IMMIGRATION thread

[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.

[Viking]

Epic fail, try again.

Explain.

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

It's behind a paywall.

and everything you have said conflicts with Kuperman's facts.

Considering that I haven't been stating many non-trivial facts, this seems unlikely.

[AE Bravo]

Oh, my bad. It really is essential reading if you want to talk about Libya, here are some excerpts:

NATO started bombing forces in Qaddafi’s hometown of Sirte, where they represented no threat to civilians because the residents supported the regime.32

Cites - 32. Praveen Swami, Rosa Prince, and Toby Harnden, “Coalition Forces Strike Sirte; Leader’s Home Town,” Daily Telegraph, March 28, 2011.

Qaddafi’s forces commenced a massive counteroffensive on March 7. Within two days, government troops had retaken Ras Lanuf in the east, the biggest mountain town of Gharyan in the west, and Zawiya near the capital. Just one week later, Qaddafi had recaptured virtually all significantly populated areas west of the rebels’ stronghold of Benghazi (see agure 3). A small part of Misurata remained contested, but the rebels there were doomed because they had no access to supplies, given that Qaddafi now controlled both the sea and land lines of communication to the city.

In the preceding week, the rebels had not put up any real defense; they possessed only the rudimentary equipment and training needed to start a rebellion, not to win a war. They retreated, typically within two days, from each successive town that the army targeted on its eastward march: Ras Lanuf, Brega, and Ajdabiya. Based on this progression, government forces probably would have captured Benghazi by March 20. The remaining small towns farther east along the coast almost surely would have fallen the following week, prompting the rebels to flee to Egypt for refuge. Without NATO intervention, therefore, Libya’s rebellion and civil war—and resulting endangerment of civilians—likely would have ended by late March 2011, less than six weeks after the conflict had started.

There is no reason to believe, however, that a bloodbath would have occurred in Benghazi, considering that Qaddafi had not threatened to attack civilians there and had not perpetrated such violence in any of the other cities that his forces recaptured from rebels (see table 1).

In light of this ongoing instability and insecurity, it is perhaps understand- able that many Libyans are nostalgic for a strong leader such as Qaddafi, who at minimum maintained order and provided basic social services. The country’s national survey after the war, conducted in late December 2011, reported that 54 percent of respondents “strongly agree” the country needs “a (single) strong Libyan leader.”86

the former Libyan leader had evolved into a relatively benign figure during his last decade. He switched from supporting terrorists to providing intelligence against them following the September 11, 2001, al-Qaida attacks on the United States. He reduced aid to foreign rebels and instead sponsored peace initiatives, including for the Darfur region of Sudan. He dismantled and surrendered his weapons of mass destruction program after the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003. Indeed, NATO intervention against Qaddafi after he had voluntarily disarmed is likely to hinder future nonproliferation efforts elsewhere. Accordingly, it is difficult to identify any obvious benefit for the region or beyond from NATO’s intervention in Libya.

Also, it's worth noting that black Libyans weren't systematically displaced and imprisoned under Qaddafi. Racists took over the country and looted their homes, treating blacks like refugees in their own country. These "mercenaries" of Qaddafi were Libyans fighting for Libya and defending its stability, they voluntarily sided with him. Haftar was a military commander in the 80s but lived in the US until he saw that NATO was willing to help rebels.

This is not what Libyans fought for and their revolution was ruined for the actual rebels, the good Libyans who wanted non-violent change. NATO created a field where militias control entire cities, this fragmented the country and there's no coming back from that any time soon.

[Husar]

Explain.

You posted a list with the country of origin of the refugees in order to show that the civil war in Libya did not allow for more refugees to come to Europe as very few of them are from Libya. That may well be true, but it misses the point that a lot of the boats start from Libya due to the lack of law and order there. I don't think anyone was claiming that the boats are full of Libyans, it's more like a lot of people from all over Africa go there to enter the boats because it is very unlikely that they will be stopped there. Therefore the number of Libyans arriving here is pretty irrelevant. There would be far fewer sub-saharan Africans in Europe today if Gaddafi and his regime still topped them from entering boats willy nilly all over the Libyan coast. The amount of Libyans who come to Europe says nothing much about this.