Libya

[Drowsy Emperor]

1. I despise the EU's increasing muscle flexing as dictatorship by stealth. But utilising means other than talking endlessly is only common sense. We've said just about everything nasty you can to Syria, and it's achieved precisely **** all.

2. The US need not have worried, since the EU atomised as Germany and Italy scuttled in diametrically opposed directions to Britain and France.

3. I don't know anything about Sarozy's domestic position

4. You call it 'leaders who defy Western control'. I call it removing leaders who sponsored attacks on Britain for as long as I've been alive. I call it NOT playing along with Gaddafi so we can just pay for the oil on the cheap. Which you would no doubt condemn us for doing just as much.

5. Oil matters. Energy security matters. Not just to industry, but to farms and ultimately stops us starving. It is the lifeblood of our world. A state, any state, cannot surrender its energy or its surrenders entire.

 

1. I don't know enough about Syria except that they have an authoritarian secular rule of sorts and as such don't seem to be very threatening. In fact, I think that's the best model in general for middle eastern governments. I'd take authoritarian secularism over authoritarian Islamism dressed up as democracy any day.

2. Yet the EU is trying, with modest success to establish armed forces of sort and use them in crises around the world. Its hard to imagine the US looking at this benevolently considering how vital NATO is to it.

4. Q's history of antagonism with the west is long and I don't know it well enough to discuss it. I do know that a targeted attack killed his daughter, that might make most people sore and that he did support terrorist attacks before.

There are however leaders who did not sponsor attacks that were ousted merely for being uncooperative. Allende (killed), Saddam (killed [don't recall any involvement in terrorism]), Milosevic (died in prison)...

5. Yet Libyan energy is not... your energy?

[Drowsy Emperor]

As always it comes back to the simplest question. What do YOU think should have been done?

 

Nothing, let the rebellion get crushed (or not inspire it in the first place). Wait for the inevitable transition of one of his sons to power, which are from what I see far more inclined towards the west. And without the burden of previous bad relations.

 

I don't see any great loss for the west there, the oil would have flowed regardless. And the Libyan people would have been much better off, presumably.

[Gromnir]

"I don't think its an exaggeration. I remember a large string of defeats for the rebels up until NATO intervened."

 

...

 

that is what you base your prediction o' impending Q victory? fighting homegrown guerrillas is NOT like conventional warfare. for chrissakes, how many victories did the soviets have in afghanistan? anybody wanna pick a rebellion in central america, the middle east or aisa where the rebels were better equipped and won more initial victories than the eventual deposed regime? being better equipped and winning "victories" is hardly a measure o' success. Q were ESCALATING the amount o' force and violence 'pon the rebels, destroying his own infrastructure. is hardly indicators o' imminent crushery, eh?

 

"A good question is how far the rebels would have gotten in the first place without outside intelligence support and political support."

 

why is that a good question? not change the fact that they got support. is hardly unusual for domestic guerrilla fighters to gets support from foreign powers. you wanna play hypothetical scenarios o' some kinda complete insular uprising? *chuckle* be our guest.

 

regardless, Q's four decades in power were seriously threatened before the first shots o' rebellion were fired. the widespread housing riots were not gonna get solved by cunning and sneakery... needed more housing. there were no solution on the horizon for Q.

 

Q were a terrorist supporter and despot that were tolerated just so long as he could keep his house in order. as o' 2011, he could no longer keep his people housed. sure, maybe he holds on an extra year or two and destroys more o' his own infrastructure while possibly spreading violence beyond his borders, but eventually he goes and somebody is stuck rebuilding. made far more sense to step in before Q ruined his nation in a vain attempt to maintain power.

 

maybe you think it is immoral for western nations to dictate the future o' the libyas o' the world. maybe you is right. not change nothing.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Walsingham]

Drowsy:

 

1) I was so boggled, I had to double check I was thinking of Syria. you know, Assad? Killed 2,200 putting down his 'arab spring'? Statements by US, Britain, heavy sanctions? Ringing any bells? Still think they're the model for the mideast?

2) Strategically the US desparately needs the EU to begin pulling its weight militarily. Particularly Germany, who have freeloaded on fears of German military strength since the war.

3) Neither Milo or Saddam were anything like good guys. And having spent a few minutes reading about Allende I can't say I like the sound of him much either. And Gaddafi was sending literally boatloads of weapons to the IRA in the 1970s, long before the Americans bombed him.

4) I'm not trying to say we should just smash and grab people's energy. But trying to operate a foreign policy that doesn't prioirtise energy is not just naive, it would be utterly unsustainable.

 

~~

 

Do nothing and hope for better from his sons may have been a pragmatic option. But are you honestly saying it's morally defensible? You seem awfully keen on morals, hence my asking...

[Gfted1]

Its hard to imagine the US looking at this benevolently considering how vital NATO is to it.

 

Ignoring the rest of this thread, why do you feel NATO is vital to the US?

[Drowsy Emperor]

You're presuming that:

a) he wouldn't be able to achieve a quick victory

b) that he couldn't work around internal issues

 

Maybe you are right, although I don't think so. As events have moved in a direction that renders these questions unanswerable everything boils down to assumptions.

I assume that a) is possible and b), and I fail to see how the new "government" will take care of b) after they have finished gutting each other over who gets to rule.

 

On what do you base the legitimacy and dependability of the "revolutionaries" apart from the "they are our guys"?

Because I don't see they have a credible claim to either.

 

Show me some concrete evidence that there is any good out of getting rid of Q besides a supposed "moral" and "ideological" victory.

[Gromnir]

You're presuming that:

a) he wouldn't be able to achieve a quick victory

b) that he couldn't work around internal issues

 

Maybe you are right, although I don't think so. As events have moved in a direction that renders these questions unanswerable everything boils down to assumptions.

I assume that a) is possible and b), and I fail to see how the new "government" will take care of b) after they have finished gutting each other over who gets to rule.

 

On what do you base the legitimacy and dependability of the "revolutionaries" apart from the "they are our guys"?

Because I don't see they have a credible claim to either.

 

Show me some concrete evidence that there is any good out of getting rid of Q besides a supposed "moral" and "ideological" victory.

 

 

1) history suggests no quick victory

2) he hadn't worked around the internal issues that led to rebellion

 

again, escalation o' violence against people and infrastructure does not signal imminent victory to anybody. give us an example o' the successful despot quickly putting down rebellion AFTER he has had to destroy sizable portions of his own infrastructure. we can think o' only one or two... maybe. is very long odds. and again, if Q couldn't fix the internal problems that led to the rebellion in the first place, what makes you think he would sudden be More capable o' fixing after having had to spend huge resources on mercenaries, military hardware, and infrastructure rebuild? you really ain't making sense. honest.

 

oh, and we do not think the new regime (whoever they is) will have any better chance o' fixing internal problems than did Q... not without substantial western support.... and there is the clincher, no? getting rid o' Q is an end. many people in the west has wanted him gone for a long time. can trace Many terrorist actions over past +3 decades back to Q support. Q were a bad dude with no love for the west, so getting rid o' him is an end in and of itself. furthermore, since the libyans won't be able to fix the problems Q left behind, they is gonna need rely on aid. french and english have positioned themselves favorably for initial support o' the new regime; another win from western pov... although personally we thinks the cost o' maintaining peace will be very high. is still gonna be those antagonistic tribal factions trying to kill each other off for some time.

 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited August 22, 2011 by Gromnir

[Drowsy Emperor]

Do nothing and hope for better from his sons may have been a pragmatic option. But are you honestly saying it's morally defensible? You seem awfully keen on morals, hence my asking...

 

It is no more morally defensible than keeping the Saudi Arabian monarchy in power, yet there is no scramble to get at the Saudi king.

I don't think there is a moral problem with middle eastern authoritarianism, its how their world works.

 

However, non intervention in internal policies of other countries was one of the founding principles of the UN, and for good reason.

I believe people everywhere are capable of resolving their political problems on their own, and I think they should have the right to do so.

Intervening, without the clear support of the majority of the UN undermines the system of security created after WWII and antagonizes everyone.

No one can feel safe if at any moment the US or EU can barge in your house and tell you how to do things. It prompts a scramble for nuclear and biological armaments, any sort of safeguard, however temporary - which in turn forces harsher responses from the west and so the cycle goes on and on...

 

Even your security will be compromised in the long term, its only so long you can quell each and every problem by single sided use of force.

[Drowsy Emperor]

Its hard to imagine the US looking at this benevolently considering how vital NATO is to it.

 

Ignoring the rest of this thread, why do you feel NATO is vital to the US?

 

NATO is a tool of the US economic and political elites for perpetuating their wealth, power and ideology.

Most of all NATO gives US policy a semblance of legitimacy as its decisions on the surface, look less like US policy and more like a compromise and collective actions, which they rarely are. It also gives prestige, and reinforces the US role of the leader of the western world, and its influence in the member states.

 

I imagine regular Americans aren't exactly thrilled about financing its huge machinery as they have very little to directly gain from it, apart from animosity when they go to other countries as tourists.

[obyknven]

How the media is brainwashing you this second - Qatar Hollywood

 

It's no longer a surprise that a media war is being waged against Gaddafi and Libya. In March, all news were breaking and highly contradictive towards each other. A month passed until Libyans finally learned to disprove the lies, but while the news themselves grew relatively neutral, a new wave of misinformation was being prepared.

 

It arose in global media approximately on 15th of August, when a Saudi Arabia newspaper Asharq Alawsat told that Gaddafi is allegedly ill and ready to leave the country. Saudis, mortal enemies of Muammar Gaddafi, were, of course, such a reliable source, that all other papers followed.

 

In the same time news channels were choking with new victories of the insurgency. It looked like it took rebels a couple of hours to occupy a city, making poor Moussa Ibrahim steam from his ears, proving to journalists that it is virtually impossible. All this show was a careful preparation for the main course - the taking of Tripoli. But in spite of mercenaries parachuted from Misurata to the south, despite attempts to cut the road from Tunisia, despite the insurgents' zerg rush on all fronts, much of the rebel success remained on the screen. And cities cannot be taken by illusion. Therefore, NATO decided to pursue the most risky way: beginning the ground operation.

 

To cover it up and in the same time spread chaos and panic among Libyans, a set of Tripoli's Green Square, Bab al-Azizya and several streets was constructed in Doha, Qatar, and videos of successful uprising in Tripoli and its takeover by the rebels were being made. The directors used the same stratagem that their civilian counterparts in Vietnam War movies: to draw their supposed victories.

 

On the 20th of August, Twitter, the major supplier of nonexistent witnesses came to life, like a shelled hornet nest. Rebels reported about fights in the city center - with smartphones in the free hand, no doubt. Some have gone further and managed alone to fully capture the west of the city. With the blessings of the almighty Photoshop pictures of rebels against Tripoli and Zawya were shown. Making sure that the February script goes according to plan, and the audience does not seem to mind, the forces of democracy gave a sign to the "moles", long located in the capital and waiting for this day.

Edited August 22, 2011 by obyknven

[Gromnir]

huh?

 

follow oby/lof is like trying to read images on a spinning top: even if such were possible, it would result in a serious headache.

 

ssssssooooooooo.... is Q winning or losing? 'ccording to you, Q were doing a bang-up job o' stomping rebellious rats a couple o' days ago, no? how does things look for Q today?

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Orogun01]

NATO is a tool of the US economic and political elites for perpetuating their wealth, power and ideology.

Most of all NATO gives US policy a semblance of legitimacy as its decisions on the surface, look less like US policy and more like a compromise and collective actions, which they rarely are. It also gives prestige, and reinforces the US role of the leader of the western world, and its influence in the member states.

 

I imagine regular Americans aren't exactly thrilled about financing its huge machinery as they have very little to directly gain from it, apart from animosity when they go to other countries as tourists.

So in your mind NATO main purpose its to protect the interests of the west and that is bad how? Last I checked we are all from the west and at the risk of sounding cynical we haven't traded down on our standard of living to help a random stranger.

 

The revolt was going to end with a clear winner, throwing your lot with them its a proactive way to secure an alliance. Standing by and ignoring the issue hoping that whomever comes out on top its a rational person that will maintain trade its wishfull at best. Plus with Chavez converting to "Castrorism" the US has very few sources in which to rely for a steady income, not to mention the strain on an already fragile economy. It may not look it but the western allies are acting out of desperate self-preservation.

[Gorgon]

What's with all the sports commentator arrows and circles.

[Gromnir]

What's with all the sports commentator arrows and circles.

 

what? you hasn't heard the news that john madden came out o' retirement and is now working as a color commentator for al-jazeera? apparently mr. madden likes qaddafi/gaddafi toughness... compared him to brett favre. given the fact that the loyalists has a strong pass rush and quality dbs, madden predicts that qaddafi will utilize a modified tamap-2 d to keep the rebels off balance. "Bam!"

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Gorgon]

I think we are looking at pics of the same place, and the arrows and such are to demonstrate that it's photoshopped. What would be the point though ?

 

A sinister attack on architecture...

Edited August 23, 2011 by Gorgon

[Gorgon]

Although, I gotta say. If it were some elaborate hoax which convinced the defenders that the battle was already over.... That would be brilliant.

[Gromnir]

I think we are looking at pics of the same place, and the arrows and such are to demonstrate that it's photoshopped. What would be the point though ?

 

A sinister attack on architecture...

 

we were similar confused by oby/lof picture post. seemed to be a suggestion o' fraud by the media regarding locations o' rebel attacks.

 

"To cover it up and in the same time spread chaos and panic among Libyans, a set of Tripoli's Green Square, Bab al-Azizya and several streets was constructed in Doha, Qatar, and videos of successful uprising in Tripoli and its takeover by the rebels were being made. The directors used the same stratagem that their civilian counterparts in Vietnam War movies: to draw their supposed victories. "

 

am thinking that this is oby/lof version o' the moon landing conspiracy... or maybe the jedi mind trick. perhaps convince the world that the rebels were never really in tripoli?

 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited August 23, 2011 by Gromnir

[Gorgon]

So if it were a psy ops ploy. How would the media be tell the difference exactly, that would just make it a really bad and counter productive psy ops ploy. Not everyone is a maestro with MS paint

[Gorth]

"these are not the rebels you are looking for"...

[Humodour]

As always it comes back to the simplest question. What do YOU think should have been done?

 

Nothing, let the rebellion get crushed (or not inspire it in the first place). Wait for the inevitable transition of one of his sons to power, which are from what I see far more inclined towards the west. And without the burden of previous bad relations.

 

I don't see any great loss for the west there, the oil would have flowed regardless. And the Libyan people would have been much better off, presumably.

 

You disgust me yet again.

[Humodour]

Also, looks like the good guys have won. The rebels control 95% of Tripoli, there was an uprising there by residents in the last 24 hours, and Gaddafi's closest allies (including his vile son Seif) have been arrested.

 

Gaddafi is sending out his agents to bomb Western embassies and night clubs again apparently, though, as he bombed the German nightclub in the 1990's (80's) and killed lots of dancers. The Tunisians have already stopped one of his terror attacks planned on an embassy today.

[Malcador]

They don't have his son though, and fighting's still going on in Tripoli. Why are these rebels the good guys anyway ?

[Gorth]

They don't have his son though, and fighting's still going on in Tripoli. Why are these rebels the good guys anyway ?

Because we say so

 

Never mind that they are not a uniform faction and led by former military personel, most likely looking to replace the current regime with a new, similar one, just with different names on the business cards.

[Tale]

with different names on the business cards.

BRB, investing in paper companies.

[Humodour]

They don't have his son though, and fighting's still going on in Tripoli. Why are these rebels the good guys anyway ?

Because we say so

 

Never mind that they are not a uniform faction and led by former military personel, most likely looking to replace the current regime with a new, similar one, just with different names on the business cards.

 

To hold this belief is essentially denying history.