Libya

[Walsingham]

I have a fundamental belief in the correctness and superiority of modern Western culture

 

I recognize the sentiment. Its echoed in Mein Kampf.

 

Oh good grief.

[Drowsy Emperor]

Sorry I can't stand that self righteous, crusader mentality.

[obyknven]

All the carnage was distant until night fell then the sea boiled over with small fast boats that dumped 10 or more Special Forces and Al Qaida killers at hundreds of points along the beach in and around Tripoli. The slaughter began at that moment. The distraction of the small gangs inside the city proved successful and allowed the unfettered invasion from the sea. Killing hundreds of thousands of Libyans in the next few days may be the result of this full fledged attack of a sovereign nation by NATO.

 

1300 innocent civilians killed in Tripoli in the last 11 hours + 5000 injured. Nonstop bombings and 3 Apache gunship firing their mini-cannons constantly are the real killers. The gangs of Al Qaida are burning houses, looting shops and kidnapping every woman in sight. Any prominent supporter of Ghadafi was targeted and their houses attacked first. The number of gangs have been increasing because they are coming in from the sea in small NATO craft directed by the Special Forces of all the aggressor nations.

 

NATO is nothing more than assassins, murders, terrorists and worse.

 

Syria looks like a play ground compared to Tripoli tonight. Blood is flowing non-stop in the streets of Tripoli tonight

[CoM_Solaufein]

*Yawn*

[obyknven]

!

 

Mahdi Nazemroaya from Tripoli early 22 August

 

 

Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya , a researcher and scholar from Canada reporting while in refuge in a Mosque in Tripoli - after days of Bombing - along with other foreigners - for their safety - his life is in danger:

 

! Edited August 22, 2011 by obyknven

[Hildegard]

So how is the war for resources unfolding? Did they take entire Tripoli already?

Edited August 22, 2011 by Hildegard

[Walsingham]

All the carnage was distant until night fell then the sea boiled over with small fast boats that dumped 10 or more Special Forces and Al Qaida killers at hundreds of points along the beach in and around Tripoli. The slaughter began at that moment. The distraction of the small gangs inside the city proved successful and allowed the unfettered invasion from the sea. Killing hundreds of thousands of Libyans in the next few days may be the result of this full fledged attack of a sovereign nation by NATO.

 

1300 innocent civilians killed in Tripoli in the last 11 hours + 5000 injured. Nonstop bombings and 3 Apache gunship firing their mini-cannons constantly are the real killers. The gangs of Al Qaida are burning houses, looting shops and kidnapping every woman in sight. Any prominent supporter of Ghadafi was targeted and their houses attacked first. The number of gangs have been increasing because they are coming in from the sea in small NATO craft directed by the Special Forces of all the aggressor nations.

 

NATO is nothing more than assassins, murders, terrorists and worse.

 

Syria looks like a play ground compared to Tripoli tonight. Blood is flowing non-stop in the streets of Tripoli tonight

 

I want some of what you're smoking. It sounds awesome.

[Malcador]

So how is the war for resources unfolding? Did they take entire Tripoli already?

 

Please, this is just a righteous rebellion as oppressed peoples rise up and overthrow their brutal dictator in pursuit of freedom and democracy!

[Drowsy Emperor]

I can't recall a recent conflict where it was so obvious that the "rebellion" was created by US/EU with little to no popular support.

[obyknven]

Libyan War Chronicles

 

http://www.slide.com/r/1VK3CbH35j9oCSMs6h4...lt_embedded_url

 

Tripoli Live

 

http://rt.com/on-air/libya-tripoli-rebels-green-square/

 

Gaddafi forces in Tripoli counter-offensive

 

http://rt.com/news/rebels-gaddafi-capital-tripoli-975/

Edited August 22, 2011 by obyknven

[Enoch]

I can't recall a recent conflict where it was so obvious that the "rebellion" was created by US/EU with little to no popular support.

Well, I won't go so far as "created by," but "enabled," would certainly be fair. In the way of explanation, I'll start by quoting myself from back in the early days of this thread:

 

Well, there is a fairly big "what next" question. Qaddafi has been a mostly harmless autocrat ever since the mid-80s, when a cruise missile blew up his tent while he happened to be out taking a leak. He has followed the basic petro-dictator pattern: take the vig from the country's oil production, use it to buy internal stability by putting most of the country on the dole, and keep whatever is left. But there has been a big problem with this pattern lately in a lot of oil states-- very high population growth rates make buying stability increasingly expensive.

 

Absent the central influence of the Qaddafi regime, the people of Libya are largely of tribal mindset. (I mean this in a modern context-- the people feel their first loyalty is to whichever non-governmental, quasi-familial association they were born into.) Which makes the nature of what government is to come a big question. Democracy bolted onto a largely tribalist population doesn't have a great track record. (See, e.g., Pakistan.)

 

A cynic's view of this campaign is that the West was perfectly happy to see Qaddafi brutally beat back the protesters and insurgents ... up until the point where he attacked various oil facilities (the port at Ras Lanuf, oil pipelines to Sidra, the larger facilities at Brega). Once it became clear that Qaddafi was willing to sacrafice the country's oil infrastructure to win, foreign governments got a lot more assertive. Staving off chaos and revolution via brutal repression is fine, but don't mess with the one reason why the outside world gives a **** what happens in Libya.

A population that has little national identity and instead considers regional tribal identity as its first loyalty has been ruled for 40+ years by a fairly standard-issue petro-dictator. He has been oppressive of dissent, has encouraged a cult of personality rather than any kind of nationalistic ethos, but has been buying stability by putting people on the dole and, ever since his run-in with the U.S. in the '80s, has not been troublesome internationally. The outside world has been generally willing to let him be (and to let the oil keep flowing).

 

But, population growth has put pressure on his ability to buy internal stability, and those tribal factions that are generally out-of-favor have been inspired by successful revolts against autocrats in surrounding nations. They were able to quickly contol some important regions and could effectively shut Qaddafi out of a large part of the oil revenues he depends upon if he didn't retaliate. So, retaliate he did. And not just on the people fighting against him-- he was willing to destroy important petroleum infrastructure to deny it to his enemies. At that point, Europe became deeply interested in getting this thing resolved. And there was certainly enough of a backlog of "Qaddafi's a bad dude" evidence to generate the political support necessary to wipe out Q's air superiority and air defenses.

 

Is it, on the whole, a Good Thing for the people of Libya? Maybe. For the members of tribal affiliations most opposed to Q, probably yes. Less so for those who were more in-favor with his regime. Qaddafi is a Bad Dude-- look no further than his handling of this revolt for evidence that he values holding onto power more than he does the welfare of the Libyan people-- and the world won't miss him much when he's gone. We don't know that whatever succeeds him in power will be better, but on the whole it seems likely. And it also seems likely that the price of NATO's help will be some rather kind oil contracts with western interests. That brings a whiff of colonialist-type exploitation, but sometimes that's a least-bad solution to tricky problems-- once the revolt against Q got going, it became unlikely that any one faction was going to be able to provide stability in the country without some Western support. I'd rather a little quasi-colonialism than a civil war stretching on for years and destroying much of the country's infrastructure.

[Drowsy Emperor]

The fact is that he is a capable man, like Saddam Hussein was in two things: holding onto power and keeping a volatile country stable. The former isn't a very commendable trait but the latter is - in the middle east.

 

Qaddafi would have shut down the rebellion and that would have been that, instead the country was embroiled in a civil war that, with the eventual victory of the "rebels" will be rebuilt as their autocracy against their former enemies as no other form of government exists in the middle east except as a formality.

 

1. There is no tangible evidence that the rebels in any way represent the majority of the people or even a decent minority.

2. There is no tangible evidence that the rebels are any more capable of ensuring stability. Actually, evidence points to the contrary

3. There is no evidence that they are any more "democratic".

4. There is no evidence that they will be any more concerned for the people of Libya given their inevitable post conflict puppet status. If anything they will have more of an obligation to those who brought them to power than to the people.

 

I think your assumption that there would be a lengthy civil war is wrong, as it was quite clear from the onset that the rebels are inept and would be, without NATO support, quickly defeated.

 

Therefore the only logical conclusion is that this was a cynical ploy to get political control of Libya and solidify control over its oil.

Edited August 22, 2011 by Drowsy Emperor

[Walsingham]

Drowsy, with proverbial respect, that's complete arse.

 

1) NATO intervention happened late, and hasn't constituted more than some understrength bombing runs.

2) Fighting on the ground has been by locals

3) Success - and I have to eat some humble pie for predicting this would never happen - has come about through decapitation of Gaddafi's forces in targeted strikes.

 

And for the love of all that is good and holy can we PLEASE stop this sophomoronic "it's the oil, stupid" one dimensional bull****? Of course oil is involved, but it's facile and childish to say 'oil' and say that explains each and every dynamic. Put some effort in, FFS.

[Malcador]

Mercenaries involved too no ? Well hopefully this idiocy can end. Unless, the Libyans can turn on themselves and then there can be a failed state, heh.

[Gorgon]

There are no Americans to fight. Other than that I suppose we can expect segmentation into existing faction territory until, or if, some kind of national government is formed. I don't think there is that much appetite to keep fighting just for the sake of it.

Edited August 22, 2011 by Gorgon

[213374U]

Wals, in general you are a fairly sensible chap and not at all suspect of distorting facts, which makes your stance in this all the stranger. You say Boo's points are arse, however:

 

1) NATO intervention happened late, and hasn't constituted more than some understrength bombing runs.

2) Fighting on the ground has been by locals

3) Success - and I have to eat some humble pie for predicting this would never happen - has come about through decapitation of Gaddafi's forces in targeted strikes.

1) In fact, intervention went lightning fast - less than one month after Q had started bombing towns; things were rushed when it looked like he would indeed succeed in using his airforce and armor to crush the rebels in Benghazi. I wouldn't exactly call depleting the ordnance stocks of some coalition members "understrength bombing", either.

2) We both know that allied special forces are operating on Libyan soil... the question is only the depth of their involvement.

3) Sure... decapitation of his forces and insta-airstrikes on anything heavier than a technical. The difference in the amount of heavy weapons controlled by each side was one of the biggest problems in the early days of the war, remember? That has somehow ceased to be a problem...

 

So how about we all stop with the bollocks, old boy?

Edited August 22, 2011 by 213374U

[Gromnir]

I don't think there is that much appetite to keep fighting just for the sake of it.

 

you is very optimistic. as Gromnir, enoch and others has mentioned, libyans gots tribal & familial allegiance rather than a national identity. once Q is gone, no doubt those tribal/familial factions that were not part o' Q's ruling alliance will looks at their "libyan" peers with brotherhood in their hearts and open arms.... or not.

 

...

 

am not envious o' the french and brits 'cause am seeing no end to bloodshed in libya anytime soon. keeping the formerly oppressed from committing atrocities 'pon their former oppressors is gonna be, we suspect, no easy task. oby/lof is no doubt familiar with post revolution purges, although we bet she/he gots a unique spin. regardless, am suspecting that it will be a while before genuine fighting stops... am just curious to see how the french, brits or nato handle post Q libya. might be smartest to simple let 'em kill each other 'til they run out o' bullets or anger, but that wouldn't be very politic.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Drowsy Emperor]

I'll agree that there are other motives than oil, like

1. EU's desire to establish itself as a entity capable of solving international issues by means other than diplomacy

2. the opposite desire of the US that the EU does not become such an entity as this could question the reason for NATO's further existence (which is why the US lets the Europeans screw things up then charges to the rescue)

3. Sarkozy's politics in France

4. Removal of leaders that defy western control (political intimidation)

5. Expansion of NATO influence

and who knows how many other factors.

 

But Libya, if not for its oil, would be just another god forsaken north african country and there would be significantly less reason for involvement.

[Orogun01]

But Libya, if not for its oil, would be just another god forsaken north african country and there would be significantly less reason for involvement.

That oil its a major factor no one is denying, but there is a grand difference of NATO allies trying to create a center of stablility on a region that controls a resource in which the whole world depends; and the future exploitation by corporations that everyone seems to be speculating about. It has to do a lot with the fact that nowadays, oil seems to be mostly on the hands of the opposition and that we have reached a point in cultural development where we rely on a steady intake of resources.

[Gorgon]

Ad immigration to that list.

[Drowsy Emperor]

That oil its a major factor no one is denying, but there is a grand difference of NATO allies trying to create a center of stablility on a region that controls a resource in which the whole world depends; and the future exploitation by corporations that everyone seems to be speculating about. It has to do a lot with the fact that nowadays, oil seems to be mostly on the hands of the opposition and that we have reached a point in cultural development where we rely on a steady intake of resources.

 

I wish you luck arguing that Quaddafi couldn't have gotten things stable quicker and more efficiently than anyone else, considering that he almost had them crushed. It was in his best interests to keep the oil of Libya flowing after all as it was the basis of his rule.

So if you substitute the desire for "stability" for the desire "to have total control and everything for ourselves/our companies" I think you're near to 100% truth.

 

I don't know how much China lost but I think I recall reading that it had substantial investments in Libyan oil. Somehow I doubt that the new government will be friendly towards Chinese interests, so there is yet another reason for the intervention.

 

 

Makes you sad about the human race it does. The stone age logic of it all: "the next village has food, and our crops failed so lets go and whack them over the head with a club and get theirs". At least stone age men didn't need such elaborate reasoning for what was basically - robbery.

So much for progress.

Edited August 22, 2011 by Drowsy Emperor

[Gromnir]

That oil its a major factor no one is denying, but there is a grand difference of NATO allies trying to create a center of stablility on a region that controls a resource in which the whole world depends; and the future exploitation by corporations that everyone seems to be speculating about. It has to do a lot with the fact that nowadays, oil seems to be mostly on the hands of the opposition and that we have reached a point in cultural development where we rely on a steady intake of resources.

 

I wish you luck arguing that Quaddafi couldn't have gotten things stable quicker and more efficiently than anyone else, considering that he almost had them crushed.

 

 

bit of an exaggeration, no? and in any event, the problems Q was facing before the actual outbreak o' open rebellion were unlikely to get fixed anytime soon. turn back the clock to beginning of 2011 and looks at the housing riots.

 

yeah, "stability" and "revolution" is pretty much antagonistic concepts. even so, once it became clear that Q would not be able to maintain any serious semblance o' "stability," folks in the west decided to step in and let slip the dogs o' war. Q were only tolerable as long as he could maintain stability in a relative unstable region... try to do something serious to remove Q earlier than this year woulda' caused problems in the rest o' the region. well guess what? as o' 2011 the arab spring (or whatever you wanna call it) were already underway and Q were experiencing serious domestic instability. reasons for west to play nice with Q were disappearing quick.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Walsingham]

Wals, in general you are a fairly sensible chap and not at all suspect of distorting facts, which makes your stance in this all the stranger. You say Boo's points are arse, however:

 

1) NATO intervention happened late, and hasn't constituted more than some understrength bombing runs.

2) Fighting on the ground has been by locals

3) Success - and I have to eat some humble pie for predicting this would never happen - has come about through decapitation of Gaddafi's forces in targeted strikes.

1) In fact, intervention went lightning fast - less than one month after Q had started bombing towns; things were rushed when it looked like he would indeed succeed in using his airforce and armor to crush the rebels in Benghazi. I wouldn't exactly call depleting the ordnance stocks of some coalition members "understrength bombing", either.

2) We both know that allied special forces are operating on Libyan soil... the question is only the depth of their involvement.

3) Sure... decapitation of his forces and insta-airstrikes on anything heavier than a technical. The difference in the amount of heavy weapons controlled by each side was one of the biggest problems in the early days of the war, remember? That has somehow ceased to be a problem...

 

So how about we all stop with the bollocks, old boy?

 

Gently, yet forcefully put!

 

1) Your point does not contradict mine. Perhaps I should have been more clear. I was observing that a month's delay is inconsistent with something we are supposed to have started. And if we had planned it, precipitately mothballing our only carrier just beforehand would strain even the Ministry of Defence's legendary stupidity.

2) I don't see what special needs would be up to, besides training and observing. Reconnaissance? And tell who? You can't inform a command structure which doesn't know what it's own troops are doing. Spearheading attacks? Hardly what they're for, and it would have generated a lot of casualties.

3) Removing Gaddafi's heavier weapons has been important. But if he'd had the preponderance in ordinary troops a popular mandate would have implied, then he'd not be sulking under whatever the gaudy flapping mentalist has for a reichschancellery.

 

~~

 

Drowsy:

 

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.

[Drowsy Emperor]

I don't think its an exaggeration. I remember a large string of defeats for the rebels up until NATO intervened. Q's army was better equipped and more efficient at that point. Only when the airforce and tanks were out of the picture, and Q reduced to infantry and improvised vehicles did the conflict stagnate and eventually turn against him.

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

 

231174U put up an article from voltaire.net that suggests the "revolution" was practically planned in France and merely incited at an opportune time.

 

There might have been discontent in Libya, but the open revolt was certainly not a spontaneous thing, and its hard to argue that it would have succeeded without total western support.

 

Its also hard to believe that a man who has ruled for 4 decades would suddenly let power slip away from him and get unseated by a rag tag milita. You don't rule that long without being cunning and creative when it comes to keeping power.

[Walsingham]

Drowsy:

 

A) Damned if we do. Damned if we don't. Can't accept dictators because that shows we only care about oil. Can't get rid of dictators because that shows we only care about oil. Do you see? If France did inspire a revolution then isn't that kind of what France is supposed to do?

 

B) Gaddafi maintained his control precisely by having a very small military. He was scared of what we saw happening in Egypt, where the military is kingmaker. I guess he thought he could buy off a popular uprising, and police down more tightly controlled coups.

 

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