Civil War in Libya

[Strike For The South]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...rotesters.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 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 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.

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.

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

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/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.

[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.

[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.