the revolt they decide to stop all trade with the west, live in even greater poverty and restriction and start a war with us?
They could've just saved themselves the revolts and joined some terrorist organization if they had wanted that...
Funnily enough their relatives who came here thinking our western countries are a better place to live seem to cheer for them.

A bit different however are all the Tunisians who try to migrate to Italy now, they still see no economic future in their country and want to make a future in Europe now.
Our minister of interior actually said they should go back and help build up their own country now that they fought for their freedom, something I have to agree with.

[PanzerJaeger]

Ah, good, so now we've something to spend all the money we were giving Mubarak on!

$1.5 billion a year is so miniscule as to be rendered completely irrelevant in comparison to the damage even a 1% increase in oil prices inflicts on Western economies.



Okay, regardless from your age, let's talk about something different. How involved have you been when it comes to the Middle East? Do you regularly speak people from Yemen, Oman, Egypt or Algeria? Have you ever been to Lebanon, Syria or Morocco? Do you check on events happening as they are in the Middle East, even when there's not that much to report? Do you visit congresses or talk with opposition leaders in exile?

I follow events in the Middle East closely. I have not talked to opposition leaders in exile, though. :laugh4:



There's been a struggle for freedom longer than just today, you know. The only alternative is not al-Zarqawi or bin Laden. It's not a choice between radical, sword-swinging, kalashnikov-wielding afghan jihadis.

I understand that. I never insinuated that Al Qaeda would come to power in any of these countries. What is likely, however, is that whatever governments come to power will be significantly less favorable to the West.



There's a sizeable intellectual, young, and generally well-educated movement.

There are also throngs of uneducated, highly religious, and easily manipulated people who are more interested in their standard of living than democracy. These protests are just as much about economic conditions as political ones, and people who have grown up in autocracy are often just as willing to accept a new autocracy that promises change than a democracy that promises change. Witness Iran.



Strategically, it's even dumber to suggest that it's in the best interests to support your frenemies.

Is it? Now it is my turn to ask you if you are fully educated on the beneficial relationship the West has enjoyed with these countries for the last 60 years. Every American president, Democrat or Republican, has understood it and gone to great lengths to protect it. Few realize how much Western and particularly American economic growth has been subsidized by very favorable oil prices.



It's what the US did when Khomeini returned to Iran, and you know, that worked out quite well. Y'know, if you can look over the use of chemical weapons on the battlefield, something not seen since World War I. Maybe if we'd condemned Iraq then, and there, the Iranian people would have no reason to hate the US. Or when the Kurds got slaughtered Halabja and the blame was put on Iran. Maybe if we'd listen to Robert Fisk and his colleagues, Ahmadinejad wouldn't have been elected in the first place. Wouldn't have been necessary.

Focusing on Iran misses the half-dozen other nations where Western influence has proved highly beneficial.



There's no moral high ground to take anymore, and you know it as well as I do. The Libyans know, the Egyptians know, the Tunisians know and the Yemenis know too. It's time for people to deal mano-a-mano. Like real people. Not master to servant, but man to man. Or woman to woman! I'd support that, too.

That is the problem. You can bet the Chinese, Russians, Indians, Brazilians and many other countries are lined up in Egypt to make deals (and who would blame them?). We're losing the preferential treatment that has underpinned much of our post-WW2 growth. That may be unavoidable but it is nothing to be jubilant about.

[ICantSpellDawg]

What is likely, however, is that whatever governments come to power will be significantly less favorable to the West.


Are you trolling, or do you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about? You are insinuating that the west will be better off with Qaddafi than any other middle eastern leader chosen at random? He is a madman who has plagued both his people and us while financing terrorism for 30 years. All we need is someone who works in his countries interest and is not completely insane - not too high of a bar. After a few years oil prices will stabilize after more democratic leaders settle in.




There are also throngs of uneducated, highly religious, and easily manipulated people who are more interested in their standard of living than democracy.


Welcome to the United States... My boss believes that the God left fossils in the earth to throw us off and trick us into believing that the world is 4.5672 ± 0.0006 billion years ago when it is actually only a few thousand years old. He also wants to see a Christian theocracy under the leadership of Mike Huckabee. This is NY, imagine what others might think.



These protests are just as much about economic conditions as political ones, and people who have grown up in autocracy are often just as willing to accept a new autocracy that promises change than a democracy that promises change. Witness Iran.
That is the problem. You can bet the Chinese, Russians, Indians, Brazilians and many other countries are lined up in Egypt to make deals (and who would blame them?). We're losing the preferential treatment that has underpinned much of our post-WW2 growth. That may be unavoidable but it is nothing to be jubilant about


The jig is up, the free ride is over. It's time to build our economy on true(-er) capitalism rather than exploitation theory. You are the same guy who defends the Third Reich and wished we had never declared war on Germany. Knock it off, this is a good development. Iran's revolution was over 30 years ago, the world was VERY different then. Take another look at the opposition in Iran today. They would beg to differ with your assessment. There is a time for cynicism and this, of all times, is not it.

[PanzerJaeger]

Are you trolling, or do you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about? You are insinuating that the west will be better off with Qaddafi than any other middle eastern leader chosen at random? He is a madman who has plagued both his people and us while financing terrorism for 30 years. All we need is someone who works in his countries interest and is not completely insane - not too high of a bar.

I must ask you the same question. Are you familiar with Qaddafi's recent history? Do you know that after 9/11 he condemned the attacks as an act of terrorism and urged Libyans to donate blood for the US victims? Do you know that he dismantled his weapons of mass destruction programs? Do you know that he rejected international terrorism and paid compensation to the Lockerbie victims and others? Most importantly, do you know that Libya exports over 100,000 barrels of oil to the United States each day? His exports to Europe are far larger.

Qaddafi is no saint, as the past few days have shown, but he normalized relations with the West and has been a stable trading partner ever since. I don't particularly care if he's using his Migs on protestors as long as he keeps the spigot on and the terrorists out. It's a horror. It's a tragedy. It is not my problem.



After a few years oil prices will stabilize after more democratic leaders settle in.

You have no way of knowing how this will effect oil prices in the long term. All that is certain is that it is having a negative effect on them now.



Welcome to the United States... My boss believes that the God left fossils in the earth to throw us off and trick us into believing that the world is 4.5672 ± 0.0006 billion years ago when it is actually only a few thousand years old. He also wants to see a Christian theocracy under the leadership of Mike Huckabee. This is NY, imagine what others might think.

Ok.



The jig is up, the free ride is over. It's time to build our economy on true(-er) capitalism rather than exploitation theory.

Tell that to China, which is buying unstable little third world countries all across the world. Idealism is great, until you lose your job because your company cannot afford to ship its merchandise throughout the country.



You are the same guy who defends the Third Reich and wished we had never declared war on Germany.

I am sorry that you don't like my opinion on the Libyan situation, but I don't know what this, which is not accurate, has to do with anything. :shrug:



Knock it off, this is a good development. Iran's revolution was over 30 years ago, the world was VERY different then. Take another look at the opposition in Iran today. They would beg to differ with your assessment. There is a time for cynicism and this, of all times, is not it.

Realism, not cynicism.

The success of revolutions in creating real representative democracies is not at all certain. Who is in charge of Egypt and Tunisia today?

[Strike For The South]

Panzer telling it like it is and hes getting crucified

Well I don't share some of the fatalist sentiments it would behoove all of us to at least ackknoweldge these possibilities

[Crazed Rabbit]

Yes. Back when I was young and dumb I bought into idealist notions of the benefits of a democratic Middle East, but the results have been less than positive. At this point, realpolitik and national self interest trump such romanticism.

Bah. It was realpolitik - the dictatorships we supported in the name of stability - who caused the conditions that started these protests.

It is inevitable that such regimes will fall. The question is if we want the people who come into power afterwards to hate us for supporting the oppression.

CR

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Why on earth would the deciding factor on whether this is a good thing or not be whether it benefits us?

[Crazed Rabbit]

It's not.

CR

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Sorry :embarassed:

Was replying to PJ not you.

[PanzerJaeger]

It is inevitable that such regimes will fall. The question is if we want the people who come into power afterwards to hate us for supporting the oppression.


I'm not sure that we have much choice in the matter.



Why on earth would the deciding factor on whether this is a good thing or not be whether it benefits us?

I'm not discussing the objective goodness or badness of the situation, only its realistic outcomes – both in the individual countries and in the West. I'm not optimistic that these revolutions will yield actual representative democracies, and it is hard to conceive of an outcome that will be as favorable to the West as the old order. Hopefully I am wrong.

[Furunculus]

frankly i don't believe its worth getting to worked over the possibility that that which-comes-after will be more unstable and less sympathetic to our western interests.

my message:

"we wish you well and will support your legitimate endeavours in every way possible, but understand this; we exist in a westphalian world where a nation-state can expect no interference in its internal affairs, on the proviso that it does not meddle in the internal affairs of others and maintains a monopoly on violence so that its territory cannot be used to the same ends. short answer; be good and receive much aid, but, be bad and we'll rain cruise missiles down upon your benighted heads!"

[aimlesswanderer]

To me, the people who say that hundreds of millions of people should suffer and be oppressed by western friendly dictators just so that I can have cheap oil and short term stability are rather selfish. Why should people suffer just so that I can live my relatively luxurious lifestyle? While it would be nice if I could live a prosperous, stable life free from worry, I personally do not want that to be underwritten by vast amounts of brutality and cruelty. Some people may be able to ignore the unfortunate underpinnings of their easy lives, but I cannot. And if you were one of those who were brutally oppressed, just so that Americans can have cheap petrol, how would you feel?

So, say the price of oil goes through the roof. Yes, it will mean the Australian economy will take a hit, but we'd better get used to higher energy prices as oil is running out anyway, while demand is increasing. We need to be smarter with how we use and generate our energy, and it's better to start sooner rather than later.

And, as I think is most likely, if the newly free countries (or most of them) can get themselves organised in a decade or so, the world will be a much improved place. Imagine a Middle East mostly free and mostly democratic, and not a hotbed for extremism. That has got to be a good thing for everyone.

[Furunculus]

the sandal-throwers instability index of the ME:

http://www.economist.com/blogs/multimedia/2011/02/unrest_arab_world

[rory_20_uk]

To me, the people who say that hundreds of millions of people should suffer and be oppressed by western friendly dictators just so that I can have cheap oil and short term stability are rather selfish. Why should people suffer just so that I can live my relatively luxurious lifestyle? While it would be nice if I could live a prosperous, stable life free from worry, I personally do not want that to be underwritten by vast amounts of brutality and cruelty. Some people may be able to ignore the unfortunate underpinnings of their easy lives, but I cannot. And if you were one of those who were brutally oppressed, just so that Americans can have cheap petrol, how would you feel?

So, say the price of oil goes through the roof. Yes, it will mean the Australian economy will take a hit, but we'd better get used to higher energy prices as oil is running out anyway, while demand is increasing. We need to be smarter with how we use and generate our energy, and it's better to start sooner rather than later.

And, as I think is most likely, if the newly free countries (or most of them) can get themselves organised in a decade or so, the world will be a much improved place. Imagine a Middle East mostly free and mostly democratic, and not a hotbed for extremism. That has got to be a good thing for everyone.

Playing Devil's Advocate, the rise in Oil would cause massive instability around the globe, possibly leading to insurrection in countries such as Pakistan, India, China and large protests in Europe, America and elsewhere as commodity prices skyrocket and people's standard of living takes a hit for reasons that they can not see/understand and care little about.

~:smoking:

[al Roumi]

Playing Devil's Advocate, the rise in Oil food would cause massive instability around the globe, possibly leading to insurrection in countries such as Pakistan, India, China and large protests in Europe, America and elsewhere as commodity prices skyrocket and people's standard of living takes a hit for reasons that they can not see/understand and care little about.

Fixed.

My opinion of the members of the Org has increased with the posts here saying that this is NOT ABOUT THE WEST.

[Hax]

Let's be very clear about Iran. The reason why the Iranian people easily slid into an Shi'ite theocracy had several reasons. We should not forget that before Operation Ajax in 1953, Iran was already a democracy. The SAVAK weren't the nicest people around (quite the contrary), but at least the people were able to vote on several different parties. So when Mohammad Mossadegh, an excellent diplomat and widely admired, both domestically and internatioanlly became the Iranian prime minister, people were generally happy. But apparently, British Petroleum wasn't really happy with the idea that he might nationalise Iran's oil companies. The result? Mossadegh's government was overthrown and he was forced to leave the country, to Paris, where he died in exile some years later.

And so the Shah's grip of the country was tightened for the +/-20 years he'd still be in power. If I were an Iranian at that time, I wouldn't have that much trust in democracy anymore. Especially not after seeing how the democratically elected, popular prime minister of the country was overthrown by the very nation that presented itself as the defender of democracy in the world. Although it should be made clear that even as crowds of people chanted "God is Great" from the rooftops, there were still forces in Iran who proposed a secular constitution, most notably Mehdi Bazargan, who wanted to run for president in 1985 but was denied.

In fact, it's a wonder that Iran still has a semblance of a democratic structure after the traumatising events of 1953. And you know what, it didn't even have to come that far. Even the feared Khomeini had written a letter to one of the leading Ayatollahs in Iran back in the fifties, with a request to support the Shah. It took a while before the erotic-poetry writing Khomeini took such a hard stance on the Shah. The worst part is when you think that it could've been avoided. Not just the Iranian theocracy, but the hostage crisis, the chain murders and many other events that happened in the wake of Khomeini's rise to power. And to put it in the words of an Iranian girl that studied journalism in the US:

'In the United States, we learned all about liberty and democracy and the freedom to say what we wanted to say. Yet America went won propping up the Shah and forcing him to squander Iran's wealth on arms. Why did it do that? Why was America a democracy at home and a dictator abroad?'

[rory_20_uk]

The topic was based on oil, yet you've crossed that out. Fixed, or screwed up?

I hate to break it to you, but things in the world are interconnected: military planes have deserted to the west, demands are made of the west.

To be honest if your opinion is based merely on those that are ignoring the West are better I'm not hankering for your approval.

~:smoking:

[ICantSpellDawg]

If you REALLY want to get selfish, instability on a global scale would return quite a bit of confidence in the U.S. Stick that in your pipes and smoke it. I'm waiting for a controlled collapse of China. Our greatest boom time came after th world destroyed itself during WW2. Jobs would return at the same time as the dollar appreciates. A terminal collapse of the status quo outside of the U.S. will benefit us in the long term.

Plus, it has the added weight of being what's right.The really scary outcome is brutal and repressive regimes becoming powerful. Surround yourself with enough autocrats and you'll fall yourself. It is better practice to encourage freedom all around you.

[al Roumi]

Another "realist", Dmitiry Medvedev, has come out with this:

Russian president Dmitry Medvedev does not appear to be joining the condemnation of the violent crackdown on protesters in Libya. Instead he has issued a warning about "decades of instability" in the Arab world if protesters whom he calls "fanatics" come to power, adding no similar scenario would be permitted in Russia.

"These states are not simple and it is quite likely that complicated developments may occur, including the rise of fanatics to power - this would mean decades of flames and the spread of extremism, let's look the truth in the eye," Medvedev was quoted as saying.
"They prepared such a scenario for us before and... they are trying to do it now. In any case, this attempt will fail," Medvedev told security officials in Vladikavkaz, a city in Russia's North Caucasus.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/blog/2011/feb/22/libya-erupts-gaddafi-live-updates#block-21

[al Roumi]

The topic was based on oil, yet you've crossed that out. Fixed, or screwed up?

I hate to break it to you, but things in the world are interconnected: military planes have deserted to the west, demands are made of the west.

To be honest if your opinion is based merely on those that are ignoring the West are better I'm not hankering for your approval.

Oh dear, sorry Rory.

Edit:

While I can but agree that oil prices do affect almost everything, the welfare of people in the first few countries you listed is more susceptible to hikes in food prices than oil.

For example, the following news from Syria today, where the govt must be feeling the heat in some way (i wonder how? :wink:) to be quite so un-characteristicaly generous and responsive to the needs of their population (also note the mention of public sector workers' heating bills):


DAMASCUS, 22 February 2011 (IRIN) - Syria's decision to make cash payments to thousands of vulnerable families and reduce some taxes could help stem food insecurity and rising poverty, but many still do not have enough to eat, say experts.

Payments have begun to be made from a new fund designed to help 420,000 vulnerable families. The National Social Aid Fund has been in the pipeline for several years, was set up in January and made its first payments on 13 February.

Two days later, the government reduced duties on a range of basic foodstuffs including rice, tea, powdered milk, coffee and bananas. It also lowered taxes on vegetable oil, margarine, unroasted coffee and sugar.

Shortly after the ouster of Tunisian President Zine El Abidine Ben Ali on 14 January, the government also announced a 72 percent rise in heating fuel subsidies for public sector employees.

"Traditionally the Middle East and North Africa has been relatively food secure,” said Arne Oshaug, a nutrition and food security expert at Akershus University College in Norway. “But many countries now produce less and rely on imports which are subject to price fluctuations.”

This is beginning to affect more affluent people too. An index of food vulnerability by Nomura, a Japanese investment house, found that on average 47.9 percent of household income is spent on food in Syria.

"When people spend so much of their income on food, a slight variation in the price can upset their ability to eat enough to avoid hunger,” said Oshaug.

Syria is faced with decreasing oil reserves and a growing population, limiting its options. Food prices have been rising and at the same time some subsidies, such as on fuel, have decreased.

"It's very hard to survive,” said one herder on the outskirts of Damascus. “We can barely afford the basics of tea, bread and sugar.”

http://www.irinnews.org/Report.aspx?ReportID=91999

[ICantSpellDawg]

Another "realist", Dmitiry Medvedev, has come out with this:

Russian president Dmitry Medvedev does not appear to be joining the condemnation of the violent crackdown on protesters in Libya. Instead he has issued a warning about "decades of instability" in the Arab world if protesters whom he calls "fanatics" come to power, adding no similar scenario would be permitted in Russia.

"These states are not simple and it is quite likely that complicated developments may occur, including the rise of fanatics to power - this would mean decades of flames and the spread of extremism, let's look the truth in the eye," Medvedev was quoted as saying.
"They prepared such a scenario for us before and... they are trying to do it now. In any case, this attempt will fail," Medvedev told security officials in Vladikavkaz, a city in Russia's North Caucasus.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/blog/2011/feb/22/libya-erupts-gaddafi-live-updates#block-21

Sounds like he's channeling PanzerJaeger. Scaremongers the lot of them. People who sacrifice freedom for security will end up with neither, as the old cliche goes. The difference is that Medvedev and other un-democratic leaders have something to gain by their misguided cynicism, PJ just looks gullible.

[al Roumi]

The difference is that Medvedev and other un-democratic leaders have something to gain by their misguided cynicism, PJ just looks gullible.

...or like a (crypto?) fascist.

In China too, their reporting of the uprisings in Tunisia and Egypt has always carried strong messages about how bad and dangerous the instability is. What a surprise.

[Strike For The South]

If you can't see the difference between PJs tempering of spirits and the Russian prime minsters vieled threat to the federations Islamic enclaves than there is no hope for either of you

I love democracy and am glad this is happening but I am fully aware that it could hamper US policy goals in the region

Granted, most of what we do falls under neo colonialism so can't say I'd be to upset

[gaelic cowboy]

The real test of democracy does not occur in the revolution itself, but when disagreements emerge between the victorious revolutionaries.

In your own American Revolution there must have been litterally thousands of people burned out of there homes after as loyalists, we could probably tick the same boxes about that revolution as many are about the present one in the Middle East.

The point is it is a bit early to be rubbishing these peoples efforts, if they do fall under dictatorship then it is there loss.

[Fragony]

Go Libya. I am watching all this with great pleasure despite the loss of life. Don't think I would have their cojones.

[ICantSpellDawg]

There is concern and then there is the other side. I am concerned but hopefull and I support the endeavor. PJ opposes revolutions in the middle east and apoligizes for dictators. He is sayign that we should support our "friends" because they help to make us richer.

This position is anachronistic and morally bankrupt under the guise of "realism". The reality is that there is a wave of revolution spreading, we have no way to stop it and there are ways of using it to our advantage without hurting civilians tryign to catch a break.

[Lemur]

It is unfair to equate PJ's comments with those of the kleptocrats in Russia. PJ is urging realism and caution, and reacting against the (predictable and typically American) euphoria that has gripped a lot of my countrymen and women. And it's true, Americans are suckers for anyone rising up and doing their best Braveheart impression (http://www.hark.com/clips/swbwyqfcpc-they-may-take-our-lives-but-theyll-never-take-our-freedom). It's a national weakness, granted.

Now, I disagree with PJ's position, but I think you, TuffStuff, are putting proto-fascist sentiment where none was expressed. He's suggesting that the changes taking place may not be in our best interests. This is true. He's saying that revolutions often get really bad, sometimes becoming worse than what they replaced. This is also true. He's saying that the regions experiencing violent change sit on an awful lot of the world's oil supply, and that any disruption to that supply would be jolting, destructive and hard on the same western democracies cheerleading the revolutions. This is true. He's pointing out that the autocracies falling have been nominally pro-western, while the generally anti-western autocracies (Syria, Iran) are standing firm for the moment. This is all true.

And yet, and yet, and yet. The status quo is unsustainable, the people have discovered their power, and there's no going back. So on the basis of the facts on the ground, PJ's perspective is useless. It's like looking at modern-day Russia and wishing that the Soviet Union were back. Fine, wish for it, enumerate all the ways a single, monolithic enemy was more manageable than a multi-polar world. Or better yet, why not wish for the Czars? You can make plenty of valid points about how much better things were under Peter the Great. As a guide to action and what the west should do? Pointless.

Lastly, I can't believe nobody has referenced the classic revolution-gone-wrong song:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B5yymadwxj8

-edit-

Lastly, I would strongly recommend that PJ and TuffStuff and anyone interested in this read the following article (http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2011/02/how-qaddafi-lost-libya.html), which does a very good job of outlining why the status quo is unsustainable:


Libya is North Africa’s most prosperous country, given its tremendous oil wealth and small population. Yet most Libyans live in deplorable conditions. The state provides little by way of civil society and does not take care of even the most basic government obligations. There are police to control people who stray from supporting the Leader, but there is little else. As a housing crisis has escalated in the past few years, the regime has made no effort to provide adequate public accommodation. Wealth is concentrated in the hands of the very few. It would have been easy for Qaddafi to raise the standard of living for the population as a whole either by creating a sustainable non-oil economy or simply by distributing some portion of oil revenues, but he chose to do neither. [...]

When a third of the population is under fifteen and a further large proportion is under twenty-five, the young become central to coherent governance. Qaddafi has stuck with his old cronies, and has not taken on board the nature of the widespread discontent. The most obvious problem here, as in much of the Middle East, is vast youth unemployment, for the amelioration of which there are no programs at all. Qaddafi has never made any attempt to reach out to disgruntled youth, and they feel that their voices are not heard and carry no weight.

[tibilicus]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12544624

A speech from "the prophet" himself. We all knew he had some screws loose but hes literally lost it.

[ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88]

So Our Libya leader friend wants to die a martyr? Then lets send him a medal then! :laugh4:

[PanzerJaeger]

Sounds like he's channeling PanzerJaeger. Scaremongers the lot of them. People who sacrifice freedom for security will end up with neither, as the old cliche goes. The difference is that Medvedev and other un-democratic leaders have something to gain by their misguided cynicism, PJ just looks gullible.

Ad hominems, appeals to emotion, and righteous indignation have never had much effect on me.

It is great that you are excited about these rebellions. I find it more difficult to applaud actions that result in diminished Western influence and greater instability in a critical region of the world, and all for less than certain outcomes. :shrug:

Hopefully it will all work out, and I’m not advocating that we should take action to suppress these people. President Obama has actually done a good job in dealing with the situation. He has essentially told our allies behind the scenes that if they can reign in their dissidents we will continue our relationship with them, while being quick to jump ship when it is certain that the government would fall – making it appear like we’ve been on the side of the dissidents the whole time. Hopefully that will engender some pro-American sentiments.

[Rhyfelwyr]

The fact that the protestors have dubbed their new state "The Islamic Emirate of Benghazi" isn't exactly encouraging.

Also, it sounds like the conflict in Libya is more complicated than in Egypt, it seems Libya is less of a coherent nation state, and tribalism has as much to do with deciding loyalties as political ideology does.

If you think about it, Libya meets none of the preconditions for making a healthy democracy (little economic development, no civil society to speak of, etc), so I wouldn't get too optimistic. Likewise for Bahrain.

Egypt and Tunisia on the other hand look much more promising...

[gaelic cowboy]

Well if you look at a topographic and then major population center maps the country looks like its divided into three, if your only looking after your own tribe as apparently Gadaffi was then your asking for trouble.

[Rahwana]

I still had my symphaty with Khaddafi, he try his best to quashing a rebellion, not merely killing civilians.

What happened now is almost the same with China's Tinanmen things, one time "brutality" will be forgetted in less than 10 years

[Idaho]

The fact that the protestors have dubbed their new state "The Islamic Emirate of Benghazi" isn't exactly encouraging.

I wouldn't get all riled up just yet :laugh4:

[HoreTore]

I still had my symphaty with Khaddafi, he try his best to quashing a rebellion, not merely killing civilians.

What happened now is almost the same with China's Tinanmen things, one time "brutality" will be forgetted in less than 10 years

Are you serious.....?

Rhy: "emirate" is because they want a return of the monarchy. "islamic" is because they want to distance themselves from Ghaddafi's policies, ie. his weird version of political islam.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Gaddafi's rant of yesterday was true stereotype-insane-dictator comedy gold. Every cliché in the book, (Green Book, obviously) with a nice riff on my personal favourite of the "personally fight to the last drop of blood and bullet" routine.

I am not one who favours extra-judicial murders but Gaddafi is not someone I would mourn should he be swinging from a date palm later this week. I would hope that the one intervention the West must make is to pledge that whichever rat-hole he intends to run away to, we intercept his transport and put him on trial in the Hague. It shouldn't be long now as the army seems to be deserting him - including his trusted Minister of the Interior.

[Strike For The South]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12550326


Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah has announced increased benefits for his citizens, as he returned after months abroad getting medical treatment.
There will be extra funds for housing, studying abroad and social security, according to state television.

[al Roumi]

Ad hominems, appeals to emotion, and righteous indignation

Are they though really? Your posts here speak of a singular concern for the US' interests and, what I can only interpret as, conscious disregard for the greater issue at hand, which is quite plainly about the plight and self determination of a different people.

Furthermore, your frank acceptance of what looks very much like an "any means neccessary" approach to securing and maintaining US interests around the world is, IMHO, a moraly bankrupt and appalingly callous position.

At least you are honest about it. :shrug:

[ICantSpellDawg]

Gaddafi has built his house on sand. He is surrounded by mercenaries and mad-men at this point. Quintuple whatever he is paying his soldiers for the first guy to turn the gun on Muammar.

Gaddafi seems to have solid control over Tripoli at this point. The concern is that since this is really now a civil war rather than any sort of demonstration, it sould go on for a week, a month or longer. Hopefully, since the economic powerhouse exists in the East and Gaddafi has lost any semblance of respect from his own people, the paid murderers will catch on quickly that the blood money is going to dry up before they can leave the country.

[Idaho]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12550326

The house of Saud must be bricking it atm.

[al Roumi]

You might have thought so but not much seems to be stirring so far afaik. I read somewhere this morning that a facebook page has been created calling for a day of rage in the Kingdom on March 11, but that only 500 people had signed up to it and there was no-guaranteee that they were even in Saudi.

edit: that's not neccessarily an indicator of anything much though really :smile:

[ICantSpellDawg]

Sharting half liquid bricks?

[Rhyfelwyr]

Sharting

I just heard what that actually meant not long ago.... WHY???

[ICantSpellDawg]

Why can't the NRA give some money to have guns airdropped into Libya?

****Warning - extremely graphic content not suitable for watching while at work.

Edit: Removed. BG

People need to see what is going on. You can't post it on facebook, I figured that the backroom was the only place it was appropriate.

Sorry, Tuff, it is long-standing Backroom policy that forbids the posting of graphic scenes of death. It's perfectly possible for members to search youtube and similar sites if they wish to view the atrocities being committed in Libya. BG

[ICantSpellDawg]

can I send it to peoples private account?

[Viking]

Pretty fascinating video from CNN in Benghazi: http://edition.cnn.com/video/?/video/world/2011/02/24/wedeman.benghazi.voices.cnn

In stark contrast to the initial YT videos from the city showing scenes of violence.

[edyzmedieval]

Gadhafi accused al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden of being behind the uprising

The irony of the situation is just too much to bear.

[Banquo's Ghost]

can I send it to peoples private account?

Private Messages are just that - private. I wouldn't recommend spamming people but if they ask, or you feel you know them well enough that they might be interested, of course you can PM your links. :bow:

[Rahwana]

Are you serious.....?

Rhy: "emirate" is because they want a return of the monarchy. "islamic" is because they want to distance themselves from Ghaddafi's policies, ie. his weird version of political islam.

I admit that Khaddafi had a weird mix of political Islam, but he was the head of the country nonetheless, and his subjects are obliged to obey his rule, or change through democratic or bueraucratic means. Trying to undermine his regime, no matter morally right or wrong is a rebellion.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The fact that the protestors have dubbed their new state "The Islamic Emirate of Benghazi" isn't exactly encouraging.

Also, it sounds like the conflict in Libya is more complicated than in Egypt, it seems Libya is less of a coherent nation state, and tribalism has as much to do with deciding loyalties as political ideology does.

If you think about it, Libya meets none of the preconditions for making a healthy democracy (little economic development, no civil society to speak of, etc), so I wouldn't get too optimistic. Likewise for Bahrain.

Egypt and Tunisia on the other hand look much more promising...

I think this is a fair assessment as far as it goes, American enthusiasm notwithstanding, it is unlikely that Libys will produce a stable democracy in the short term. The best we can hope for I would think is a monarchistic/oligiastic state which keeps a lighter hand on the plebs and gives them forums to air their grievences.

however, there is the additional problem that as Gaddafi seems to embody the worst of Tiberius and Nero there is an extreme shortage of capable statesmen to create such a settlement. So we could have another Somalia on our hands, or Libya could fracture into petty-states that eventually get swallowed up by their neighbours.


I admit that Khaddafi had a weird mix of political Islam, but he was the head of the country nonetheless, and his subjects are obliged to obey his rule, or change through democratic or bueraucratic means. Trying to undermine his regime, no matter morally right or wrong is a rebellion.

Basic Greek, Christian and Islamic political theory says that a ruler is only legitimate so long as he is tollerated by his people. A ruler who has lost the support of his people as Gaddafi has no longer has temporal or spiritual authority.

As they say, "Even God has abandoned him".

[Furunculus]

I admit that Khaddafi had a weird mix of political Islam, but he was the head of the country nonetheless, and his subjects are obliged to obey his rule, or change through democratic or bueraucratic means. Trying to undermine his regime, no matter morally right or wrong is a rebellion.
if he is not deemed to be representative and accountable to his people then his rule is not legitimate.

open season, no duty of loyalty owed.

[Hax]

The fact that the protestors have dubbed their new state "The Islamic Emirate of Benghazi" isn't exactly encouraging.Is there actually any proof for this? Wasn't it Seif al-Islam Ghaddafi that mentioned it for the first time? Wasn't it based on rumours? Didn't the Italian minister of Foreign Affairs pick up on it?

I saw references to this "Islamic Emirate of Benghazi" a couple of days back on al-Jazeera, but they were just re-broadcasting the Italian state television. Is it based on rumours? Propaganda? Because you know how Ghaddafi would try to get his support from the west? By pretending there's an Islamic state on the rise. The results when I google "Islamic Emirate of Benghazi" on Google News (http://news.google.co.uk/news/search?aq=f&pz=1&cf=all&ned=uk&hl=en&q=Islamic+emirate+of+Benghazi):


In his third address to the nation in five days, Colonel Gaddafi said al-Qa'ida leader Osama Bin Laden wanted to establish "an Islamic emirate" in Libya. "No sane person" would be part of the battle for Az Zawiyah, he said. While his first address was...



Besides Benghazi, Cyrenaica, Derna, Bayda and Misurata are believed to have fallen to the opposition. On Wednesday Libyan Deputy Foreign Minister Khaled Khaim told EU ambassadors that members of the al-Qaida terror outfit had set up an Islamic emirate ...



He said there was "an urgent need" for "national reconciliation," underlining he was "extremely concerned about the self-proclamation of the so-called Islamic Emirate of Benghazi. "This would be a really serious threat," he said. ...

But then, one post later:


For his part, Deputy Foreign Minister Khaled Khaim said Al-Qaeda had set up an Islamic emirate in Derna, between Tobruk and Benghazi, headed by a former Guantanamo Bay inmate. But residents in the city told reporters there was no substance to the reports, which they said the Libyan government was sowing to “scare Europe.”Aaah...no wonder people are so afraid. Come on, look at the posts here: "Well, if there is an Islamic theocracy/emirate/whatever on the rise, maybe Gaddafi isn't so bad after all. To think that we're supposed to be the greatest proponents of democracy in the world. It's embarassing.

EDIT: Ah, the only news source that tries to tell the contrary (http://frontpagemag.com/2011/02/25/the-islamic-republic-of-libya/) is "Front Page Magazine". You know, headed by David Horowitz. In the same page, there's an ad calling for Americans to "help us stop Obama's horrendous transformation of America". So yeah. In their defense though, they didn't say so much about the horrendous rising Libyan-born Islamo-fascist caliphate of doom, but rather about the fact that a rebel group had seized a large stash of weapons. Which is a different story.

As for the ex-Guantanamo detainee who's supposed to be heading this "Islamic Emirate of Benghazi" stated:


"I am, Abdul Hakeem Al Hasadi, a Libyan citizen and a former political prisoner. I would like to read the following statement in response to lies made by Dictator Gaddafi and his propaganda machine. I tell them that I am one of the participants in the revolution of Feb 17th along with the youth and people of Derna against the corrupt regime of Gaddafi.

"Gaddafi is trying to divide the people of the nation. He claims that there is an Islamist Emirate in Derna and that I am its Emir. He is taking advantage from the fact that I am a former political prisoner."

And then this:


If you think about it, Libya meets none of the preconditions for making a healthy democracy (little economic development, no civil society to speak of, etc), so I wouldn't get too optimistic. Likewise for Bahrain.

Uhuh. Bahrain, the Arab world's fastest growing economy. We're talking about Bahrain, not Somalia. Where did you get your information from again? As for civil society, I'll just quote this little thing:


Bahrain is sometimes described as "Middle East lite" because it combines modern infrastructure with a Persian Gulf identity and, unlike other countries in the region, its prosperity is not solely a reflection of the size of its oil wealth, but is also related to the creation of an indigenous middle class. This unique socioeconomic development in the Persian Gulf has meant that Bahrain is generally more liberal than its neighbours. While Islam is the main religion, Bahrainis have been known for their tolerance, and churches, Hindu temples, Sikh Gurdwara and a Jewish synagogue can be found alongside mosques. The country is home to several communities that have faced persecution elsewhere.

Absolutely no traces of civil society, obviously.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Calm yourself Hax, all I said regarding the "Islamic Emirate of Benghazi" is what I heard, I didn't claim it was absolutely correct, my post had a pretty cautious tone.

It makes sense what you are saying about Gaddafi spinning things that way, given his rants about the role of Al Qaeda in the uprisings. I noticed the very naming of it "Islamic Emirate of Benghazi" was unusual given the role of the apparently more secular young generation in the protests, especially when that pattern for naming a state is (IIRC, from one thread on TWC), the one used by fringe Al Qaeda related groups, eg there is one called the "Islamic Emirate of Gaza" that had a shootout with Hamas, and some Al-Shabab factions believe call their territory the "Islamic Emirate of Somalia". So... idk, never claimed to know either.

As for Bahrain, I stand by what I said. You were somewhat selective in what you quoted from wikipedia, immediately below it notes that there is no recognition for womens or LGBT rights. As for the apparent diversity, that is due to guestworkers, it is typical of oil right states and doesn't prove anything, since they are pretty separate from the general population. Likewise, the existence of religious minorites doesn't really prove anything, Jews still managed not to get pogromed in Iran, doesn't make it a nice regime. And significantly, there are obvious sectarian overtones to the protests, with a Shia population and Sunni rulers...

[Hax]

As for Bahrain, I stand by what I said. You were somewhat selective in what you quoted from wikipedia, immediately below it notes that there is no recognition for womens or LGBT rights.

Are you kidding me? It started to move to improve the situation of women back in 2002 and very openly at that. It's not perfect, but what the hell, it's still the Arab world. Same goes for LGBT rights. Or do you suppose that women and gays are exactly loved in Egypt or Tunisia? No, they're not. Not right now. But that might improve, and democracy might be the best way to get that to improve.


Calm yourself Hax, all I said regarding the "Islamic Emirate of Benghazi" is what I heard, I didn't claim it was absolutely correct, my post had a pretty cautious tone.

Not really. You said "the fact that the protesters have dubbed (etc)". No, they didn't. You thought they did, they didn't, but you posted it as fact. If your post had truly been cautious you'd have taken more care in your wording, or that's what I would have done at least.

I'm just getting sick of Europe doing nothing. I'm getting sick of people being so dramatic about anything related to Islam. Seriously people, is this cowardice or plain opportunism? I'm not talking about any members of the forums here, but about European politicians. It's a disgrace.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Not really. You said "the fact that the protesters have dubbed (etc)". No, they didn't. You thought they did, they didn't, but you posted it as fact. If your post had truly been cautious you'd have taken more care in your wording, or that's what I would have done at least.

I'm just getting sick of Europe doing nothing. I'm getting sick of people being so dramatic about anything related to Islam. Seriously people, is this cowardice or plain opportunism? I'm not talking about any members of the forums here, but about European politicians. It's a disgrace.

Well, I think it's partly wanting to see the Arab/Islamic powers as crippled as possible, and partly a need to resist our natural inclination to send in the paratroopers to "restore order".

Personally, I think that the best that can be done by the West is to keep completely hands off, aside from freezing the assets of the governments and politicians in question until the end of the conflagurations. The Middle East is so much dry tinder waiting to burn, if we keep trying to use a fire extinguisher then the eventual inferno will be that much hotter. It's hot enough already, I think.

[Hax]

Personally, I think that the best that can be done by the West is to keep completely hands off,

People are being massacred. Hosni Mubarak didn't ask the air force to bomb Cairo. Ben Ali didn't order his armed forces to shoot protesters by the hundreds. I cannot believe how we can stand aside and pretend that it's in our best interest to do nothing. At least decide on a no-fly zone for Tripoli to prevent mercenaries from entering the country.

Is this how we spread democracy?


Well, I think it's partly wanting to see the Arab/Islamic powers as crippled as possible, and partly a need to resist our natural inclination to send in the paratroopers to "restore order".

Why do we want that? Arab now equates with Islamic? Since when? It didn't when Mubarak opened the Suez Canal for Israel or when Jordan signed a peace treaty with Israel? Now is the time to turn our backs on the Arab world? We should've done that way earlier.

There's a great possibility for a democratic society to function for the first time ever in the Arab world and you prefer to see it as crippled as possible? Nice.

[rory_20_uk]

No fly zone seems like another great idea on paper.

Who is going to do it?
Who decides to take out the planes - and who deals with the situation when a civilian plane is downed by mistake?

~:smoking:

[Rhyfelwyr]

Are you kidding me? It started to move to improve the situation of women back in 2002 and very openly at that. It's not perfect, but what the hell, it's still the Arab world. Same goes for LGBT rights. Or do you suppose that women and gays are exactly loved in Egypt or Tunisia? No, they're not. Not right now. But that might improve, and democracy might be the best way to get that to improve.

Kind of my point in bold there, you can't have one standard for the Arab world and one for everyone else, either it has the roots for democracy or it doesn't. You know I don't get enraged about the Islam, Islamic states have every bit as much potential as Christian ones to become democratic. But you only need to read a history book to know that going that route is long and bloody, I don't see why the Arab world should be an exception. Often democratic movements will take on religious overtones, as they did in Britain with Protestantism for example. The same appears to be the case with the Shia protestors in Bahrain, and you have to accept there may well be a sectarian element to things that really limits the development of a liberal democracy as we understand it.

It will vary from country to country. In Egypt and Tunisia the protests have been very secular. Bahrain appears to have a sectarian element. Yemen appears to have a radical Islamist (most protestors I saw were burqa-clad women). Libya appears to have a tribal element, even if Gaddafi tried to foster it for his own ends.

So, things are complicated...


Not really. You said "the fact that the protesters have dubbed (etc)". No, they didn't. You thought they did, they didn't, but you posted it as fact. If your post had truly been cautious you'd have taken more care in your wording, or that's what I would have done at least.

Well, you can't put a disclaimer in front of everything you say, I think it is obvious I am relaying what the news reports say and not claiming to have some sort of unquestionable knowledge on the issue.


I'm just getting sick of Europe doing nothing. I'm getting sick of people being so dramatic about anything related to Islam. Seriously people, is this cowardice or plain opportunism? I'm not talking about any members of the forums here, but about European politicians. It's a disgrace.

They are hardly being dramatic, news coverage I have seen has been very much in favour of the demonstrators. I think you're a bit paranoid when it comes to defending Islam, not every criticism of it is due to some sort of reactionary ignorance on the part of 'islamophobes'. It is a religion with a lot of historical baggage, as is Christianity, and it will have to come to terms with that. I think it will, its not like secular movements are anything novel in the Arab world, maybe democracy will be the next big thing after the failure of Arab nationalism...

[Louis VI the Fat]

I'm just getting sick of Europe doing nothing. I'm getting sick of people being so dramatic about anything related to Islam. Seriously people, is this cowardice or plain opportunism? I'm not talking about any members of the forums here, but about European politicians. It's a disgrace.There are more north African Arabs in Europe than in Tunisia and Libya combined. Nothing prevents them from leaving Europe to help establish democracy in the Arab world.

All of them staying firmly put in cosy Europe, I'm not sure how one would berate the rest of Europe for inaction.



~~o~~o~~<<oOo>>~~o~~o~~


As for the politicians - they did help! Sarkozy and Alliot-Marie helped, they offered their staunch support to the last to...Ben Ali. :laugh4:

American diplomacy fared much better. Washington has supported its boy Mubarak for decades. Washington waited to see how events would unfold in Egypt, supporting their man in silence while publicly supporting the protesters. Then jumped ship at just the right moment. Well done to Miss Clinton, that's how diplomacy is done.

I would write how Berlusconi's boys are so busy with sex parties with underage hookers they are making a mess of supporting Italy's puppet Ghadaffi, but that's not so. Instead, Ghadaffi has used his petrodollars to make Italy his puppet. Therefore it ought to be Italians who should be protesting for democracy, who should demand an end to foreign meddling in their internal affairs. An end to Libyans propping up and buying Italian politicians. The going rate for Italian politicians is quite cheap.

[drone]

People are being massacred. Hosni Mubarak didn't ask the air force to bomb Cairo. Ben Ali didn't order his armed forces to shoot protesters by the hundreds. I cannot believe how we can stand aside and pretend that it's in our best interest to do nothing. At least decide on a no-fly zone for Tripoli to prevent mercenaries from entering the country.

Is this how we spread democracy?
This sounds like a cry for the World Police. Something that rarely turns out as well as hoped.

[Slyspy]

This sounds like a cry for the World Police. Something that rarely turns out as well as hoped.

My thoughts exactly.

[a completely inoffensive name]

It's gotta happen by the sheer force of the public, not with any help from any western democracies. Europe and the US have already ruined much of their credibility in being the "freedom" supporters. Hell anyone with an internet connection and access for forums like these would find out in 30 seconds that Mubarak and much of these brutal dictators are still backed by US and European interests secretly (as Louis pointed out) up until the moment they get shot in the streets.

Because we have played our hand by using dictators and kings as puppets, any involvement backing the rebellions going on across the arab world makes it too easy for the real threats (radical Islamic political factions/parties) to spin, propagandize and win over voters, securing control, making another Iran type situation in the middle east.

[Hax]

This sounds like a cry for the World Police. Something that rarely turns out as well as hoped.

Not at all. But for the love of God, just take a strong stance on what Gaddafi is doing to his people.


There are more north African Arabs in Europe than in Tunisia and Libya combined. Nothing prevents them from leaving Europe to help establish democracy in the Arab world.

All of them staying firmly put in cosy Europe, I'm not sure how one would berate the rest of Europe for inaction.
I was clearly talking about politicians, wasn't I?


Because we have played our hand by using dictators and kings as puppets, any involvement backing the rebellions going on across the arab world makes it too easy for the real threats (radical Islamic political factions/parties) to spin, propagandize and win over voters, securing control, making another Iran type situation in the middle east.

I'm not even talking about backing the protesters, but about at least condemning the murderers. Gaddafi is a criminal that ought to be judged in The Hague. Besides, Iran is an entirely different country with a different history. But for the record, there are very few citizens interested in another theocracy in their country. The chance that another Iran would be born is very slim.


And yet again, it all comes down on "but Islamists!". That's besides the point. If we truly, truly believe in democracy there ought to be some strong statements about what Gaddafi is doing, to hell with the consequences. There are principles we stand for here.


American diplomacy fared much better. Washington has supported its boy Mubarak for decades. Washington waited to see how events would unfold in Egypt, supporting their man in silence while publicly supporting the protesters. Then jumped ship at just the right moment. Well done to Miss Clinton, that's how diplomacy is done.

Yes, and that too is disgustful. Either say nothing, or condemn the government outright. And I'm talking about Mubarak and Ben Ali here, not about Gaddafi, the difference being, as I pointed out before, that Mubarak and Ben Ali didn't massacre the people of Egypt and Tunisia.

I think it ought to be clear that what Gaddafi is doing is inexcusable. I don't believe that anyone here disagrees with me. Well, maybe Sonic, but let's not talk about that.


Kind of my point in bold there, you can't have one standard for the Arab world and one for everyone else, either it has the roots for democracy or it doesn't. You know I don't get enraged about the Islam, Islamic states have every bit as much potential as Christian ones to become democratic. But you only need to read a history book to know that going that route is long and bloody, I don't see why the Arab world should be an exception. Often democratic movements will take on religious overtones, as they did in Britain with Protestantism for example. The same appears to be the case with the Shia protestors in Bahrain, and you have to accept there may well be a sectarian element to things that really limits the development of a liberal democracy as we understand it.

Yes, and you should just have to read a history book to find out that change is gradual. Of course we should stand for LGBT and women's rights. And the protests in Bahrain are not limited to the Shi'ite population, there are more people protesting than just them.

And speaking about Shi'ite theology, I don't think that Shi'a Islam is worse for a liberal democracy (as we understand it) than any other religion. In fact, Shi'ite states have historically been known to be more liberal than any other states. Of course, it might be reversed if they go the way of Iran. But I think it might just be worth it.

And even then, maybe we should accept the fact that our democracy may not be the only democracy. The question is whether it's worth it or not, and if we can talk with an Islamic democracy. And whether it's better for the people. I don't know either.


They are hardly being dramatic, news coverage I have seen has been very much in favour of the demonstrators. I think you're a bit paranoid when it comes to defending Islam, not every criticism of it is due to some sort of reactionary ignorance on the part of 'islamophobes'. It is a religion with a lot of historical baggage, as is Christianity, and it will have to come to terms with that. I think it will, its not like secular movements are anything novel in the Arab world, maybe democracy will be the next big thing after the failure of Arab nationalism...

If you ask me, there are loads of things we should criticise in Islam. I just don't think that we should redirect every proposal for a new government to the dustbin just because it may have Islamic undertones. I cannot disgree with the rest of what you said, though.

[drone]

People are being massacred. Hosni Mubarak didn't ask the air force to bomb Cairo. Ben Ali didn't order his armed forces to shoot protesters by the hundreds. I cannot believe how we can stand aside and pretend that it's in our best interest to do nothing. At least decide on a no-fly zone for Tripoli to prevent mercenaries from entering the country.

Is this how we spread democracy?This sounds like a cry for the World Police. Something that rarely turns out as well as hoped. Not at all. But for the love of God, just take a strong stance on what Gaddafi is doing to his people.
That's how it starts. Then a no-fly zone or blockade, and eventually you end up with Kosovo or Somalia.

A victory over Khadaffi without external influence is the best thing for Libya's people, not something handed to them. Which I have no doubt will eventually happen. I'm just happy that out of all the Middle East jokers, the US can't be blamed for keeping this particular madman in power.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I'm not even talking about backing the protesters, but about at least condemning the murderers. Gaddafi is a criminal that ought to be judged in The Hague. Besides, Iran is an entirely different country with a different history. But for the record, there are very few citizens interested in another theocracy in their country. The chance that another Iran would be born is very slim.

And yet again, it all comes down on "but Islamists!". That's besides the point. If we truly, truly believe in democracy there ought to be some strong statements about what Gaddafi is doing, to hell with the consequences. There are principles we stand for here.

Man, I feel you. I wish we could just lock down the area to stop mercs from coming in, dropping supplies, food, maybe guns and ammo in protester controlled towns and hauling everyone in that government off to be tried in The Hauge.

I feel like I should go with you on this, you are probably one of the most knowledgeable people here about the arab world so I don't doubt you when you say that the public doesn't want a theocracy. But no one wants a budget deficit, and yet that's what we have because we keep electing people that ultimately just go down that path.

That last sentence of yours isn't so black and white. If you can get a democracy by just staying out of it or possibly ruining the democracy by going on a PR spree of "Libya loves democracy and American values of freedom!" I mean, you gotta make a choice and it isn't so clear. Our principles are freedom, liberty and democratic forms of government, you can easily say that the important thing is that those principles at the end of the day (year?) have been implemented or planted, ready to grow. Not that we said publicly we stand for them.

I enjoy your passion and your statements considering I dislike everyone who dismisses any sort of arab movement as the next opportunity for taliban 2.0. But we can't dismiss the fact that the threats are real. If you are really disconnected from the human aspect of revolutions, you can make the claim that any real revolution against tyranny has to be paid for with the public's blood. Cue someone bringing up the American revolution and that Thomas Jefferson quote about the blood of patriots.

[Hax]

I enjoy your passion

Heh, I actually surprised myself a couple of times this thread. I'm usually not so heated, but there's just something that triggered me.


nd your statements considering I dislike everyone who dismisses any sort of arab movement as the next opportunity for taliban 2.0. But we can't dismiss the fact that the threats are real. If you are really disconnected from the human aspect of revolutions, you can make the claim that any real revolution against tyranny has to be paid for with the public's blood. Cue someone bringing up the American revolution and that Thomas Jefferson quote about the blood of patriots.

Yeah, that's probably true. Although we're still living in a day and age where genocide isn't really awesome.


That last sentence of yours isn't so black and white. If you can get a democracy by just staying out of it or possibly ruining the democracy by going on a PR spree of "Libya loves democracy and American values of freedom!" I mean, you gotta make a choice and it isn't so clear. Our principles are freedom, liberty and democratic forms of government, you can easily say that the important thing is that those principles at the end of the day (year?) have been implemented or planted, ready to grow. Not that we said publicly we stand for them.

Yeah, I can see that. Good point.


That's how it starts. Then a no-fly zone or blockade, and eventually you end up with Kosovo or Somalia.

True. True. I should probably make some tea or something and relax.

[HoreTore]

I'm just getting sick of Europe doing nothing. I'm getting sick of people being so dramatic about anything related to Islam. Seriously people, is this cowardice or plain opportunism? I'm not talking about any members of the forums here, but about European politicians. It's a disgrace.

I can tell you about someone who does something: my sisters bf's famiy lives in Benghazi, and his family is rather rich... A couple of days after things heated up, his uncle went to egypt and bought AK47's and ammunition for 100.000USD, and distributed it among the population.

A rathere good picture of how determined the Libyan people is to get rid of Daffy, and that they have the resources to make it happen and fight him to the death.

[Cute Wolf]

day to day, those Daffy duckin Libya goes crazier and crazier, Americans need to send Bugs bunny to drag him out and make Libya free

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/picture.php?albumid=4421&pictureid=50173

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

True. True. I should probably make some tea or something and relax.

Well, you could do that or go fight as a merc. I think what you're missing Hax is that as far as we can see there is nothing to do. Even creating a no-fly zone will only prolong the war, as Gaddafi will be unable to fly in new mercs and his money will last longer.

The Swiss and British are freezing his assets as they find them, by the way.

[Samurai Waki]

Ten years ago, yeah, I could seen intervention as a possibility; but the fact remains, the US and NATO are tired of war, and I think it would be a hard sell to send American/European boys over to (potentially) die in another conflict that has very little to do with the security of Americans/Europeans. No matter which way you spin it, it would be a really hard sell.

[Cute Wolf]

Ten years ago, yeah, I could seen intervention as a possibility; but the fact remains, the US and NATO are tired of war, and I think it would be a hard sell to send American/European boys over to (potentially) die in another conflict that has very little to do with the security of Americans/Europeans. No matter which way you spin it, it would be a really hard sell.


hmm, the best intervention type?
I'll suggest the US to simply sent an ICBM loaded with nuclear warhead directly toward Khaddafi. No american live will be lost.(ohh, I'm a demon)

[Shaka_Khan]

There are more north African Arabs in Europe than in Tunisia and Libya combined.
Wow! I really didn't know that.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Well those two countries aren't exactly populous. Between them they have about as many inhabitants as the Netherlands. (~16M.)

[Fragony]

I share Haxie's frustration. Why don't people get that the political islam is really arab nationalism. It's as welcome as the inquisition. Keep a clear eye for :daisy: sake.

[HoreTore]

Well, you could do that or go fight as a merc. I think what you're missing Hax is that as far as we can see there is nothing to do. Even creating a no-fly zone will only prolong the war, as Gaddafi will be unable to fly in new mercs and his money will last longer.

The Swiss and British are freezing his assets as they find them, by the way.

I'm with Philipvs here. I don't think the world needs to do much, I think the regime is finished. Moral support is probably all that is needed. Bombing an airfield could be nice though, the rebels currently does not have anything to counter his airforce.

But all in all, I cannot see him winning this. It's a question of when.

[PanzerJaeger]

But all in all, I cannot see him winning this. It's a question of when.

I can. We still do not have an accurate picture of how widespread the military defections have been. (Apparently they have not been complete as he still retains control of Tripoli.)

He has demonstrated that he is perfectly comfortable using the military against the people, and at least a portion of the military has complied with his orders. If he still enjoys the loyalty of a majority of the Libyan armed forces, or can supplement the losses to defection with mercenaries, then there is little protests can do against them.

At this point, he is probably weighing the costs (in defections) with the benefits (in deaths and destruction) of a more severe military crackdown, and assessing the loyalty of various military units. He is walking on a proverbial tight rope, but he still has options.

[Prince Cobra]

I can. We still do not have an accurate picture of how widespread the military defections have been. (Apparently they have not been complete as he still retains control of Tripoli.)

He has demonstrated that he is perfectly comfortable using the military against the people, and at least a portion of the military has complied with his orders. If he still enjoys the loyalty of a majority of the Libyan armed forces, or can supplement the losses to defection with mercenaries, then there is little protests can do against them.

At this point, he is probably weighing the costs (in defections) with the benefits (in deaths and destruction) of a more severe military crackdown, and assessing the loyalty of various military units. He is walking on a proverbial tight rope, but he still has options.

I don't think conventional military force (even a mercenary) can stand against a revolution. I doubt he has any authority amongst the tribal chiefs because of using foreign mercenaries and money to bribe support + his obvious weakness. The people obviously hate him and bombing them with airplanes did not change that. In the East the army already defected. It might be poorly armed but it is no way harmless. Within a week or two the only force Gadafi could rely on are the Chadian troops and the mercenaries. He is doomed IMHO. Unless he flees, he won't survive this revolution.

He ran out of options the moment he ordered his own army to bomb the Lybians and his own capital. Like any dictator after a long rule he lost any connection with the real life. What he did was simply a sign that he refused to accept his regime is doomed.

[Hax]

Well, you could do that or go fight as a merc. I think what you're missing Hax is that as far as we can see there is nothing to do. Even creating a no-fly zone will only prolong the war, as Gaddafi will be unable to fly in new mercs and his money will last longer.

The Swiss and British are freezing his assets as they find them, by the way.

That's about right, but as for fighting? That's a no-go, I'm non-violent. It's just frustrating.

[PanzerJaeger]

I don't think conventional military force (even a mercenary) can stand against a revolution.

I completely disagree. History is filled with failed revolutions put down by military force. Revolutions made up of mostly unarmed protestors are that much easier to break. As we witnessed yesterday, pro-regime forces rather easily crushed an uprising in Tripoli with force of arms.

This will come down to who has the support of the majority of the military.

[HoreTore]

Protests, PJ?

My friends uncle bought AK47's for 100.000USD. He's far from the only one, there are columns driving from egypt. The rebels are now properly armed and engaged in a civil war. They have also looted all the military bases in eastern Libya, and they're driving around in tanks.

Gaddafi's military, however, is seeing defections every hour, from riflemen to jet pilots. Also, just about every Libyan diplomat has defected, including his childhood friend who was the diplomat assigned to the UN, and they're now doing all they can to gath foreign support for the rebellion.

Gaddafis's strength is waning by the minute, something his hilarious official statements are proof of. He's Hitler in April '45.

[edyzmedieval]

My friends uncle bought AK47's for 100.000USD.

That's a truckload of rifles. In Mama Russia you can get one as low as 12$, I suspect those were 500$ each?

[PanzerJaeger]

Protests, PJ?

My friends uncle bought AK47's for 100.000USD. He's far from the only one, there are columns driving from egypt. The rebels are now properly armed and engaged in a civil war. They have also looted all the military bases in eastern Libya, and they're driving around in tanks.

Gaddafi's military, however, is seeing defections every hour, from riflemen to jet pilots. Also, just about every Libyan diplomat has defected, including his childhood friend who was the diplomat assigned to the UN, and they're now doing all they can to gath foreign support for the rebellion.

Gaddafis's strength is waning by the minute, something his hilarious official statements are proof of. He's Hitler in April '45.

We'll see how widespread such activity is. An AK47 does not a soldier make. I don't think there are any accurate assessments of the comparative military strength of the regime and the rebels available at this time. The point being that this will likely be decided by force of arms, unlike Egypt or Tunisia.

[Kagemusha]

The difference in Egypt and Libya is that Libya has large amounts of foreign mercenaries working for Gaddafi´s regime. But i doubt that the Libyan army will start a serious war in order to protect Gaddafi. Me thinks his days are numbered.

[Samurai Waki]

A mercenary does not necessarily make a soldier either, and it appears many of them have come from rather desperate places, so I'm thinking perhaps these aren't the same kind of professionals that were coming out of SA during the 70s-90s. That, and loyalty among mercenaries is something I wouldn't gamble on, as soon as the situation deteriorates to the point that mercenaries start taking heavy casualties you can bet they'll be gone at a moment's notice.

[ICantSpellDawg]

There is no "libyan" army. the old army numbered around 40k out of nearly 7 million - a large minority of which, if not an outright majority, have defected. The Bulk of Gaddafi's support comes from those that he is paying to kill civilians. since the eastern oil fields are in opposition hands and his accounts abroad are being frozen, it is only a matter of time until he is unable to buy any more loyalty and his regime will collapse. My money is on somebody paying a few mercenaries double what Gaddafi's offer is - to kill Gaddafi. All war crimes charges could be dropped against the conspirators.

The CIA can manage to get itself into enough trouble killing people when they probably don't need to die, but now that they could be useful they are nowhere to be found.

Maybe, after enough people are butchered by this lunatic, the worlds appetite for Team America - World Police intervention will return for the next atrocity. And maybe we can have some non-bed-wetting support from mainland Europe, if they can find their balls after all these years (this does not go out to any "coalition of the willing" partners, except for Spain)....

[ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88]

Let the Italians go in if need be. They are close and it used to be their province anyhow, so let them fix the problem.

[Ronin]

Let the Italians go in if need be. They are close and it used to be their province anyhow, so let them fix the problem.

Someone tell Berlusconi that there are a bunch of hot ladies down there that want to have some Bunga-Bunga parties with him.....

he'll have this fixed up in a week!

[Prince Cobra]

I completely disagree. History is filled with failed revolutions put down by military force. Revolutions made up of mostly unarmed protestors are that much easier to break. As we witnessed yesterday, pro-regime forces rather easily crushed an uprising in Tripoli with force of arms.

This will come down to who has the support of the majority of the military.

Yes, the Shah of Iran is a good example. :wink: The other slightly outdated examples is trying to save Metternich during the revolutions in 1848 (which was obviously futile and never tried) or Charles X with the Swiss guard in 1830. I can't remember many historical examples to support your idea.

Gadafi simply can't muster enough mercenaries to crush the rebellion. And I am not very sure how stable is the control of Tripoli that is supposed to be most loyal to Gadaffi because it is where his main forces should have been.

Revolution is started by unarmed protestors and in the process of the revolution these people get good arms.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Yes, the Shah of Iran is a good example. :wink: The other slightly outdated examples is trying to save Metternich during the revolutions in 1848 (which was obviously futile and never tried) or Charles X with the Swiss guard in 1830. I can't remember many historical examples to support your idea.

Gadafi simply can't muster enough mercenaries to crush the rebellion. And I am not very sure how stable is the control of Tripoli that is supposed to be most loyal to Gadaffi because it is where his main forces should have been.

Revolution is started by unarmed protestors and in the process of the revolution these people get good arms.

How about the revolution in India in the 19th Century, or the post-Gulf War revolt of the Marsh Arabs in Iraq?

PJ is correct that revolutions can be put down, but not easily.

[PanzerJaeger]

Yes, the Shah of Iran is a good example. :wink: The other slightly outdated examples is trying to save Metternich during the revolutions in 1848 (which was obviously futile and never tried) or Charles X with the Swiss guard in 1830. I can't remember many historical examples to support your idea.

Think harder?

Here are a few off the top of my head. You could really throw in a lot of Civil Wars as well where the side breaking away failed to gain independence such as America's, but I wanted to keep it simple.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phillipine_American_war

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boxer_rebellion

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1959_Tibetan_uprising

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungarian_Revolution_of_1956

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebellion_of_the_Seven_States

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Jewish_Revolt

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiananmen_Square_protests_of_1989

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Intifada

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_Uprising_in_Karbala

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thammasat_University#Bloody_October_protests

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1932_Salvadoran_peasant_uprising

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pitchfork_Uprising

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaocen_Revolt

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokehs_Rebellion

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easter_Rising

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boer_Revolt

[HoreTore]

You forgot the spanish civil war?!?!?!

[Ronin]

You forgot the spanish civil war?!?!?!

in the spanish civil war the "revolutionaries" were the fascists...so that's an example of a revolution working.....not being put down.

[HoreTore]

in the spanish civil war the "revolutionaries" were the fascists...so that's an example of a revolution working.....not being put down.

That's a mighty simplistic view... The spanish republic was almost evenly divided between the nationalists and republicans, and the republicans also promised a violent revolution if they lost the election.

If it had been the nationalists who got the tiny majority in the last election, the revoution would've been started by the republicans and the scenario would fit perfectly with what we're seeing now.

Apart from that minor detail, the spanish civil war fits perfectly with the "popular uprising crushed by authoritarian state"-scenario.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

That's a mighty simplistic view... The spanish republic was almost evenly divided between the nationalists and republicans, and the republicans also promised a violent revolution if they lost the election.

If it had been the nationalists who got the tiny majority in the last election, the revoution would've been started by the republicans and the scenario would fit perfectly with what we're seeing now.

Apart from that minor detail, the spanish civil war fits perfectly with the "popular uprising crushed by authoritarian state"-scenario.

Except that it was the Socialists who precipitated the crisis by trying to overthrow the monarchy. You know the Spanish Kings HoreTore, they're the royals that actively safe-guard the freedom of their people.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Except that it was the Socialists who precipitated the crisis by trying to overthrow the monarchy. You know the Spanish Kings HoreTore, they're the royals that actively safe-guard the freedom of their people.Oh what bollox again. The king did not support freedom, the king supported (was the puppet of) Prime de Rivera, the Spanish dictator. When the dictator died, the monarchy was abolished too. In its place came the Spanish Republic, a democratically established, free republic. This was way back in 1931.

The monarchy had been long gone when the republic was violently overthrown by insurrectionists. The civil war started in 1936 when the fascist and monarchist insurrectionists sought to overthrow the free republic. When they succeeded, neither a free country nor a monarchy resulted, but Franco's dictatorship was imposed.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Oh what bollox again. The king did not support freedom, the king supported (was the puppet of) Prime de Rivera, the Spanish dictator. When the dictator died, the monarchy was abolished too. In its place came the Spanish Republic, a democratically established, free republic. This was way back in 1931.

The monarchy had been long gone when the republic was violently overthrown by insurrectionists. The civil war started in 1936 when the fascist and monarchist insurrectionists sought to overthrow the free republic. When they succeeded, neither a free country nor a monarchy resulted, but Franco's dictatorship was imposed.

I conflated two points.

1. That the Spanish King has protected the rights of his people, to upset HoreTore,

and

2. That the scoialists caused the revolution, which was precipitated by the insistance on getting rid of the King and creating a socialist constitution.

[Louis VI the Fat]

I conflated two points.

1. That the Spanish King has protected the rights of his people, to upset HoreTore,

and

2. That the scoialists caused the revolution, which was precipitated by the insistance on getting rid of the King and creating a socialist constitution.Much as it pains me so, and I am not sure I agree myself, just about everyone knowledgable about Spain insists to me that the present monarchy has been essential in stabilising democracy in Spain in the past few decades.

Maybe that much is true. Fact is that Spain has seen a remarkable economic and cultural flowering recently, not a given in all of former dictatorial Europe.


I do not think the Second Spanish Republic was 'socialist'. A republic by its nature is progressive. All of Europe's republic, and the US one too, are opposed to the aristocracy, to Rome, to monarchy, to the army as a state within a state. The Nationalists were reactionaries, opposing freedoms one takes for granted in Switzerland, France and America. They were not the protector of Spain against an extreme-left dictatorship. They were too backwards looking to even be proper fascists, which is a modernist enemy of liberal democracy.


Franco's hounddogs learned their tricks while brutalising the population of Spanish Morocco. Then they brought their terror home, against their own people. Which might return this to the subject of North Africa and the use of force against one's own population. :beam:

[Strike For The South]

One of my instructors was from Spain last semester

She was beautifual :love:

[Viking]

[...] the rebels currently does not have anything to counter his airforce.

Thought I should pick up on this. In this video (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12588839), the rebels are repainting a gunship. In this (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12593058) article, BBC interviews a senior officer at the Benghazi air base:


But is there a plan to make that happen?

At the town's air base they still have fighter jets and helicopter gunships that theoretically could be used as part of such an offensive.

[...]

So I asked a senior officer at the base, Col Abdullah El Hassi, whether his forces would now take the offensive and join the battle for Tripoli.

"From the first day we took the side of the people's revolution and we are ready to stand up to any attacking forces," he told me.

But he added: "We have not been able to help our brothers in the western region for logistical reasons. We would like to do so, but the airspace has been closed, and there are ground-to-air missiles that we have to take care of. Until we are ready we cannot move further."

It is a key question. So far, much of the revolution has been a battle between protesters, armed only with improvised weaponry, fighting Col Gaddafi's forces.

For reasons like this, it seems very unlikely that Gaddafi can retake Libya. The rebels have pretty decent arms, and many of them are guerrilla fighters - civilians. Kill one civilian, and another may take up his weapon to fight on.

[HoreTore]

I conflated two points.

1. That the Spanish King has protected the rights of his people, to upset HoreTore,

and

2. That the scoialists caused the revolution, which was precipitated by the insistance on getting rid of the King and creating a socialist constitution.

I'm not sure whether I should laugh or cry at this massive fail.

[Idaho]

2. That the scoialists caused the revolution, which was precipitated by the insistance on getting rid of the King and creating a socialist constitution.

Complete drivel I'm afraid.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Well, in 1981, it was the monarchy that said no to the would-be fascist revolutionaries when parliament was taken hostage.

[PanzerJaeger]

Meanwhile, back in Libya, pro-Gadhafi forces go on the offense (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5izr_lxvGTuzZjpzs5RvU19bxq3bQ?docId=4e896b767131407b933ae940e8228a1d).



The opposition is backed by numerous units of the military in the east that joined the uprising, and they hold several bases and Benghazi's airport. But so far, the units do not appear to have melded into a unified fighting force. Gadhafi long kept the military weak, fearing a challenge to his rule, so many units are plagued by shortages of supplies and ammunition.

On Monday, pro-Gadhafi forces retook control of the western border crossings with Tunisia that had fallen under opposition control and they bombed an ammunition depot in the rebel-held east, residents in the area said. The Libyan Defense Ministry denied the bombing.

Regime forces also moved to tighten their ring around two opposition-controlled cities closest to the capital Tripoli — Zawiya and Misrata — where the two sides are locked in standoffs.

An Associated Press reporter saw a large, pro-Gadhafi force massed on the western edge of Zawiya, some 30 miles (50 kilometers) west of Tripoli, with about a dozen armored vehicles along with tanks and jeeps mounted with anti-aircraft guns. An officer said they were from the elite Khamis Brigade, named after one of Gadhafi's sons who commands it. U.S. diplomats have said the brigade is the best-equipped force in Libya.

A resident of Zawiya said by telephone that fighting started in the evening and intensified after sundown when troops loyal to Gadhafi attacked the city from the west and east.

"We were able to repulse the attack. We damaged a tank with an RPG. The mercenaries fled after that," said the resident, who spoke on condition of anonymity for fear of government reprisals.

He said Gadhafi called Zawiya's influential tribal leader Mohammed al-Maktouf and warned him that if the rebels don't leave the city's main square by early Tuesday, they will be hit by warplanes. "We are expecting a major battle," the resident said, added that the rebels killed eight soldiers and mercenaries Monday.

Another resident of Zawiya said he heard gunfire well into the night on the outskirts of town.

In Misrata, Libya's third-largest city 125 miles (200 kilometers) east of Tripoli, pro-Gadhafi troops who control part of an air base on the outskirts tried to advance Monday. But they were repulsed by opposition forces, who included residents with automatic weapons and defected army units allied with them, one of the opposition fighters said.

No casualties were reported and the fighter claimed that his side had captured eight soldiers, including a senior officer.

The opposition controls most of the air base, and the fighter said dozens of anti-Gadhafi gunmen have arrived from farther east in recent days as reinforcements.

Several residents of the eastern city of Ajdabiya said Gadhafi's air force also bombed an ammunition depot nearby held by rebels. One resident, 17-year-old Abdel-Bari Zwei, reported intermittent explosions and a fire, and another, Faraj al-Maghrabi, said the facility was partially damaged. The site contains bombs, missiles and ammunition — key for the undersupplied opposition military forces.

State TV carried a statement by Libya's Defense Ministry denying any attempt to bomb the depot. Ajdabiya is about 450 miles (750 kilometers) east of Tripoli along the Mediterranean coast.

Gadhafi supporters said they were in control of the city of Sabratha, west of Tripoli, which has seemed to go back and forth between the two camps in the past week. Several residents told the AP that protesters set fire to a police station, but then were dispersed. Anti-Gadhafi graffiti — "Down with the enemy of freedom" and "Libya is free, Gadhafi must leave" — were scrawled on some walls, but residents were painting them over.

[Hax]

Wouldn't think I'd ever say it, but thanks, PJ. For bringing the topic back to Libya.

I think it's too little, too late. There's no way Gaddafi will survive this.

[Prince Cobra]

Think harder?

Here are a few off the top of my head. You could really throw in a lot of Civil Wars as well where the side breaking away failed to gain independence such as America's, but I wanted to keep it simple.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phillipine_American_war

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boxer_rebellion

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1959_Tibetan_uprising

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungarian_Revolution_of_1956

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebellion_of_the_Seven_States

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Jewish_Revolt

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiananmen_Square_protests_of_1989

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Intifada

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_Uprising_in_Karbala

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thammasat_University#Bloody_October_protests

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1932_Salvadoran_peasant_uprising

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pitchfork_Uprising

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaocen_Revolt

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokehs_Rebellion

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easter_Rising

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boer_Revolt

And I could add the revolutions in Italy and to some extend in Hungary in 1848 ... But also we have Vietnam (the collapse of South Vietnam for example), Afghanistan and etc. Anyway, my point is that you can not rely on the army consisted of your own people to kill your own people. Gadafi made the blunder to think he can do that as a result he has only the mercenaries on his side. It is simply impossible to win such a war with such a conventional force (unless you have a really a good advantage in numbers (and these soldiers should have nothing in common with the people you oppress) and even then it is not very sure if you can succeed).

Now back to the point. Gadafi is completely isolated. His offensives went to nowhere, his mercenaries may be well armed but limited number. In the next one-three weeks Tripoli will fall. Whether Gadafi will flee, stay and die in the city or try to organise a short-lasting guerilla warfare in the desert is another matter but there won't be happy end for him. You should know when GAME IS OVER. :wink: At the beginning of the revolution he should have started thinking about the world after him and how to make people hate him less and not trying to gain several pathetic days and kill thousands of people.

And never rely too much on conventional military power... Most of the profits are not very long lasting...

[edyzmedieval]

Wouldn't think I'd ever say it, but thanks, PJ. For bringing the topic back to Libya.

I think it's too little, too late. There's no way Gaddafi will survive this.

I'm not quite so sure about survival over here. He's turning Libya into a guerrilla civil war, and while he has Tripoli in his hands, Libya cannot be united in any way or driven forwards.

He's desperate, sure, but he's not dumb. I just mourn the loss of so many innocent people who had nothing to do with this. Using anti-aircraft guns on your own people... :no:

[HoreTore]

Rebels fought back an attack on Misrata yesterday, Libyas third largest city. A bomber was shot down.

Gaffy has deployed most of his troops in and around Tripoly, and even then he is not able to avoid protests in the city, though the protests are put down violently.

He's finished. Just a matter of time now.

[Hax]

Have Gaddafi's foreces retaken az-Zawiya? I'm getting conflicting reports here.

[Prince Cobra]

Have Gaddafi's foreces retaken az-Zawiya? I'm getting conflicting reports here.

What I read today was that he tried but failed last night. But I suspect his office denies that,

[Goofball]

I'm fascinated by the assertion that "we are their democratic tradition". Could you expand on the thesis?

Whereas there are some common threads in Western democracies, each is a product of the individual country's history and culture. Even quite closely related cultures such as the UK and the USA have significantly different democracies and traditions.

The internet is merely a form of communication - it does not surmount cultural biases (any review of the Backroom demonstrates that). I would also note that Western democracies are in a state of (perhaps terminal) decline in the face of corporate power expressed through narrowing oligarchies. None of this is a model - in my opinion - for emerging popular movements in nations which have, for too long, been reliant on autocratic central powers rather than the citizenry and its expressed will.

LEN is entirely right - we have no right to attempt an "export" of our flawed version of democracy to cultures that have entirely different histories and economic conditions. That will not stop the Western powers trying to influence and meddle, because we have too much of our own economies tied up in the region (not to mention the thorny problems of Israel's security and how we view any "will of the people" that installs an Islamic theocracy).

Correct, we have no right to export our own political dogma. But don't you think that at some point we have an obligation to step in and prevent a madman from slaughtering civilians?

[Louis VI the Fat]

Correct, we have no right to export our own political dogma. But don't you think that at some point we have an obligation to step in and prevent a madman from slaughtering civilians?But that is exporting our own political dogma.


Who are we to decide that there should not be an authoritarian leader who can use force to protect the interests of himself and his class? To interfere in this would be to spread demcracy and human rights as understood by the West.

Also, nice crossover wuith the Charlie Sheen thread:

Charlie Sheen v Muammar Gaddafi: whose line is it anyway?

The US actor and the Libyan leader have produced some choice lines recently. Can you distinguish between them?



Quiztime! (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/quiz/2011/mar/01/muammar-gaddafi-charlie-sheen-quiz) :laugh4:

Such awesomeness: 'I have defeated this earthworm with my words – imagine what I would have done with my fire-breathing fists'. But is it Gaddafi or Sheen? :balloon2: :laugh4:

[Banquo's Ghost]

Correct, we have no right to export our own political dogma. But don't you think that at some point we have an obligation to step in and prevent a madman from slaughtering civilians?

No, I don't - unless we consider it a principled obligation and apply it equally whenever there are significant breaches of human rights. Therefore, when we gear up to invade China to protect their civilians, we can add Libya to the list.

[PanzerJaeger]

Nice to see you around, Goof. ~:)



Anyway, Gaddafi forces are making gains (http://english.aljazeera.net/news/africa/2011/03/20113242554921501.html) against the dissidents, who are struggling to master the heavy weaponry that they have wrested from the government.


Forces loyal to Muammar Gaddafi, the Libyan leader, are reported to have regained control of two strategic towns in the country's northwest, even as opposition fighters in the east prepare to march on the capital, Tripoli.

The claims about the fall of Gharyan and Sabratha on Wednesday came as clashes were taking place in the eastern town of Brega, the headquarters of several oil companies.

A journalist from the nearby city of Ajdabiya confirmed to Al Jazeera that Brega was attacked by pro-Gaddafi forces, saying that about 100 cars carrying foreign fighters carried out the assault.

Earlier government forces were reported to be battling to regain control of rebel-held towns close to Tripoli, trying to create a buffer zone around what is still Gaddafi's seat of power.

Jackie Rowland, Al Jazeera's correspondent in Libya's second largest city, Benghazi, said that aircraft loyal to Gaddafi reportedly carried out a bombing raid against a weapons store about six kilometres outside Ajdabiya.



And in the West, the major powers seem to be distancing themselves (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/mar/01/cameron-backtracks-libya-zone-us) from some of their earlier enthusiastic offers of support.


Britain has backtracked from its belligerent military stance over Libya after the Obama administration publicly distanced itself from David Cameron's suggestion that Nato should establish a no-fly zone over the country and that rebel forces should be armed.

As senior British military sources expressed concern that Downing Street appeared to be overlooking the dangers of being sucked into a long and potentially dangerous operation, the prime minister said Britain would go no further than contacting the rebel forces at this stage.

The marked change of tone by the prime minister, who told MPs on Monday that Britain did not "in any way rule out the use of military assets", came as the British-educated son of Muammar Gaddafi mocked Cameron for trying to act as a hero. Saif al-Islam told Sky News: "Everybody wants to be a hero, to be important in history."

[Banquo's Ghost]

And in the West, the major powers seem to be distancing themselves (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/mar/01/cameron-backtracks-libya-zone-us) from some of their earlier enthusiastic offers of support.

I wouldn't go so far as claiming the United Kingdom is a "major power". Cameron might have an aircraft carrier available in five or so years, but it won't have any aircraft and anyway he's fired all the pilots. Oh, and most of the troops currently fighting in Afghanistan are being issued redundancy notices right now, so even if they feel motivated to carry on risking their lives in their current theatre, they'll be swelling the dole queues rather than fighting tyrants.

Still, the Prime Minister does offer a foreign policy of sorts (with five days notice) built around selling what arms he does have to Arab dictators. Not sure that helps here.

[Louis VI the Fat]

No, I don't - unless we consider it a principled obligation and apply it equally whenever there are significant breaches of human rights. Therefore, when we gear up to invade China to protect their civilians, we can add Libya to the list.Well we can't invade China because we'll lose.

But it are practical considerations such as that that indeed mark the limit I would put on humanitarian intervention. Otherwise, as far as I'm concerned, we spread democracy as a matter of course. And we violently overthrow tyranny wherever there is a reasonable alternative, or whenever a situation is intolerable.
One can oust Gadaffi if the situation became desperate, although the better scenario is to leave it to market forces. He who, and that which, emerges victorious in Libya can subsequently reasonably be assumed to have a workable power base, for he wouldn't have won elsewise.



I blame Iraq for destroying the appetite for humanitarian intervention. And Kosovo. In the former a US administration hijacked and made a mockery of the wish to do good and to make sacrifices to spread democracy, sadly, right in America, the one country that is not completely cynical about these things. The latter was a case of aiding one evil against another. Not an unmitigated disaster, for both warring parties were separated, but still best to think about while holding one's nose.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Still, the Prime Minister does offer a foreign policy of sortsAt least that's more than can be said of the bunch of clowns in the Quay d'Orsay.

First Sarkozy and Alliot-Marie supported Ben Ali to the last. They never saw his fall coming. To damage control the lost prestige in the Arab world, Alliot-Marie was removed as foreign minister. Then Libya burns. Not willing to make the same mistake again, Sarkozy goes public and demands that Gadaffi steps down. This was five minutes before it became clear that Gadaffi is not going to lose this. :laugh4:

That's what you get when you don't listen to your diplomats. French diplomacy - the second largest in the world - is getting desperate, getting fed up. None of the French cables are apparantly read, none of the analyses are studied. What's the point of paying a million people to study foreign developments when it is not going to be put to any use? There are dozens of analysts and experts and people living abroad who report about the situation in Libya, employed in all sorts of different functions, from embassies to think tanks to universities.

Gah! Clinton got both Egypt and Libya exactly right. I bet she had the Americans simply intercept French diplomatic cables and have them translated. The roles have been reversed from a decade ago. This time, it is America that is exactly on the money every single time, and France which is clueless about developments in the Middle East.

[Ronin]

Otherwise, as far as I'm concerned, we spread democracy defend out interests as a matter of course.

there...fixed it for you.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Well we can't invade China because we'll lose.

Precisely. So inevitably, foreign interventions are not based on ethics but on practicality. To me, the practicality is no intervention at all.


But it are practical considerations such as that that indeed mark the limit I would put on humanitarian intervention. Otherwise, as far as I'm concerned, we spread democracy as a matter of course. And we violently overthrow tyranny wherever there is a reasonable alternative, or whenever a situation is intolerable.
One can oust Gadaffi if the situation became desperate, although the better scenario is to leave it to market forces. He who, and that which, emerges victorious in Libya can subsequently reasonably be assumed to have a workable power base, for he wouldn't have won elsewise.

One cannot assume anything of the sort - the "victor" may be nothing of the sort a few days or months later. Tunisian secret police are already rounding people up in that "liberated" country. You of all people will be aware of how revolutions can turn out. In the end, all may be well, but that is up to the people who suffer through the change, not any external agency whose suffering is always likely to be minimal in comparison.

But to go back to the first point - surely your argument is "we violently overthrow tyranny wherever there is a reasonable alternative, or whenever a situation is intolerable, subject to the caveat that the tyranny hasn't got big guns, nukes or pointed sticks, lords over a sufficiently small population that we can be absolutely sure won't turn on us next, isn't supplying us with gas/oil/dried fruit on favourable terms, isn't sub-Saharan Africa, isn't in possession of a topography with mountains, jungles or Bradford, and with the proviso that 'intolerable' is a moveable feast if the aforesaid tyrant spends his money in Harrods."


I blame Iraq for destroying the appetite for humanitarian intervention. And Kosovo. In the former a US administration hijacked and made a mockery of the wish to do good and to make sacrifices to spread democracy, sadly, right in America, the one country that is not completely cynical about these things. The latter was a case of aiding one evil against another. Not an unmitigated disaster, for both warring parties were separated, but still best to think about while holding one's nose.

Humanitarian intervention was a lie before either of those two disasters, but they do graphically illustrate why such measures invariably go horribly wrong, usually at the expense of a lot of local people who are volunteered for martyrdom in the names of our "principles" and invariably with political consequences in the country so liberated that no-one could foresee.

Perhaps you are a devotee of the "Rumsfeld Arrangement" - ie the population will be so grateful for our intervention they will immediately strew our path with rose petals and the world will be in harmony as one?

[Louis VI the Fat]

Precisely. So inevitably, foreign interventions are not based on ethics but on practicality. To me, the practicality is no intervention at all.

But to go back to the first point - surely your argument is "we violently overthrow tyranny wherever there is a reasonable alternative, or whenever a situation is intolerable, subject to the caveat that the tyranny hasn't got big guns, nukes or pointed sticks, lords over a sufficiently small population that we can be absolutely sure won't turn on us next, isn't supplying us with gas/oil/dried fruit on favourable terms, isn't sub-Saharan Africa, isn't in possession of a topography with mountains, jungles or Bradford, and with the proviso that 'intolerable' is a moveable feast if the aforesaid tyrant spends his money in Harrods."Gah! Multiple quotes with multiple answers quickly become unreadable to third parties. Just to set an example and to satisfy my need to be insufferably smug at least once a day, I shall take your two quotes and reply to them with one single, uninterrupted answer, to show how it is done:

You give an excellent - so sad it becomes humorous - description of our humanitarian policy. However, I was not making a descriptive, but a normative statement. As far as I'm concerned, we spread democracy to an extent limited by practicalities. Practicalities dictate we must follow the politics of the possible. The politicies themselves, however, must be based on the politics of the impossible. Imagination must rule the world. The Anglo mind can satisfy itself by conducting foreign policy as if it were a commercial venture. Others have a higher vocation in the world, must strive to liberate the entire universe. They look at the mausoleum of their forefathers, and this leaves them no choice. Such are the traditions and responsibilities of the third estate.




Perhaps you are a devotee of the "Rumsfeld Arrangement" - ie the population will be so grateful for our intervention they will immediately strew our path with rose petals and the world will be in harmony as one?As the careful observer will note, I immediately disregard that bit about not mulitple quoting others, thereby showing it was indeed just about me indulging my scandalously conceited nature. It can not be helped. On then, to actual answer:

The obvious reply to your cynicism is: you mean, as in August of 1944? There were indeed throngs of people offering rose petals, wine and women to the Free French forces which liberated France, and also for the Americans and British who accompanied them. ~:)



https://img841.imageshack.us/img841/2474/cheers1.jpg

[PanzerJaeger]

Pro-Gaddafi forces appear to launch a probing attack (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8357934/Libya-rebels-in-desperate-battle-to-hold-ground.html) and are met with inneffectual defenses.


As the Libyan leader vowed in a speech in Tripoli to "fight until the last man and woman", his forces advanced on rebel-held strongholds to the east for the first time since the civilian-led uprising started a fortnight ago. Fighter jets launched air strikes on the towns of Brega and Ajdabiya, giving support to ground forces as they pounded rebel positions with heavy artillery fire.

Facing the onslaught it has long feared, the rebel leadership in the second city of Benghazi, just 100 miles north of Ajdabiya, appealed for international military intervention for the first time. On sand dunes along the desert coast scores of untrained and poorly equipped volunteers loyal to the rebel cause struggled to hold at bay the vast superior forces ranged against them. Theirs seemed a hopeless cause. Yet, even as the blood of their fallen comrades stained the desert sand, the rebels held their line and, remarkably, even appeared to push Col Gaddafi's forces back.

The battle took its toll; an open-top lorry darted forward amid falling shells to cart the dead back. Ambulances, braving the onslaught, ferried the wounded to nearby hospitals. The Daily Telegraph counted four dead, but doctors and witnesses said there were several other casualties.

Ajdabiya's inhabitants had been arming themselves with what they could. Some had guns but others came with machetes, axes, hammers, and in one instance a barbecue skewer. "We have come here to defend Ajdabiya," said Mohamed Abdrurrazeg, who grew up in Swansea. "It doesn't matter that I don't have a gun, because some of my friends do. I will just stand here with my people and die with my people."

For over a week the people of eastern Libya had been waiting for Col Gaddafi's inevitable counter-attack after they had died in their hundreds liberating their territory.

When it came, it was ferocious. Warplanes attempted to strike a military base, now in rebel hands, on the outskirts of Ajdabiya with the intention of depriving the insurrectionists of a vast arsenal of rockets and shells stored in the camp's many bunkers. As they had done at least twice before, the bombs missed their target.

But it was the town of Brega, 50 miles west, that bore the brunt of the first major attack of Col Gaddafi's counter-offensive.

Advancing on the town before dawn in a pincer movement, scores of vehicles carrying some of the Libyan leaders best-trained men launched a surprise attack on its main oilfield and airport, seizing both after encountering minimal resistance.

It seemed a hugely significant victory. By controlling the oilfield, pro-Gaddafi forces would have been in a position to cut the energy supply to most power stations in eastern Libya, including Benghazi, and prevent petrol reaching filling stations across much of rebel-held territory.

The airport too would have given Col Gaddafi a significant boost, allowing him to conduct air strikes on the east with much greater ease.

On Brega's sand dunes, chaos reigned. With no co-ordination and no chain of command, men unused to war fired at random as others rested, eating pasta rushed forward to the front by the women of the town. Yet the regime's victory proved short-lived as the inhabitants, most of them civilians armed with looted Kalashnikovs, fought back and forced Col Gaddafi's men to retreat to the grounds of a nearby technical institute.

Now on high ground, the advantage seemed to swing back to the forces of the regime. As the rebels dug in on the sand dunes below, they came under intensive barrages of anti-aircraft fire and artillery bombardment. Armed only with rifles, the rebels' situation seemed hopeless. Some began to retreat.

"These weapons are not enough," said Mohammed Sultan, shaking a jammed AK-47. "They are hitting us with much more force."

But reinforcements began to arrive. Pickup trucks mounted with anti-aircraft guns, sent from Benghazi and Ajdabiya, careered maniacally down a coastal road that had been suddenly transformed into the main supply route for the rebels.

Shooting frenziedly, they flung themselves into the fight but the men in the technical institute responded with ever greater vigour, firing 120-mm shells that detonated in and around rebel positions. There were women and children too at the institute, dragged out of their cars on the Tripoli-Benghazi road and taken there to be used as human shields, rebel fighters who claimed to have witnessed the abductions said.

In Ajdabiya, reinforcements were arriving too to defend a town that everyone expected to be the next under attack if Brega fell. Three antiquated tanks were rolled forward, but much of the ammunition in the nearby depot could not be used because most of the rocket launchers had been looted or were in a state of advanced disrepair.

Then, as the noise of the guns abated slightly, the sound of a fighter jet filled the air. With a deafening roar, two bombs exploded in the dunes nearby, prompting a panicked retreat by some of the volunteer fighters.

Yet, miraculously and inexplicably, Col Gaddafi's men suddenly retreated from the institute. Bewildered but jubilant rebels surged forward onto its campus before scattering as a MiG fighter roared low overhead and bombed them. Although there were no injuries and Brega once again belonged to the revolution, few believe that Col Gaddafi can be beaten so easily.

His forces may be only slightly less inept than the rebels, and their stomach for the fight may be lacking, but their fire power and air force capacity make them a foe that still engenders terror across eastern Libya.


And in Benghazi, rebel leaders appear to have changed their tune, desperately calling for Western airstrikes (http://english.aljazeera.net/news/africa/2011/03/20113242554921501.html) against government forces.


Meanwhile, the rebel National Libyan Council in east Libya called for UN-backed air strikes on foreign mercenaries used by Gaddafi against his own people.

Hafiz Ghoga, a spokesman for the council based in Benghazi, told a news conference that Gaddafi was using "African mercenaries in Libyan cities" which amounted to an invasion of the oil producing North African nation.

"We call for specific attacks on strongholds of these mercenaries," he said, but added: "The presence of any foreign forces on Libyan soil is strongly opposed. There is a big difference between this and strategic air strikes."

Wednesday's developments come as the US sent warships to the region as part of a Western effort to pile more pressure on Gaddafi to stop his violent crackdown and step aside.

The destroyer USS Barry moved through the Suez Canal on Monday and into the Mediterranean Sea.

Two amphibious assault ships, the USS Kearsarge, which can carry 2,000 marines, and the USS Ponce passed through the canal on Wednesday.

The White House said the ships were being redeployed in preparation for possible humanitarian efforts but stressed it "was not taking any options off the table".

"We are looking at a lot of options and contingencies. No decisions have been made on any other actions," Robert Gates, the US defence secretary, said.

The US says Libya could sink into civil war unless Gaddafi quits amid fears that the uprising - the bloodiest
against long-serving rulers in north Africa and the Middle East - could cause a humanitarian crisis.

Hillary Clinton, the US secretary of state, has cautioned that "Libya could become a peaceful democracy or it could face protracted civil war".

But Gaddafi remains defiant and his son, Saif al-Islam, has warned the West against launching military action, insisting that his father would neither step down nor go into exile.

[PanzerJaeger]

More attacks (http://english.aljazeera.net/video/africa/2011/03/2011336535465973.html) on Brega, and an interesting military analysis (http://english.aljazeera.net/video/africa/2011/03/2011331522685587.html) of Gaddafi's forces pre-revolt.

[Viking]

The defence of the rebels might not be impressive, but they put up a fight and managed to halt the advances of the loyalist troops nonetheless. It should also be taken into account that Brega is a small town (according to WP it has only about 7000 inhabitants), and that the "genuine front" of the rebels to the east is really Adjabiya. It is also clear that the armed might of Gaddafi cannot be that superior in sum, because otherwise he should have been capable of retaking cities already and quashing unrest with arms, just like in Tripoli.

If he sends out his regular military against the rebels, there are chances that they could use the opportunity to defect and join the rebels, as much of the military already has done. If he sends the presumably more loyal elite troops out, then that would leave the capital vulnerable to civil uprising, and the regular military could also take the opportunity to switch sides as well. So my take is basically that Gaddafi is afraid of initiating any large scale operation because the ball could start rolling against him, once more - new momentum for the rebels.

EDIT: Notice also how the airstrikes apparently deliberately miss their targets.

[gaelic cowboy]

The country will split in my view into Tripolitania and Cyrenacia respectively

[ICantSpellDawg]

Would it be possible to provide aid to the Free governments of eastern Libya which would act as a coupon for them to procure Xe Services as a security "advisor"? This might be a way that we could get troops on the ground without actually sending any.

[gaelic cowboy]

Most Eastern Libyans would still prob be suspicious of XE thinking they were some kind of western army which I suppose they are. Best thing is to get supplies of bread and water an grain across from Egypt while stopping the same in the western portion. If they get food supplies they can out last that loon no prob, he has kept his army purposely weak for years and surrounded himself only with a loyal special guard hence all the defections.

[Lemur]

Charlie Sheen v Muammar Gaddafi: whose line is it anyway?

The US actor and the Libyan leader have produced some choice lines recently. Can you distinguish between them?

Quiztime! (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/quiz/2011/mar/01/muammar-gaddafi-charlie-sheen-quiz) :laugh4:
There's now an improved version: Gadaffi, Sheen, or Glenn Beck?
(http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2011/03/its_time_to_play_sheen_beck_or.html)

[Boohugh]

This might be a way that we could get troops on the ground without actually sending any.

There were a number of British special forces already on the ground to coordinate the evacuation of British nationals that occurred last week/earlier this week before the evacuations happened - and I imagine other countries had a similar situation - so it's not too much of a stretch of the imagination to suppose they are still there making contact with the rebels and possibly providing them with advice.

Edit: Oh and this (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-12633415) is what happens when you don't prepare the ground beforehand!

[Tellos Athenaios]

Edit: Oh and this (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-12633415) is what happens when you don't prepare the ground beforehand!

I dunno. From your source it looks like there wasn't really a lot of time to do the proper preparation for whatever they did...

[ICantSpellDawg]

I don't see why we would need permission to use force in Libya if the interim peoples governemnt invites us in. Gaddafi has no authority in the country and is essentially an occupying force. The United Nations will never advocate force on any scale, so long as Russia has a vote. Responsible western powers should have people on the ground right now. Nobody believes that the UN has any legitimacy as anything other than as an assembly of embassies. I would love to see France and Italy act as the driving forces in that kind of escalation

[PanzerJaeger]

Zawiya is supposedly retaken (http://www.thestreet.com/story/11032511/1/libyan-rebels-vow-to-overthrow-gadhafi.html?cm_ven=GOOGLEN) and a senior rebel military leader is killed as pro-Gaddafi forces continue launching offensives while the regime continues to make money (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/1d72af02-46a5-11e0-967a-00144feab49a.html#axzz1FgxNRBRn)- critical to its long term survival.

Meanwhile in Benghazi, rebels blow themselves up (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12654670) without assistance from government forces as the supposedly impendent march on the capital fails to materialize for another day.

[Viking]

While PJ chooses to believe government propaganda, I choose to trust other sources more ~;):


Sky news correspondent Alex Crawford in Zawiya says that in the last few minutes, the rebels have repelled the attack by the government forces. She says 25 to 30 tanks advanced from the east at dawn, and that the city was under attack for two and a half hours. But eventually, the rebels were victorious. People are now celebrating in the main square, she says, chanting and firing into the air. She also says she can see up to a dozen bodies of pro-Gaddafi fighters on the ground. The rebels have also destroyed three tanks.

It also appears that the rebels are on their way to Sirte, and that the road to Tripoli might soon be "open" if they succeed to take that city:


Meanwhile, hundreds of kilometres to the east, rebels have told the Reuters news agency that they are pushing further west after driving government forces from the oil town of Ras Lanuf on Friday. They said their fighters were now in control of the small town of Bin Jawad, about 60km (38 miles) west of Ras Lanuf. One man said they had advanced to Harawa, another 15km (9 miles) further along the coast.

All from the BBC live feed (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12307698)

[tibilicus]

Just out of interest, it appears you're rooting in favor of Gadaffi PJ. If this is so, why?

[Prince Cobra]

Just out of interest, it appears you're rooting in favor of Gadaffi PJ. If this is so, why?

I can give you at least one reason... Some of the Gaddafi female guards :wink:

I am not in the proper mood to comment the conflict right now but will return to the topic soon...

[Populus Romanus]

Long live the revolution! Down with Qaddafi!:skull:

[Viking]

This is what happens next: Sirte falls tomorrow, and the march on Tripoli begins not long after. The battle of Tripoli will be short due to defecting units dealing severe blows to the loyalists, coupled with the civil uprising of the city. Anyone dear betting against? ~;)

[Idaho]

This is what happens next: Sirte falls tomorrow, and the march on Tripoli begins not long after. The battle of Tripoli will be short due to defecting units dealing severe blows the loyalists, coupled with the civil uprising of the city. Anyone dear betting against? ~;)

I think if we draw a line with:

Rebels win tomorrow effortlessly <-----1-----2-----3-----4-----5-----6-----7-----8-----9-----> Gadaffi crushes rebels and carries on

I think your prediction is about here on the spectrum:

Rebels win tomorrow effortlessly <-----1-----2-X---3-----4-----5-----6-----7-----8-----9-----> Gadaffi crushes rebels and carries on

I would put my own prediction nearer:

Rebels win tomorrow effortlessly <-----1-----2-----3----X-4-----5-----6-----7-----8-----9-----> Gadaffi crushes rebels and carries on


I think it will take a while longer to muster and organise a force to go for Tripoli, and I think there may be a few more counter-offensives by Gaddafi.

[PanzerJaeger]

Just out of interest, it appears you're rooting in favor of Gadaffi PJ. If this is so, why?

I'm rooting for no one. It is not my fight.

The extent of the folly in which many in the West engaged in is worth pointing out. You can see it in this thread. People with no understanding of the situation on the ground declared the regime all but dead and scoffed at suggestions otherwise, when it should have been clear that what the rebels had could not be accurately described as a military force. Heady talk of a grand march on Tripoli and Hitler in his bunker seem but a distant memory at this point.

The Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/05/gaddafi-opposition-libya-revolt) finally speaks in more sobering, realistic terms.


At the beating heart of the uprising, in Benghazi, Libya's rebels are trying to kickstart a revolution that has stalled less than halfway to the capital. Throughout the sacked city that spawned the revolt, the euphoria of victory is steadily becoming a distant memory. Routine has set into a place that two weeks ago was flush with hope and opportunity. After ousting a dictator of 42 years in less than a weekend, anything seemed possible here. For a while.

Shops are now open, streets are teeming and people are again talking about the grind of daily life. Heady predictions of a glorious march to Tripoli have been silenced.

"We didn't ask to be in this position," said Salwa Bugaigis, a leading member of Benghazi's organising committee, now trying to run the town's civil affairs. "I've said that since the beginning. I was one of the first protesters outside the courthouse. Then they attacked us. And then the revolution came. We are running something that we were not prepared for."

Benghazi's rebels were clearly not prepared for another surprise – Colonel Muammar Gaddafi's ability to rally his supporters and mount an effective rear-guard action that has stopped the revolution in its tracks, at least for now.



A week is a long time in Libya's revolution. Seven days ago the narrative was of a rebel advance almost to Colonel Gaddafi's doorstep. The town of Zawiyah — reached by journalists last Sunday – was in the hands of the opposition, which had little more than two ancient tanks, a handful of armoured cars and a pair of anti-aircraft guns.

In reality, the story of "the advance" was always something of an illusion, more real on paper than on the ground. True, the opposition holds much of the east, but the towns that have been ticked off one by one in the country's west and around the capital have been a very different issue — Zawiyah foremost among them.

For these are places that have not so much been captured by an opposition motoring on Tripoli but have fallen to the part of the population opposing Gaddafi.

And while they have been presented as part of a joined-up whole, in the west these opposition centres have been largely isolated from events in the east, unable to be reinforced or resupplied from the main effort in and around Benghazi.


Passing through Zawiyah in the middle of last week, it was clear a new balance of power was emerging. While last Sunday the checkpoints leading towards the city had been armoured cars and pickups, by Wednesday modern tanks, a dozen belonging to the Khamis brigade commanded by Gaddafi's son of the same name, were sitting at junctions outside the town.

Ten kilometres or so behind them was another worrying development for the 200 or so fighters within Zawiyah. First six, then eight, BM-21 missile launchers appeared in a tree-fringed meadow, their rockets pointing towards the town.

When the battle did come in earnest, it appears that those in the town were caught by surprise. For instead of attacking along the main road from the roundabout, close to the town's Martyrs Square, the government forces came from the west, through the outlying area of Harsha, catching the rebels by surprise and killing their commander early on in the fighting.

A teacher in the town said that Zawiyah was now under siege from pro-Gaddafi forces. "The square is surrounded. There is smoke and many fires. They are firing at the houses around the square. Snipers are firing at anyone who moves. My friends and cousins are in the square fighting. There are explosions. Anyone who tries to go to the square is being killed."

Libyan rebels said yesterday afternoon that they had repelled the initial attack by Gaddafi's forces. "They entered Zawiyah at six in the morning with heavy forces, hundreds of soldiers with tanks. Our people fought back … We have won for now and civilians are gathering in the square," said Youssef Shagan, the rebel force spokesman in Zawiyah.

However, another rebel fighter said that Gaddafi's forces were regrouping at the town's entrance. "Gaddafi will never enter this city," said the rebel, who gave his name as Ibrahim. "He will never set foot here. The only way for him to enter the city is when we are all dead. He has to kill us all to control the city."

Earlier, the Libyan leader's forces had fired high-explosive rounds in central streets and dragged people from their homes. There were reports of many casualties among civilians, rebels and soldiers.

The fluctuating fortunes of the two sides, typified in the bloody fights for Zawiyah and the sharp, chaotic battles for towns such as Misrata and Brega, suggest Libya's conflict may endure for weeks, or even months, as neither side is able to muster enough military power to decisively defeat the other.

The opposition, despite its early, bullish pronouncements about marching on Tripoli, lacks any effective air cover, leaving it vulnerable to those in the Libyan air force still loyal to Gaddafi.


Yesterday much of what was on show in Benghazi still spoke of revolution and victory. Stirring hymns, recorded in the wake of the fall of the city, blared out on constant rotation.

Independence flags that were last flown in the city 42 years ago are flying again, and local children shout their defiance as they run traffic intersections that not long ago were the sole domain of Gaddafi loyalists.

But noticeably absent was the gung-ho talk evident further along the highway where the fighting has been at its most intense. Instead people were focusing on more mundane things, like establishing a functional society and finding food. They anticipate being in for the long haul. Locals were pragmatic, not revolutionary.

"We have a lot to do here," said Fatima Marouf, as she bought meat, the first time she had left her house in a fortnight. "If we get this city working, then the rest may happen itself."

[Viking]

That Guardian article is out of touch with what has been going on lately. The rebels have, by force, taken towns that has been defended by loyalist troops - no stalemate on the eastern front just yet, that is certain. Also, if the rebels manage to take Cirte, then the road is almost "open" to Tripoli.

Much closer to Tripoli than Benghazi - in fact, just outside Tripoli - lies the the rebel held city of Misurata. Misurata is about the same size as Benghazi (and the third biggest city in the country it seems), and is the next major city on the road from Cirte. That rebels in Benghazi will not march on Tripoli may well be so, but there are rebels much closer that can do just that instead.

[tibilicus]

I'm rooting for no one. It is not my fight.

The extent of the folly in which many in the West engaged in is worth pointing out. You can see it in this thread. People with no understanding of the situation on the ground declared the regime all but dead and scoffed at suggestions otherwise, when it should have been clear that what the rebels had could not be accurately described as a military force. Heady talk of a grand march on Tripoli and Hitler in his bunker seem but a distant memory at this point.

Ah, I get you. No worries, I was just curious. ~:)

[PanzerJaeger]

That Guardian article is out of touch with what has been going on lately. The rebels have, by force, taken towns that has been defended by loyalist troops - no stalemate on the eastern front just yet, that is certain. Also, if the rebels manage to take Cirte, then the road is almost "open" to Tripoli.

Much closer to Tripoli than Benghazi - in fact, just outside Tripoli - lies the the rebel held city of Misurata. Misurata is about the same size as Benghazi (and the third biggest city in the country it seems), and is the next major city on the road from Cirte. That rebels in Benghazi will not march on Tripoli may well be so, but there are rebels much closer that can do just that instead.

We'll see. I've read reports (http://www.hindustantimes.com/10m-bounty-to-nab-Gaddafi-dead-or-alive/Article1-670139.aspx) claiming Westerners are on the ground buying off Gaddafi loyalists, which could change everything.

As of today though, your march on Sirte has been halted cold (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fgw-libya-fighting-20110307,0,1376386.story).


Ground forces loyal to Libyan leader Moammar Kadafi, backed up by warplanes, pushed rebels away from the coastal town of Bin Jawwad on Sunday to stop their advance on Kadafi's hometown of Sirte.

One fighter, returning wounded from Bin Jawwad to rebel-held Ras Lanuf further east, said Kadafi loyalists had ambushed advancing rebels with machine guns and rocket-propelled grenades.

Asked what he had seen, he replied: "Death." Distraught and bandaged, he would not say more.

As for Misurata, it doesn't appear to be the staging ground for a grand offensive either. In fact, it seems the situation is reversed (http://en.trend.az/regions/met/arabicr/1840981.html).

[ICantSpellDawg]

We'll see. I've read reports (http://www.hindustantimes.com/10m-bounty-to-nab-Gaddafi-dead-or-alive/Article1-670139.aspx) claiming Westerners are on the ground buying off Gaddafi loyalists, which could change everything.

As of today though, your march on Sirte has been halted cold (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fgw-libya-fighting-20110307,0,1376386.story).


As for Misurata, it doesn't appear to be the staging ground for a grand offensive either. In fact, it seems the situation is reversed (http://en.trend.az/regions/met/arabicr/1840981.html).

Congratulations to you.


I'm not picking this up. I'm picking up a general failure by Gaddafi to re-take lost cities. The opposition's offensive seems to have stalled, but Gaddafi is not gaining ground anywhere but in the imagination of the people of Tripoli.

[Prince Cobra]

PJ, the Gaddafi regime is as good as dead. That's very obvious. His only loyalist force is consisted of mercenaries, which leads me to the point...


We'll see. I've read reports claiming Westerners are on the ground buying off Gaddafi loyalists, which could change everything.

If this succeeds, this would be a really elegant way out of the crisis and I hope it will succeed.

[Populus Romanus]

I say we get the CIA into Libya to smuggle arms to the Rebels. Antitank weapons, antiaircraft weapons, and assault rifles could transform them from an angry mob to an effective killing machine.

[ICantSpellDawg]

That's what I'm talkin' bout.

[HoreTore]

I say we get the CIA into Libya to smuggle arms to the Rebels. Antitank weapons, antiaircraft weapons, and assault rifles could transform them from an angry mob to an effective killing machine.

They already have more than they need of that.

[Greyblades]

Seems the world isn't just watching. (http://news.aol.co.uk/main-news/story/libyan-rebels-release-british-team/1637077/)

[Noncommunist]

I say we get the CIA into Libya to smuggle arms to the Rebels. Antitank weapons, antiaircraft weapons, and assault rifles could transform them from an angry mob to an effective killing machine.

And some training would be helpful.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/06/us-libya-east-zeal-idUSTRE7251E720110306

From the look of the article, it seems they definitely have morale but their lack of training and tactics seems like it could seriously undermine them.

[Husar]

Yeah, the british are about to ruin this for all of us again and make sure that the Libyans will hate the west even more once this is over... :no:

[Greyblades]

Eh? Unless gaddafi wins wouldn't they consider an attempt to contact the resistance leaders a good thing?

[PanzerJaeger]

I say we get the CIA into Libya to smuggle arms to the Rebels. Antitank weapons, antiaircraft weapons, and assault rifles could transform them from an angry mob to an effective killing machine.

Indeed, let's dump a bunch of weapons in to Africa and try to play God in a small third world conflict. And when those weapons end up killing babies in the Congo in 10 years, I'm sure we'll all be suitably outraged. Have we learned nothing? At least when we did this in the Cold War it was based on broader strategic concerns and not pure emotion.

Thankfully, the Obama administration seems to at least understand the concept of plausible deniability (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/americas-secret-plan-to-arm-libyas-rebels-2234227.html). However, the blood and violence wrought with these weapons will always be, in part, on our hands. The service life on a decent AK build can be in excess of 50,000 rounds and/or 40 years. That's a huge liability just to sway the outcome of some marginal North African conflict.

Also, SOCOM is going to have a field day with this. SAS boys getting captured by the very people they were trying to help! :laugh4:

[Viking]

Rebel fighters seem unable to advance past Bin Jawad at present. Though, given the volatile situation as well as little information, no one seems able to predict what's next. The pendulum could swing either way, I suppose.

[Fragony]

Ah that is how I know our much beloved royal family, what do you do when people are rising up against oppresion? You hail in contracts for the sales of high-tech weaponry to the oppressors of course, what else. Of course it's just a private dinner. Her SS-serving daddy would be proud of her.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Also, SOCOM is going to have a field day with this. SAS boys getting captured by the very people they were trying to help! :laugh4:

That could have been staged. It leaves the opposition untainted by foreign aid, even though they met with the diplomats.

I honestly don't care about the national sovereignty of dictatorships. I believe that it is our duty to help free everyone, everywhere. We've got soldiers, they signed up to fight - let them fight. I support perpetual coalition wars around the globe until people have control of their own destinies. I wish more nations would link up to help fight these wars.

[Strike For The South]

Indeed, let's dump a bunch of weapons in to Africa and try to play God in a small third world conflict. And when those weapons end up killing babies in the Congo in 10 years, I'm sure we'll all be suitably outraged. Have we learned nothing? At least when we did this in the Cold War it was based on broader strategic concerns and not pure emotion.

:

+1 +freaking1

[Tellos Athenaios]

Indeed, let's dump a bunch of weapons in to Africa and try to play God in a small third world conflict. And when those weapons end up killing babies in the Congo in 10 years, I'm sure we'll all be suitably outraged. Have we learned nothing? At least when we did this in the Cold War it was based on broader strategic concerns and not pure emotion.

Thankfully, the Obama administration seems to at least understand the concept of plausible deniability (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/americas-secret-plan-to-arm-libyas-rebels-2234227.html).

Which means that the only real responsible way to aid the rebels (if we choose that) is boots on the grounds. Plausible denial is simply incompatible with responsibility (indeed the whole thing is designed to skirt responsibility).

[drone]

I say we give the opposition Stingers.

:hide:

[Viking]

EDIT: @Tellos
No, it isn't. The support given the most consideration at present is airstrikes and airborne support in general.

[Tellos Athenaios]

True. What matters is that if we do support the rebels, the only real way to do so that is responsible is a form of direct intervention. (Though I imagine that this will require at least some number of boots on the grounds to finish it.)

[ICantSpellDawg]

Obama asks Saudi Arabia to airlift guns to rebels (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/americas-secret-plan-to-arm-libyas-rebels-2234227.html)

I'm concerned that Secretary Gates is not interested in setting up a no fly zone at this point. I wonder what his pre-requisites would be to warrant that action.

[Tellos Athenaios]

A case of Lemur's disease: that is the exact same article PJ posted a few posts above...

[Fragony]

How about doing nothing. I agree with Panzer. I think. Our chivalrous rescue attempt of rescuing... who?? Why were our soldiers captured an the evacuees released. Why didn't they bring any marines the Tromp has them on board at all time. I have no idea what's going on anymore. SAS gets caught by rebels Dutch get caught by loyalists. wth

[ICantSpellDawg]

How about doing nothing. I agree with Panzer. I think. Our chivalrous rescue attempt of rescuing... who?? Why were our soldiers captured an the evacuees released. Why didn't they bring any marines the Tromp has them on board at all time. I have no idea what's going on anymore. SAS gets caught by rebels Dutch get caught by loyalists. wth

I'm saying naval support, air support with a no-fly zone and arms shipments to the opposition. If we need special forces to take out air defenses, then so be it - get in, get out.

This is what the U.S. military is best at. Gaddafi turning back the tide is not an option, so plan accordingly.

[ICantSpellDawg]

A case of Lemur's disease: that is the exact same article PJ posted a few posts above...

crap

[Fragony]

I'm not saying boots on the ground. I'm saying naval support, air support with a no-fly zone and arms shipments to the opposition. If we need special forces to take out air defenses, then so be it - get in, get out.

This is what the U.S. military is best at. Gaddafi turning back the tide is not an option, so plan accordingly.

Let them have this wether they succeed or not, at least it will be theirs, would you be very comfortable with finding your destiny if you know it really never really was your own doing, but an artificial construct

[Prince Cobra]

I honestly don't care about the national sovereignty of dictatorships. I believe that it is our duty to help free everyone, everywhere. We've got soldiers, they signed up to fight - let them fight. I support perpetual coalition wars around the globe until people have control of their own destinies. I wish more nations would link up to help fight these wars.

This is a very delicate issue. If you launch such a campaign, you will give much evidence to those who claim the West is Imperialistic threat and should not be trusted. You can also undermine the influence of those politicians who want good relations with the West. It is also not very certain what will happen in Libya and whether the West will look as the occupator... In addition, I am not very sure whether the oppostion in Lybia really wants a foreign military help and how people will react to that (despite the information (?) that the government in Benghazi asked for help... ) For now, the best strategy would be to locate forces around but not to interfere in the conflict... Sit and wait and provide humanitarian aid... And do everything you can with non-military means... (bribing the mercenaries is OK)

And yes, I believe the Lybians will manage to crush the Gadafi regime alone. Really. The loss of Bin Jawad was probably a tactical retreat, the real battle is now for Ras Lanuf and I believe that the mercenaries will be repelled. After all, all of the East became rebel and that includes all the tanks and munitions under the local army. Yes, the Gaddafi army is better armed but the rebels still have sharp teeth + numbers and high morale. And support of the international community.

Does anybody knows something about the Gaddafi airforce? As far as I know, the rebels have a good anti airforce weapons so the threat from the sky might be a bit exaggerated.

[Viking]

Let them have this wether they succeed or not, at least it will be theirs, would you be very comfortable with finding your destiny if you know it really never really was your own doing, but an artificial construct

I am sure the Dutch are still uncomfortable with that fact that they did not bring the nazis out of the country on their own.

That said, the rebels do actuall ask the West in particular to help them removing the threat from the air.

[gaelic cowboy]

Why the hell dont the Italians do summit about it instead of engaging in bunga bunga parties, sure it's there post colonial mess is it not.

They dont even need a carrier they can just hop across in jet and bomb the :daisy: out of Gadaffi and back for the bunga party later on.

[PanzerJaeger]

Does anybody knows something about the Gaddafi airforce? As far as I know, the rebels have a good anti airforce weapons so the threat from the sky might be a bit exaggerated.

On paper, they have 37 Hind attack helicopters, 39 SU-22s, 32 Mirages, 25 Mig 21s, 134 Mig 23s, and between 100 and 200 more support/training/transport aircraft - all of Cold War vintage. It is amazing that they've managed to get any of their fighters operational at all considering their age and the years of neglect they suffered through the 90s and 00s after the Soviet stream ran dry. I would think less than a third of those fighters are operational, but I have nothing solid to base that on. A number of planes were lost to the rebels as well.

Unless anti-aircraft units defected along with the captured AA equipment, the rebels would need Stinger-type missiles to be at all effective. Knocking jets out of the sky is difficult enough for a trained AA crew operating the kind of conventional AA guns that we've seen them riding around with on the backs of trucks, and it would be nearly impossible to jump on one with no experience and shoot down an aircraft. Luckily for the rebels, it is even more difficult to accurately bomb and strafe targets without decent training - training that Libya's pilots probably did not get much of.

[Greyblades]

Maybe we should airdrop some food and medical supplies into the revelutionary controled areas, like what the chocolate bomber did in east germany during the cold war. We could easily get away with it by saying it's a humanitarian mission and gaddafi couldnt try to shoot down the planes in fear of ticking off the UN.

[Shibumi]

Why dont we just missplace some SAMs and instructors?

would level out the playing field, without the weapons ending up killing civilians in umpteen years.

[Populus Romanus]

Why dont we just missplace some SAMs and instructors?

would level out the playing field, without the weapons ending up killing civilians in umpteen years.

That's what I'm talkin' 'bout!

I can't wait for an entire Libyan airbase, pilots, planes, crews and all to defect to the Oppostion. When that happens, Qaddafi will burn within the hour.

[Banquo's Ghost]

I'm concerned that Secretary Gates is not interested in setting up a no fly zone at this point. I wonder what his pre-requisites would be to warrant that action.

The ability to do it would be one.

To set up a no-fly zone would first require that all anti-aircraft measures (command and control, radar etc) were taken out. That means bombing the ground. Gaddafi would have half these facilities re-located next to schools within a day, possibly already. I'm sure the Libyan rebels would be jumping with joy seeing the Western powers bombing children for them.

:no:

[Shibumi]

Even if we could take out the AA, there are still issues with the no-fly zone.

Libya is rather big, patrolling the airspace simply would take a whole lot of resources. And with the military stretched thin as it is, and the budgets looking as they do, I just do not see it happen anytime soon.

[Shibumi]

nvm

[rory_20_uk]

Getting involved with any side if Libya is not going to end well.

If the side wins we back they're a Western stooge. If it doesn't, the leaders now hate us.
Whoever wins is going to "take off the white gloves" at some point. And we in the oh so pure West like to pretend that war is a clean fight (of course we all turn a blind eye when we're involved). We won't be able to place a news blackout as we would if we were in charge. So, pictures of our "allies" doing probably a long list of "warcrimes" - or prior to the UN, standard acts of war.
We get involved then we'll get blamed for any humanitarian diaster that takes place. If the rules of engagement are only fire if fired upon, then await cries of massacares whilst our troops watched. If more... elexible then await our troops shot "innocents".
No-fly zone is a joke. A great idea for the UN to have a serious debate until all the shooting stops. It's sufficiently complicated to take months to sort out if required.

Let the African Union take the lead in this mess. We could possibly donate some stuff to them to help, but that should really be it.

~:smoking:

[Idaho]

I love it how all the people who were gung-ho for the Afghan and Iraq invasions are now starting to come out with the same comments about Libya that the 'doves' were saying about Iraq and Afghanistan all those years ago. Glad that these 'hawks' have started to grow up a little.

[rory_20_uk]

In Iraq there was possibly a causus belli - which turned out to be utterly discredited. I doubt there would have been so many Hawks who'd've gone in for basically nothing.
The complete lack of a reconstruction plan was something that most Hawks would have also viewed as essential, merely out of pragmatism.
Afghanistan was another theatre where mission creep has become endemic. Was the initial plan to turn Afghanistan into Denmark, or cull those who harbour an enemy of America?

There is also the fact that neither of these situations has been resolved, so even hawks might think twice about a third concurrent conflict.

~:smoking:

[ICantSpellDawg]

In Iraq there was possibly a causus belli - which turned out to be utterly discredited. I doubt there would have been so many Hawks who'd've gone in for basically nothing.


~:smoking:

I think we should be everywhere whenever even minor causes turn up. I thought that the WMDs were a distraction when I was urging us to back a war against a dictator. One at a time we should topple dictators. Befriend them when we must, then find a reason to undermine their authority and drag them out. Do it for reasons other than national security - not for treasure, not for anything other than targeting leaders who profit off of the misery of their own people.

I think that we are a police force internationally and that this reality is discounted for no reason; I just wish that other nations would join us in policing the world. We are a stable country and all stable countries have an obligation to aid their unstable and oppressed neighbors.