IMMIGRATION thread

[Viking]

Nobody should have taken it upon themselves to "secure the defeat of the dictatorship." Regional actors did not unanimously support this intervention nor were the costs worth it.

First of all, where did the 'Arab spring' start? It was Tunisia, a friend of the West. Then Egypt followed, another friend of the West. Evidently, even if the West had loved Gaddafi, this war could still have happened.

What does this tell us? Gaddafi-style dictatorships can not be assumed to be stable. If Libya gets a Gaddafi 2.0 in a few years, we could have another uprising in Libya in 60 years time. If Gaddafi had won, similar considerations hold: there is a riske of a new violent uprising x years down the line. In addition to this, thanks to plundered arms depots, extremists could compromise Libya's internal security for decades; regardless of outcome.

By making sure that the dictatorship lost, we did in effect try to break this potential cycle by pushing the result towards something democratic. One might say the push was too gentle and that the democratic instutions in Libya should have been given help; like peace-enforcing troops after the war to initially provide the government forceful help if needed, but this comes with its own risks of failure.

Planting their feet in the Arabian Maghreb. Say what you will about Ghaddafi but he was a good security guard of the maghreb and his defeat enabled the network of islamism we see in Tunisia, Algeria, and Libya (along with other African states) today. They were single nastiest opposition to maghreb regimes yet the west risked arming them, intentionally or not.

And how does this relate to statements like this:

All the weapons are in Islamist hands since NATO got involved.

?

Does it intend to say that the islamists got weapons out of this at all? That wouldn't be a very shocking realisation.

There is no doubt that islamist extremists have gotten better conditions after the war in Libya - but even if Libya had completed a transformation to a peaceful democracy, that would likely still have been the case. Just look to the West and the problem of violent islamism there; yet there is resistance towards things like increasing surveillance (potentially: increasing authoritarianism) that could have protected people against such violence. There is a willingness to trade some security for some liberty.

[AE Bravo]

Evidently, even if the West had loved Gaddafi, this war could still have happened.

No. The west loves Saudi Arabia and Bahrain, those crackdowns were a success to their regimes. See Yemen also, Saleh was booted with a deal. The war could have still happened but with the Libyan regime's freedom in their own land without foreign restrictions and intl denunciation of regime legitimacy.

What does this tell us? Gaddafi-style dictatorships can not be assumed to be stable. If Libya gets a Gaddafi 2.0 in a few years, we could have another uprising in Libya in 60 years time. If Gaddafi had won, similar considerations hold: there is a riske of a new violent uprising x years down the line.

You are using the spring to convince yourself of Gaddafi's supposed unstable governance. In 60 years time you don't know what will happen. Gaddafi was a 70 year old guy and we don't know what his son would have done different. Gaddafi-style dictatorship may not have created an ideal Libya but it didn't break it. Whether you think Libya would have had another uprising 60 years from now or not doesn't matter, because that's the faulty premise and war of choice decision-making that started a civil war Qaddafi tried to prevent in the first place.

By making sure that the dictatorship lost, we did in effect try to break this potential cycle by pushing the result towards something democratic.

Very idealistic. Libya is a huge country with non-Democratic norms, jamahiriya socialism, and generally anti-colonial anti-west sentiment. Unless the invaders were willing to commit to nation-building and the changing of those norms by holding Libya's hands through it they should not have intervened. Since there is no way of doing this, than there is no possible justification for insisting on regime change when the regime offered what it had when it was losing.

There is no doubt that islamist extremists have gotten better conditions after the war in Libya - but even if Libya had completed a transformation to a peaceful democracy, that would likely still have been the case.

The single most powerful force that effectively muzzled and delegitimized these extremists was eliminated. Transformation to a peaceful democracy needed this very regime to pull it off.

[Viking]

No. The west loves Saudi Arabia and Bahrain, those crackdowns were a success to their regimes.

Which can be explained by a lack of momentum for this unrest.

You are using the spring to convince yourself of Gaddafi's supposed unstable governance. In 60 years time you don't know what will happen. Gaddafi was a 70 year old guy and we don't know what his son would have done different. Gaddafi-style dictatorship may not have created an ideal Libya but it didn't break it. Whether you think Libya would have had another uprising 60 years from now or not doesn't matter, because that's the faulty premise and war of choice decision-making that started a civil war Qaddafi tried to prevent in the first place.

We know for a fact that an uprising did happen during Gaddafi's rule. We know for a fact that many other Arab countries with secular authoritarian governments also faced uprisings. We do not know for a fact that Gaddafi would have won the war without outside interference; this is merely a likely outcome.

When we look at history, we also see a repeating pattern of authoritarian governments facing massive uprisings. This is by no means a new phenomenon.

Since there is no way of doing this, than there is no possible justification for insisting on regime change when the regime offered what it had when it was losing.

This is the same regime/dictator that has been implicated in a major terrorist attack against the West. I don't see why any guarantees it provided should be trusted.

The single most powerful force that effectively muzzled and delegitimized these extremists was eliminated. Transformation to a peaceful democracy needed this very regime to pull it off.

Again, as far as I can see, the extremists are only in control of portions of the country. One of the main reasons they are controlling anything at all is because of the split of the country's leadership; which means it is difficult for other countries to help train an army capable of dealing with these extremists.

[AE Bravo]

If you were not willing to explore the regime’s offers than you do not value the lives of Libyans. They were suffering and an opportunity arose to stop the bloodshed. Extending the war and harming more civilians went against what the UN authorization was for.

The regime had one last city to retake, the rebel stronghold. So saying they were “likely” to win is an understatement. The rebels had no defense at the time besides the most basic equipment and training, enough to rebel but not win a war.

Extremist or not the people who captured, tortured, and executed the man were chanting Allahu Akbar while shoving crowbars up his corpse. Everyone involved is a traitor to Libya. Our British expert on everything in the previous page likes to twist and turn on issues like "they were fighting over refineries" and "not all of them were Islamists" but that is hardly the point, and guy has tendency to enjoy arguing about nothings.

Again, as far as I can see, the extremists are only in control of portions of the country.

The fact they are in control of anything is a travesty. Libya needs a strongman to keep them in check and, if I'm not mistaken, 50% of Libya agree.

[Fragony]

Hey who would have thought, internal memo in Germany, these 800.000 'refugees' are probably going to be 8 million once families get united, don't speak German, have zero education. Like most who are already there now. Good job Merkel. At least you have a Nobel-peace price waiting for you

Now they want to seperate christians and muslims, and seperate women from men, as intimidation and rape is, well not the exception. The police can't handle it.

Way to go

[Viking]

If you were not willing to explore the regime’s offers than you do not value the lives of Libyans. They were suffering and an opportunity arose to stop the bloodshed. Extending the war and harming more civilians went against what the UN authorization was for.

Tell that to the actual and would-be prisoners of the Gaddafi regime who were ultimate saved by the intervention. Save some, sacrifice some.

Here's one thing to look at: where were the refugees coming from (2014)?

At page 23, you can see that for 44 industrialised countries summed up, Libya ranked as number 40.

If we had bombed Assad to smithereens early on, Syria might have had much fewer refugees pouring out than it does now - like Libya. Who knows.

The regime had one last city to retake, the rebel stronghold. So saying they were “likely” to win is an understatement. The rebels had no defense at the time besides the most basic equipment and training, enough to rebel but not win a war.

They had RPGs and AKs, plenty to provide tough resistance - like they did in Zawiya. It took the regime several days to recapture a city right next to the capital.

There was not one last city to take, that is blatant misinformation. First, Gaddafi would have to retake Benghazi - the second largest city in the country. He still did not have complete control over Misrata. Beyond Benghazi, he would need to take control over cities like Bayda (the fourth largest city), the infamous Derna and Tobruk. In the east, he'd also need to take control of the Nafusa mountains. In other words, large swathes of territory he'd not only need to take control of, but also successfully hold.

Extremist or not the people who captured, tortured, and executed the man were chanting Allahu Akbar while shoving crowbars up his corpse.

And Mussolini's dead body was hung up for display publicly, allowing people to desecrate the corpse. PETA should totally get involved.

Everyone involved is a traitor to Libya.

Such pathos.

The fact they are in control of anything is a travesty.

Indeed. Just like the Gaddafi regime's existence was a travesty before this.

[Husar]

Here's one thing to look at: where were the refugees coming from (2014)?

At page 23, you can see that for 44 industrialised countries summed up, Libya ranked as number 40.

If we had bombed Assad to smithereens early on, Syria might have had much fewer refugees pouring out than it does now - like Libya. Who knows.

Epic fail, try again.

[AE Bravo]

Viking, I think you are severely misguided.

Here: http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/...6#.VhK3bhNViko

I would be shocked if you already read this. No better source at the moment than intl security when it comes to these things, and everything you have said conflicts with Kuperman's facts. Please just read before passing fail judgement.