Civil War in Libya

[Papewaio]

Seems the rebels have a UAV for spying out positions:

http://m.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/0...wn-mini-drone/

A Canadian military vet got the $100k machine into the country.

The most amazing thing is they are using a windows tablet to control it.

[PanzerJaeger]

Anyway, here's a terrible racist scene that played out in Tripoli today, as predicted by PJ earlier in this thread. EXTREMELY GRAPHIC stuff, you are warned.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Awesome! Here's how they're faring in Benghazi.

Warning: Extremely disturbing and violent video. This is not a joke as above. BG

Our tax dollars at work.

And ever more information is coming to light that debunks the 'mercenaries' excuse as nothing more than a cover to exercise long held racist cleansings by the Arab rebels, who have long resented the presence of African workers in their country.

derStandard.at: Can you confirm reports that Gaddafi uses African mercenaries?

Rovera: Yes. We have carefully examined and found no evidence. The opposition has spread everywhere these rumors, which had dire consequences for African migrant workers: it was held a regular hunt on immigrants, some were even lynched, arrested many. Meanwhile, there is even the opposition, that the mercenaries were not, almost all were released and have returned to their home countries because the investigations have revealed nothing against them.

Eight or nine suspected mercenaries are still incarcerated, I'm assuming that they are migrant workers. The Africans who work on construction sites in Libya, agriculture or factories were exposed before the start of the conflict, racism and xenophobia, but these rumors have worsened their situation even further.

[Centurion1]

Oh yes it's far north, I don't think I've ever been further north than Trøndelag. I hear there are polar bears in the streets further north, and that Sami shamans can cast nasty spells on you. The Sun doesn't rise every day, either.

Anyway, here's a terrible racist scene that played out in Tripoli today, as predicted by PJ earlier in this thread. EXTREMELY GRAPHIC stuff, you are warned.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

YOUR RIGHT!!!!!!!!

And here's evidence in the form of a solitary picture that Racism is dead in America too!


http://www.worldofstock.com/slides/PCH4329.jpg

Talk about anecdotal evidence...... for all you really know those are pro-gaddafi loyalists.

[Montmorency]

Sorry, that's unauthorized.

And for all you know, Allah may be the only god.

[Viking]

Here's how they're faring in Benghazi.

They? One man? And who; Got his ID? Would suck if he turned out to be a mercenary, eh?

And ever more information is coming to light that debunks the 'mercenaries' excuse as nothing more than a cover to exercise long held racist cleansings by the Arab rebels, who have long resented the presence of African workers in their country.

lol, you can't be serious. Firstly, a lack of evidence as seen by one person, does not debunk anything at all. Secondly, there is nothing in the first link nor the second to support such a confident conclusion (there are no obvious links between the two articles, either). One should not be surprised at the lack of captured mercenaries, why would a man getting paid by a tyrant to fight his people want to get captured by said people?

Here's evidence of mercenaries from Chad, ID papers shown to camera at 03:13 (from outside Adjabiya in March)

But not only sub-Saharan African countries are accused of providing mercenaries, there has also been claims that Algerians have been fighting for Gaddafi; and early on in the conflict, it was claimed that the pilots of a regime yet that was shot down had Syrian passports. A couple of days ago, they also claimed to have capture mercenaries from Ukraine in Tripoli. I cannot confirm any of this stuff, but of course it would be convinient for the opposition fighters to convince themselves that most of the men they are fighting are not countrymen, but rather foreigners - making their fight more noble.

YOUR RIGHT!!!!!!!!

And here's evidence in the form of a solitary picture that Racism is dead in America too!


http://www.worldofstock.com/slides/PCH4329.jpg

Talk about anecdotal evidence......

Way to miss the point. From the very start of this war, PJ has tried to discredit the opposition fighters, first by claiming that they were al-Qaeda sympathisers, and when that turned out not to be so efficient, they were racists instead. It's all black and white, which is precisely something a simple picture can disprove - nuance is unsurprisingly required, so my picture fulfills its task most elegantly. Anecdotal evidence is exactly what PJ's video is, no details on the surroundings are provided.

for all you really know those are pro-gaddafi loyalists.

Really? With the opposition flag at the stock of his weapon? The image is from yesterday, inside Bab Al-Aziziya.

[Furunculus]

article on the implications of success for france and britain of the libyan intervention:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...till-work.html

"The truth, however, is that Libya is not a successor to Kosovo or Sierra Leone. Instead, it is the prototype for a new kind of intervention, one that reflects the very different world that we find ourselves in today."

Indeed, the Libyan intervention is the template by which Britain and France will continue to justify their veto-wielding permanent UNSC seats, by providing exactly the capabilities you note below:

"There is now an immense opportunity for Britain and France to live up to their responsibilities in the Security Council, and to provide the core of a well-equipped rapid reaction force, under UN auspicies, pledging planes and where necessary an aircraft carrier from their navies."

Better still, this conflict has given legitimacy and legal-standing to the normative framework through which this liberal-intervention can utilised; Responsibility to Protect, or R2P in shorthand.

Both Britain and France will sink from the top five to the top ten, or thereabouts, in economic power over the next forty years, and will cease to be technology leaders in the same time-frame remaining only peer nations in a much larger group.

If they want to to justify the retention of their seats they will have to bring something to the party, and they have decided that can only be military intervention in the advancement of UN mandated goals.

Thus the need for Armed Forces configured for sovereign and strategic power-projection.

Libya is a success story for Britain and France, in more ways than one!

[Papewaio]

I think twitter trumps them there it being more responsible for the Arab Spring and all the low tech converted utes.

So are we going to give the social media barons a seat on the council?

France and UK will maintain there seats until bigger nuclear armed nations take their place. If that place is based on military might, well the biggest economies can afford the bigger militarys. So you hope it isn't just done on who supplies the UN with the most peacekeepers.

I can see India and Brazil being logical contenders.

[Centurion1]

Your entire argument is the biggest house of **** I have ever read. Everything you present is anecdotal. I missed nothing. You however, seem to have missed the concept of anecdotal evidence. There are Al-Qaeda supporters in the rebel groups.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...ief-fears.html

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...bels-in-libya/

Hell, I can link entire articles not one freaking facebook photo. Yes, you sir, based your entire freaking argument upon the back of a facebook photo from a rebel support group.

One should not be surprised at the lack of captured mercenaries, why would a man getting paid by a tyrant to fight his people want to get captured by said people?

Do you realize the absurdities of this statement. Why the hell would a mercenary want to die rather than be captured. I don't know what fantasy land you live in where people can always escape capture in battle because I would sure love to join it. The statistical probability of not a single mercenary being captured is so hilariously small its not worth calculating. So one should be very surprised there are no captured mercenaries.

Here's evidence of mercenaries from Chad, ID papers shown to camera at 03:13 (from outside Adjabiya in March)

This is glorious. I am going to take your word for it because the video won't play. Once again anecdotal evidence. I would be far from surprised if they planted the damn passport. Why would a foreign national gun for hire carry around his ID papers declaring him to be Chad native. Where precisely is the logic buried to carry around papers to make him loathed by everyone he fights against even more than before.

Libya will go down as some sort of victory for democracy and the west and will soon become a theocratic dominated or otherwise terrible place all at the cost of the actually noble intentioned rebels.

What I want to know is how is the wests reaction to this superior to Iraq or Afghanistan..... both of those wars immensely unpopular from the get go yet lets look at the facts.

1. Saddam Hussein was quite clearly an immensely more evil human being than even scum of the earth Gaddafi.
2. The libyan rebels could have eventually overthrown gaddafi as he was not as harsh or as well emplaced as saddam
3. Hussein and his Ba'aths' were much more systematic in destroying opposition and no rebel movement would have stood a chance without considerable backing and aid.
4. Placing troops on the ground saved countless lives in the long run instead of this bull air campaign in which the Libyans shed the blood and we westerners cheer on the sidelines and open our wallets.

Then Afghanistan

1. Taliban once again a terribly evil group.
2. Afghanistan even poorer than the Libyans they needed help
3. There was even a large scale war going on this time already between the northern alliance and the Taliban......
4. Women and other disenfranchised groups were far more harshly treated than their Libyan counterparts in many cases.

So what makes this superior besides demonstrating we hold a lower value on the lives of foreigners than our own fellow citizens. Then throughout the last couple pages we have gems like this,

The future is looking brighter in that part of the world at least, my guess is that the feeling in Libya now is about the same as it was here in 1945.

Why do you hate freedom?

This is simply wonderful.

This is hilarious. Most of you people did not even know who Qaddafi was before all of this. Those of you who did know who he was probably never mentioned once how much you would like to see him overthrown. I only knew who the SOB was because I asked my father why a colonel would be in control of a country after I read about Reagan bombing the little cretin. Why does Gaddafi's regime falling herld some great new time. WE HAVE NO IDEA WHAT THIS HERALDS GOOD OR BAD

There are several black skinned opposition fighters. If this image is anything to go by, then also in the future police force.

Seriously dude what is your hard on for single pictures being your argument

[Furunculus]

I think twitter trumps them there it being more responsible for the Arab Spring and all the low tech converted utes.

So are we going to give the social media barons a seat on the council?

France and UK will maintain there seats until bigger nuclear armed nations take their place. If that place is based on military might, well the biggest economies can afford the bigger militarys. So you hope it isn't just done on who supplies the UN with the most peacekeepers.

I can see India and Brazil being logical contenders.

lol, twitter does not trump the commitment of britain and france, and it is one thing to provide peacekeepers, bangladesh does that, it is quite another to provide warfighters, and ones capable of being employed to war-winning effect the world over!

[Centurion1]

article on the implications of success for france and britain of the libyan intervention:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...till-work.html



Indeed, the Libyan intervention is the template by which Britain and France will continue to justify their veto-wielding permanent UNSC seats, by providing exactly the capabilities you note below:



Better still, this conflict has given legitimacy and legal-standing to the normative framework through which this liberal-intervention can utilised; Responsibility to Protect, or R2P in shorthand.

Both Britain and France will sink from the top five to the top ten, or thereabouts, in economic power over the next forty years, and will cease to be technology leaders in the same time-frame remaining only peer nations in a much larger group.

If they want to to justify the retention of their seats they will have to bring something to the party, and they have decided that can only be military intervention in the advancement of UN mandated goals.

Thus the need for Armed Forces configured for sovereign and strategic power-projection.

Libya is a success story for Britain and France, in more ways than one!

Your a cute little nationalist aren't you.

Indeed, the Libyan intervention is the template by which Britain and France will continue to justify their veto-wielding permanent UNSC seats, by providing exactly the capabilities you note below:

So the entire point of this exercise was to prove that Britain and France's penile length is indeed long enough to justify carrying a glorified ban hammer.

Better still, this conflict has given legitimacy and legal-standing to the normative framework through which this liberal-intervention can utilised; Responsibility to Protect, or R2P in shorthand.

A completely bogus mandate made to justify force. According to that we better hurry on over to N. Korea, China, Myanmar, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Most of Sub Saharan Africa, a few South American countries, and hell lets throw the United States onto that list since citizens rights are restricted all the time and trampled upon!

And before you get too carried away with how awesome you are why don't you consider some things about how this all went..... like these tidbits

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011...aircraft-libya

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/...ElD_story.html

I think you all are fantastic fellows though!

Edit: This all also reminds me of how depressingly stupid NATO is to maintain. It's like a group of old ladies who have been meeting to go for runs for 40 years but they are all in Wheelchairs now and even the most fit one is starting to use a cane to get about...................

[Papewaio]

lol, twitter does not trump the commitment of britain and france, and it is one thing to provide peacekeepers, bangladesh does that, it is quite another to provide warfighters, and ones capable of being employed to war-winning effect the world over!

Gaddafi was in power for 42 years. He supported the IRA, he had an airliner blown up above Scotland.

Social media allowed the rebels to organise and attack. Yes NATO helped out getting rid of the heavy units and that is a good thing. But the win was on the ground, by the people.

To use this as a reason for the UK and France to remain permanent members on the security council is a poor choice... again 42 years of provocation and only the med to sail across... still couldn't do it. People power did.

[Furunculus]

Gaddafi was in power for 42 years. He supported the IRA, he had an airliner blown up above Scotland.

Social media allowed the rebels to organise and attack. Yes NATO helped out getting rid of the heavy units and that is a good thing. But the win was on the ground, by the people.

To use this as a reason for the UK and France to remain permanent members on the security council is a poor choice... again 42 years of provocation and only the med to sail across... still couldn't do it. People power did.

you fail to understand.

the libya intervention was justified using R2P.

its success will set a precedent.

therefore 'minor' nations have now carved themselves a new role on the SC - enforcement of UNSC resolutions.

[Hax]

3. Hussein and his Ba'aths' were much more systematic in destroying opposition and no rebel movement would have stood a chance without considerable backing and aid.

Interesting that you should mention this. In fact, there was a rebel movement centered around Basra that rose up against Saddam Hussein. For some reason, considerable backing and aid never came.

[Papewaio]

you fail to understand.

the libya intervention was justified using R2P.

its success will set a precedent.

therefore 'minor' nations have now carved themselves a new role on the SC - enforcement of UNSC resolutions.

So by doing what they should be enforcing resolutions, they should retain a seat that was determined by the winners of a conflict over 60 years ago. Why not in the modern world let Germany have a permanent seat or Japan?

UK and France are not minor powers (yet). What you're not seeing is that the permanent members are major ones and that minor ones come and go on non-permanent seats. Lose that power though and you can expect to lose the seat no matter how much you hump the UN's leg.

My guess is that UK and France probably won't lose their permanent seats (because they have powerful Allies), other nations instead will get one. For instance India could be added in the next twenty to forty years.

However it is not without precedent that they could lose them... it would take them to do something stupid first however like leaving the UN.

[Furunculus]

So by doing what they should be enforcing resolutions, they should retain a seat that was determined by the winners of a conflict over 60 years ago. Why not in the modern world let Germany have a permanent seat or Japan?

UK and France are not minor powers (yet). What you're not seeing is that the permanent members are major ones and that minor ones come and go on non-permanent seats. Lose that power though and you can expect to lose the seat no matter how much you hump the UN's leg.

My guess is that UK and France probably won't lose their permanent seats (because they have powerful Allies), other nations instead will get one. For instance India could be added in the next twenty to forty years.

However it is not without precedent that they could lose them... it would take them to do something stupid first however like leaving the UN.

because germany and japan have neither the will nor the capability for sovereign and strategic power projection, obviously.
neither does china or russia for that matter, but they have a lot of territory and a lot of people/nukes.

i used the word 'minor' deliberately, by 2050 the UK will be the 7-9 largest economic power, and france the 8-12 largest (likewise Germany), we will be very small compared to US, India, China and Brazil. We won't have huge landmass or massive populations, we will no longer be recognised leaders in tech innovation, just one among many. if we want to keep those seats it will be because of R2P.

[Papewaio]

The Arab spring is just a start.

The internet is still young too.

If we are lucky we won't hit a singularity by 2050.

So my guess by then there just won't be enough places to R2P to justify a permanent membership in the UN security council, I think it will have to be found through different means... and ones that don't reek of colonialistic intent either... Gaddafi was one of the longest running dictators in history whose people rose up against him... those events are not the norm they are the exception where R2P looks good... the vast majority of the time things are a lot more messy... of course the UK has a much better streak of interfering and improving whilst the USA is out for a duck on that one.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The Arab spring is just a start.

The internet is still young too.

If we are lucky we won't hit a singularity by 2050.

So my guess by then there just won't be enough places to R2P to justify a permanent membership in the UN security council, I think it will have to be found through different means... and ones that don't reek of colonialistic intent either... Gaddafi was one of the longest running dictators in history whose people rose up against him... those events are not the norm they are the exception where R2P looks good... the vast majority of the time things are a lot more messy... of course the UK has a much better streak of interfering and improving whilst the USA is out for a duck on that one.

The Libyan intervention is not Colonialistic, it sits along with the Ivory Coast one as an example of Western Powers using UN resolutions to pressure despots, and then supporting their removal through force.

Here's someone from the Guardian who doesn't get it: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...n-intervention

Gaddafi could not have been felled without outside intervention to level the field between him and his opponents, that is all the UK and France did, not "Western armies" were used to oust him, Libyans bled and died for his removal and all the West did was take away his trump cards, his planes tanks and artillery.

Also from the Guardian, happy thoughts: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...arab-uprisings

[Fisherking]

Yes, the Rebels started their own central bank back in March. I hear Goldman Sachs has control. I have also heard that oil companies are already negotiating deals.

I guess we just sit back and see how it all goes.

I just expect another dictator ship only one that the west feels more secure with.

[Furunculus]

The Libyan intervention is not Colonialistic, it sits along with the Ivory Coast one as an example of Western Powers using UN resolutions to pressure despots, and then supporting their removal through force.

Here's someone from the Guardian who doesn't get it: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...n-intervention

Gaddafi could not have been felled without outside intervention to level the field between him and his opponents, that is all the UK and France did, not "Western armies" were used to oust him, Libyans bled and died for his removal and all the West did was take away his trump cards, his planes tanks and artillery.

Also from the Guardian, happy thoughts: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...arab-uprisings

^ wot he said ^

at the end of the day the SC boils down to the threat of force in the face of non-compliance against UN resolutions.

to do that you need to be able to project power, the three most capable nations in this are the US, UK, and France, and we will struggle to justify a permanent veto via any other criteria, so we will push military interventions.

ergo R2P is essential
ergo Libya was damned handy

[HoreTore]

Yes, the Rebels started their own central bank back in March. I hear Goldman Sachs has control. I have also heard that oil companies are already negotiating deals.

I guess we just sit back and see how it all goes.

I just expect another dictator ship only one that the west feels more secure with.

Goldman Sachs is, for all its recent scumbaggery, still a renowned and incredibly huge bank. Besides, all the other ones with the size, experience and power to help an upstart government are also scumbags. The new government has shown wisdom in consulting financial matters with someone outside, I really don't think they would've been able to handle the economy alone in the first year.

Libya is an oil country. They'll have to sell it of course, so it's only logical that they're making deals. Why on earth wouldn't they?

None of this is a cause for concern. On the contrary, it's a sign that things are progressing towards a functioning state.

[Papewaio]

The Libyan intervention is not Colonialistic, it sits along with the Ivory Coast one as an example of Western Powers using UN resolutions to pressure despots, and then supporting their removal through force.

Yes and I stated that there is going to be very few like oppourtunites in the future the rest will either be more complex or reek of colonial interference.
"So my guess by then there just won't be enough places to R2P to justify a permanent membership in the UN security council, I think it will have to be found through different means... and ones that don't reek of colonialistic intent either"

So there is going to be very little oppourtunities to get involved in situations like this... and typically the UN has not gotten involved in civil wars either until they are sure war crimes are being committed.


So lets look at it:

First you need a dictator and they seem to be a dying breed.

Second there has to be no hint of colonial intervention to keep it smelling like roses.

Third you need both China and Russia to not veto it.

Fourth you don't want either of them actually doing the force projection as they will steal your thunder.

Fifth you need no other nation to step up to the plate and outperform either the UK or France.

Sixth, Fusion isn't invented because no one is going to intervene for heavy water.

Yeah, I can see this is a game winning plan with no chances that anything can go wrong... good luck for the next fifty years on that one.

[tibilicus]

Awesome! Here's how they're faring in Benghazi.
And ever more information is coming to light that debunks the 'mercenaries' excuse as nothing more than a cover to exercise long held racist cleansings by the Arab rebels, who have long resented the presence of African workers in their country.

A single youtube video in a different language is pathetic evidence for something you claim is wide spread. If this sort of thing happened on a large scale, do you not think the news agencies would have caught wind of it considering there is no real internal security to stop such information leaking? It's not like the Qaddafi era where journalists movement is restricted, in the East the journos could move freely.

Yes, ISOLATED incidents of such attacks have been reported but it isn't widespread and more importantly orchestrated as you suggest. The coordination of affairs and the administrative functions of the NTC has been pretty impressive considering the lack infrastructure. Those rebels also seem pretty disciplined too, or would you care to explain why the "lynch mobs" you predicted haven't been seen on my tv screen yet? or is it some sort of NATO conspiracy?

I find it remarkable that you, an American, are trying to sing the praises of a regime which is directly responsible for the death of hundreds of your countrymen. I can't comprehend why you herald the death of the Desert Dog with almost a sense of remorse. Sure, things could get worse, but is all of it not even a little bit worth it if in a decades time we can look at Libya and say yes, what happened here was a good thing? I guess some believe it's better to die a slave, subservient and obedient than a free man. These things may take place in isolated incidents but you have to remember, this is war. Look what happened when the Russians swept into Germany..

[tibilicus]

Goldman Sachs is, for all its recent scumbaggery, still a renowned and incredibly huge bank. Besides, all the other ones with the size, experience and power to help an upstart government are also scumbags. The new government has shown wisdom in consulting financial matters with someone outside, I really don't think they would've been able to handle the economy alone in the first year.

Libya is an oil country. They'll have to sell it of course, so it's only logical that they're making deals. Why on earth wouldn't they?

None of this is a cause for concern. On the contrary, it's a sign that things are progressing towards a functioning state.

It should also be noted that Libya is in a very strong position economically. Whilst it lacks infrastructure and wealth distribution it does have zero debts, $120 Billion in frozen assets and massive oil reserves. With a little bit of help in management and administration and without the need for direct aid, Libya has the opportunity to become a reasonably developed economy.

[Furunculus]

Yes and I stated that there is going to be very few like oppourtunites in the future the rest will either be more complex or reek of colonial interference.
"So my guess by then there just won't be enough places to R2P to justify a permanent membership in the UN security council, I think it will have to be found through different means... and ones that don't reek of colonialistic intent either"

So there is going to be very little oppourtunities to get involved in situations like this... and typically the UN has not gotten involved in civil wars either until they are sure war crimes are being committed.


So lets look at it:

First you need a dictator and they seem to be a dying breed.

Second there has to be no hint of colonial intervention to keep it smelling like roses.

Third you need both China and Russia to not veto it.

Fourth you don't want either of them actually doing the force projection as they will steal your thunder.

Fifth you need no other nation to step up to the plate and outperform either the UK or France.

Sixth, Fusion isn't invented because no one is going to intervene for heavy water.

Yeah, I can see this is a game winning plan with no chances that anything can go wrong... good luck for the next fifty years on that one.

you have just argued for doing without the UNSC altogether, or, having a UNSC of just the US.

your argument doesn't fly.

[Viking]

Your entire argument is the biggest house of **** I have ever read. Everything you present is anecdotal. I missed nothing. You however, seem to have missed the concept of anecdotal evidence.

lol of course it is anecdotal "evidence", I have never claimed it to be anything else. In a black and white argument, anecdotal evidence is all that is needed to show that reality is not black and white. It does not disprove occurence, it disproves a 100% probability of occurence. This is what you missed for a second time, going for a third? One black swan does not make all swans black.

There are Al-Qaeda supporters in the rebel groups.

Yes there are, but that does mean the rebels are [a bunch of] (this has been implicit) Al-Qaeda sympathisers, god gamnit.

Yes, you sir, based your entire freaking argument upon the back of a facebook photo from a rebel support group.

I could post still photos from BBC, Sky News, Fox News etc. that would all show similar things - black skinned rebel supporterts and fighters. It is of course though more convenvient to put up a still photo of good quality that I've found. Are you going to be brave enough to suggest that the photo is staged?

I can tell you that I've been following the group that posted those images for a long time, and I've evaluated them as trustworthy. They give their source as Reuters; and while I'm been unable to locate the exact same photo on the Reuters website; I've found another of the photos in the Facebook collection here. I've done my research before I posted that photo.

Do you realize the absurdities of this statement. Why the hell would a mercenary want to die rather than be captured. I don't know what fantasy land you live in where people can always escape capture in battle because I would sure love to join it. The statistical probability of not a single mercenary being captured is so hilariously small its not worth calculating. So one should be very surprised there are no captured mercenaries.

"lack" does not mean zero. I do expect that mercenaries are in opposition custody, and that the issue will be clearer in the future. I am not talking about escaping here, I am talking about fighting to the death (read: being braver/more desperate) in the hope that they can get a way out after all. Native regime forces would be more likely to surrender in such a scenario.

This is glorious. I am going to take your word for it because the video won't play. Once again anecdotal evidence. I would be far from surprised if they planted the damn passport. Why would a foreign national gun for hire carry around his ID papers declaring him to be Chad native. Where precisely is the logic buried to carry around papers to make him loathed by everyone he fights against even more than before.

They were bombed in their tanks by NATO and killed. As for carrying a passport in a foreign country, I do not see why that would be weird. If he was alive, his language would give him away.

1. Saddam Hussein was quite clearly an immensely more evil human being than even scum of the earth Gaddafi.
2. The libyan rebels could have eventually overthrown gaddafi as he was not as harsh or as well emplaced as saddam
3. Hussein and his Ba'aths' were much more systematic in destroying opposition and no rebel movement would have stood a chance without considerable backing and aid.

"more systematic"? There did not exist any Libyan opposition, beat that. As for your suggestions, they need evidence.

4. Placing troops on the ground saved countless lives in the long run instead of this bull air campaign in which the Libyans shed the blood and we westerners cheer on the sidelines and open our wallets.

Placing troops on the ground in Iraq did not go well, did it? Look what state the country is in - terrorist attack after terrorist attack on innocent civilians. Piece of advice: wait months/years before you make a comparison between Iraq and Libya, it will become clearer then.

1. Taliban once again a terribly evil group.

I am sure they had horns.

2. Afghanistan even poorer than the Libyans they needed help
3. There was even a large scale war going on this time already between the northern alliance and the Taliban......
4. Women and other disenfranchised groups were far more harshly treated than their Libyan counterparts in many cases.

The reasons for entering Afghanistan was the Taliban, not any of the stuff you list above.

So what makes this superior besides demonstrating we hold a lower value on the lives of foreigners than our own fellow citizen.

I don't, and that is why I support the intervention in the first place.

This is hilarious. Most of you people did not even know who Qaddafi was before all of this. Those of you who did know who he was probably never mentioned once how much you would like to see him overthrown. I only knew who the SOB was because I asked my father why a colonel would be in control of a country after I read about Reagan bombing the little cretin. Why does Gaddafi's regime falling herld some great new time. WE HAVE NO IDEA WHAT THIS HERALDS GOOD OR BAD

It was bad, and there's a golden opportunity for it to get better. I mean, you're saying that we should have surrendered to the Nazis in WWII because then we wouldn't have to cope with the dreadful war, right? There were no guarantees what so ever that putting up a fight would not have put us in a even worse state than what surrendering to the nazis would have.

Seriously dude what is your hard on for single pictures being your argument

It's a part of the evidence, and it must be used combined with a lack of evidence to the contrary position. It is of course the latter that is by far most important. As I point out again.



EDIT: One article on mercenaries here. There should be more sources out there with similar indicatoins, but I cannot remember them.

Crowded into an empty classroom which was stinking of unwashed bodies and reeking of fear, Colonel Muammar Gaddafi's defeated mercenary killers awaited their fate.

A week earlier the men – Libyan loyalists of the dictator and black African recruits – had been landed at airports throughout eastern Libya and sent out into the streets to shoot protesters in a murderous rampage. They killed dozens before they were overwhelmed by anti-Gaddafi militias.

The survivors were exhausted, filthy, far from home, and fearful of execution, even though they had been assured of good treatment. Fifty of them lay on mattresses on the floor in one classroom alone, with nearly 100 more in the same school building which was being used as a temporary prison. Most looked dazed. Some were virtually children.

"A man at the bus station in Sabha offered me a job and said I would get a free flight to Tripoli," said Mohammed, a boy of about 16 who said he had arrived looking for work in the southern Libyan town only two weeks ago from Chad, where he had earned a living as a shepherd.

Instead of Tripoli, he was flown to an airport near the scruffy seaside town of Al-Bayda and had a gun thrust into his hands on the plane.

[HoreTore]

I don't know who Gaddafi was before this, Centurion? Please, do not include me in your ignorance.

First of all, my brother-in-law is a former Libyan political prisoner. I have known him since 2004. I like politics, he likes politics, so we discuss politics. Unsurprisingly, a lot of it has centered around Libya. Secondly, Gaffy and many other arab leaders(saddam, nasser, etc) were allied with the USSR. As a leftie with an interest in modern history, there's simply no getting around a figure like him. Just like there's no getting around Allende, for example.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

...I find it remarkable that you, an American, are trying to sing the praises of a regime which is directly responsible for the death of hundreds of your countrymen. I can't comprehend why you herald the death of the Desert Dog with almost a sense of remorse. Sure, things could get worse, but is all of it not even a little bit worth it if in a decades time we can look at Libya and say yes, what happened here was a good thing? I guess some believe it's better to die a slave, subservient and obedient than a free man. These things may take place in isolated incidents but you have to remember, this is war. Look what happened when the Russians swept into Germany..

Tib:

To be fair to PJ, I haven't seen him asserting that Quaddafi is a paragon of virtue or that the current regime -- now in it's death throes -- is noble in any sense.

He has been arguing that the revolutionary coalition that is taking Quaddafi out of Libya is not a collection of do-gooders, universally inspired by the hope engendered in the "Arab Spring" and steadfastly working for a republican democracy based on ecumenical application of the rule of law.

You can make a good case that his argument is supported with too much anecdotal evidence and takes too cynical a turn, but accusing him of being an apoligist for Muammar and sons really isn't on target.

[Viking]

The Time magazine just posted something really interesting... I'd prefer it confirmed from multiple sources, but here it goes:

Gaddafi's Fleeing Mercenaries Describe the Collapse of the Regime

Right from the start, Mario, an ethnic Croatian artillery specialist from Bosnia, suspected it was a lost cause.
"My men were mainly from the south [of Libya] and Chad, and there were a few others from countries south of Libya," said Mario, who spoke on condition that his last name not be published. A veteran of the wars of the former Yugoslavia, he had been hired by the Gaddafi regime to help fight the rebels and, later, NATO. "Discipline was bad, and they were too stupid to learn anything. But things were O.K. until the air strikes commenced. The other side was equally bad, if not worse. [Muammar] Gaddafi would have smashed the rebels had the West not intervened."

...

Mario said that Gaddafi had hired several former Yugoslav fighters, most of them Serbs, to help him in his fight against NATO and the rebels. One by one, Mario said, these foreign advisers and commanders left Tripoli.

...

"Two weeks ago, a friend who brought me here told me I should leave Tripoli, as things were going to rapidly change and that deals have been made," he said. He noticed Gaddafi's South African mercenaries beginning to leave.

[Louis VI the Fat]

article on the implications of success for france and britain of the libyan intervention:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...till-work.html



Indeed, the Libyan intervention is the template by which Britain and France will continue to justify their veto-wielding permanent UNSC seats, by providing exactly the capabilities you note below:



Better still, this conflict has given legitimacy and legal-standing to the normative framework through which this liberal-intervention can utilised; Responsibility to Protect, or R2P in shorthand.

Both Britain and France will sink from the top five to the top ten, or thereabouts, in economic power over the next forty years, and will cease to be technology leaders in the same time-frame remaining only peer nations in a much larger group.

If they want to to justify the retention of their seats they will have to bring something to the party, and they have decided that can only be military intervention in the advancement of UN mandated goals.

Thus the need for Armed Forces configured for sovereign and strategic power-projection.

Libya is a success story for Britain and France, in more ways than one!

* high fives Furunculus *




Louis - Thoroughly enjoys all of this imperialist powermongering. As apparantly do the natives. Somebody please remind me why we gave up on imperialism again?

[Papewaio]

you have just argued for doing without the UNSC altogether, or, having a UNSC of just the US.

your argument doesn't fly.

The security council has 5 permanent members and ten non-permanent ones. If UK & France lose their permanent positions it does not just leave the US on the UNSC. One permanent member has already changed, there is nothing to stop more being added or removed.

What I've argued for is that to remain on the UNSC as permanent members will require something more then economic and hence military might. The ability to stay will rely on more on goodwill and the two nations seen as stable leaders who others can negotiate with and have vetos placed on their behalf. Relying on something as infrequent as a R2P mission with enough positive spin to create the goodwill is not the way forwards.

Yes increasing stability in the world will help so outside of this current mission what can UK and France do to increase stability? Not all of these are found at the barrel of a gun. Cure Malaria, fresh water... increase the quality of life... literacy.... remove the root causes of tribal warfare..food, literacy, transparency & accountability... only the last of which requires the use of force.

There are a lot of things that can be done to get the positive image set... so like most votes the permanent seat will require winning the populace once you've slipped down the totem pole.