Civil War in Libya

[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/multi...est_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.

[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.

[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.

[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? ) 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]

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...dates#block-21

[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...dates#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.

[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?'