Syrian civil war

[pmp10]

The anarchists and democrats felt it should take a back seat , or what was the point of fighting fascism.

Where did you get that idea?

Just because anarchist militias didn't fall neatly into military structure of Republicans you can not count out thousands that did fight and die.

[Hildegard]

 

 

Libya justified? Looking from an economics point of view return on Investment was in that conflict was a jackpot and therefor justified. Have a friend that went to post war Libya, he works in the construction business, stories he told me made me want do dig more about Libya because pretty much there aren't any stories or news on the front page coming from there creating an image that everything is fine over there. First a few links:

 

http://www.globalpost.com/dispatches/globalpost-blogs/groundtruth/how-militias-took-control-post-gaddafi-libya

 

http://www.globalresearch.ca/absolute-lawlessness-libyan-democracy-two-years-after-nato-air-war/5323093

 

http://www.theguardian.com/global-development-professionals-network/2013/jun/07/confronting-rape-post-war-libya

 

http://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/Chaos-caused-by-Libyan-war-delaying-intervention-in-Syria-313803

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/special-report-we-all-thought-libya-had-moved-on--it-has-but-into-lawlessness-and-ruin-8797041.html

 

You can always argue Libya is better off without Gaddafi, that's always a suitable explanation for any wrong doings going on in that country. And put a few of those phrases that transition from a dictatorship to a democracy is always a tough road and all that other crap politician in the West say when they wash their hands from the responsibility and the consequences of their selfishly motivated actions. Libya was nothing but a gold rush for western states and foreign investors. UK spend what, 500 million dollars on the Libyan campaign, the reconstruction projects in Libya alone are estimated to cost around 300 billion dollars and guess who's gonna get those contracts? Let me quote a certain secretary:

 

“Libya is a relatively wealthy country with oil reserves, and I expect there will be opportunities for British and, indeed, other companies to get involved in the reconstruction of Libya,” said British defense secretary Philip Hammond. 

 

Quote above sums up not the convenient aftermath bonus of the Libya intervention but the main reason. Not human rights, lives, security or otherwise, all which are really endangered nowdays in many areas more then ever. Libya was about economics, Syria is about geopolitics and strategic reasons. 

 djlkjl

Edited September 7, 2013 by Hildegard

[Walsingham]

 

The anarchists and democrats felt it should take a back seat , or what was the point of fighting fascism.

Where did you get that idea?

Just because anarchist militias didn't fall neatly into military structure of Republicans you can not count out thousands that did fight and die.

 

 

My chief reference is The Battle for Spain, by Antony Beevor. I've read other books, going into the weapons and tactics, But I'd have to be honest and say that Beevor wraps it all up for me.

 

I'm going to double check my details this weekend, but I recall that while the anarchists were capable of tremendous courage, they lacked the discipline necessary to do things like dig in correctly or enforce field latrines. These are things which can lead to the decimation of units.

 

Viz:

 

http://anarchism.pageabode.com/node/639

 

You find the same thing in accounts I've read of the anti-bolshevik 'anarchist' militias fighting around Archangel in the Russian Civil War.

 

Having said that, I do have to concede that previously hard-disciplined troops can adopt anarchist tendencies in mercenary units, or what one old boy referred to as 'Chinese Parliaments'. But i digress.

[Guard Dog]

 

 

 

Everyday I see more and more evidence that the single wisest foreign policy decision the US ever made was the Monroe Doctrine. It's been all downhill since we abandoned it.

I disagree. WWII allowed us to gain the military and technological advances that put us at the top of the food chain.

 

WWII was a whole different story. We were attacked. Prior to that there was not much interest in involving ourselves in what was seen as a purely European affair. But then again nobody really knew Hitler was busy exterminating an entire race either. That might have shifted sentiment if it was known.

 

WWI was a good example of a bad intervention. I could easily make the case they US involvement did nothing for us and may have actually made things worse. Korea and the Gulf War were also good interventions because we were defending an ally from an invasion. Vietnam, Iraq, Libya, now this were all expensive mistakes from which nothing good came on our part.

 

I think the Gulf War was a good intervention, and I do believe American involvement in WW2 had a positive effect on the world. I'm unsure about WW1 - I'm sure I could find points both for and against - but I'm leaning towards saying it was a good intervention.

 

You should check up how South Korea really was during the Korean war. It was a brutal, repressive dictatorship (and to be honest, at the time many people would probably have preferred to have lived in North Korea, global politics aside, very ironic of you compare it to the current situation) on a patch of land with no resources at all to talk about. The intervention in itself was also an atrocity in terms of the use of overwhelming force against civilians (compare Dresden, et.c.). Military leaders on the losing sides of wars have been convicted in international courts for less. The South Korean government might have been "allies" of the US on paper, but really Guard Dog, you have got to have one ounce of moral fiber in your body. You don't "ally" with dictatorships of that kind. You talk about "rights" and the American constitution but you're willing to pay a fortune to save a brutal dictatorship overseas which ****s in the face of those very same "rights" of it's own people? It's pointless to aid a foreign dictatorship when the only outcome is a different flavor of totalitarianism. By the same logic of yours, the US should also have aided Nazi Germany against the Soviet Union.

 

Not every ally is going to measure up to any moral standard we might have. Hell, most of them won't. But North Korea was backed by the Chinese and they invaded the South who was backed by us. We don't have to like of approve of the south to realize intervening is necessary or an alliance with the US is not worth the paper it's written on. If China invades Taiwan we're going to war with China. not because we like Taiwan but because that is what we agreed to do. I wasn't really comparing Korea to Syria though. Just pointing it out as an example of a good intervention. Or at least a necessary one. 

 

I think you agree the ultimate outcome of this Syrian conflict is not going to be a free and stable country no matter who wins. So why bother? We have no alliance to protect, both sides of the conflict are sworn enemies of both our allies and ourselves. We've spent the last twelve years fighting against Al-Qaeda, now Obama wants us to fight for them. No thank you.

Edited September 7, 2013 by Guard Dog

[Walsingham]

Fair question, well put. However, I believe the answer is Chechnya.

 

Chechnya became a rallying cry for Islamists, yet the US was never remotely involved; and now you have Chechen fighters popping up all over the bloody place, as crack jihadis. You might not believe it but the jifs argue that US _inaction_ 'proved' complicity with Russia in a "crusade against Islam". Because after all - so they continue - the US was an enemy of Russia yet they didn't step in.

 

I believe there is ample evidence that failed states breed terror. If you want to beat terror you have to take action to avoid failed states.

[Hurlshort]

The whole "US fighting alongside Al-Qaeda" smacks of serious hyperbole.  It oversimplifies a very complicated situation.

[BruceVC]

 

 

 

Libya justified? Looking from an economics point of view return on Investment was in that conflict was a jackpot and therefor justified. Have a friend that went to post war Libya, he works in the construction business, stories he told me made me want do dig more about Libya because pretty much there aren't any stories or news on the front page coming from there creating an image that everything is fine over there. First a few links:

 

http://www.globalpost.com/dispatches/globalpost-blogs/groundtruth/how-militias-took-control-post-gaddafi-libya

 

http://www.globalresearch.ca/absolute-lawlessness-libyan-democracy-two-years-after-nato-air-war/5323093

 

http://www.theguardian.com/global-development-professionals-network/2013/jun/07/confronting-rape-post-war-libya

 

http://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/Chaos-caused-by-Libyan-war-delaying-intervention-in-Syria-313803

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/special-report-we-all-thought-libya-had-moved-on--it-has-but-into-lawlessness-and-ruin-8797041.html

 

You can always argue Libya is better off without Gaddafi, that's always a suitable explanation for any wrong doings going on in that country. And put a few of those phrases that transition from a dictatorship to a democracy is always a tough road and all that other crap politician in the West say when they wash their hands from the responsibility and the consequences of their selfishly motivated actions. Libya was nothing but a gold rush for western states and foreign investors. UK spend what, 500 million dollars on the Libyan campaign, the reconstruction projects in Libya alone are estimated to cost around 300 billion dollars and guess who's gonna get those contracts? Let me quote a certain secretary:

 

“Libya is a relatively wealthy country with oil reserves, and I expect there will be opportunities for British and, indeed, other companies to get involved in the reconstruction of Libya,” said British defense secretary Philip Hammond. 

 

Quote above sums up not the convenient aftermath bonus of the Libya intervention but the main reason. Not human rights, lives, security or otherwise, all which are really endangered nowdays in many areas more then ever. Libya was about economics, Syria is about geopolitics and strategic reasons. 

 djlkjl

 

 

So what if the countries that are involved in regime change in places like Libya reap vast economic reward? That's the way it should be as they are the ones committing the military resources and taking the risk. The Libyan civil war could have gone badly for the West and then what? They would be spending vast amounts of money in another Iraq conflict. Someone always has to rebuild countries after war so why not the West? In Afghanistan the Chinese have got billions of dollars of revenue rebuilding that country and didn't anything to remove the Taliban

 

You seem to be selective in your reasons for intervention in Libya, Western countries also helped break the siege of Misrata. If they hadn't got involved tens of thousands of people would have been killed. So I can accept that there were  economic interests but there was also a humanitarian objective. That should be good enough for any military action, the prevention of the loss of thousands of lives due a dictatorial and militarily backed government. This same principle apples to Syria

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Misrata

 

And Gaddafi was no legitimate ruler, he came to power through a coup, abused state resources, never had a democratic or any election for that matter and ruled Libya like his own personal fiefdom. We should be celebrating his removal and the role the West played

[Walsingham]

I believe the point was already made that if you demand a country exhaust its resources supporting morality when it DOESN'T pay, then it's simply unsustainable.

 

I would restrain my ire and ask if a doctor who works with children needs to refuse all his pay or otherwise be nothing more than a grubby mercenary?

[kgambit]

It's true that Libya requires around 300-400 $Bn of infrastructure construction but that actually includes improvements that were required before NATO intervention.  The actual civilian infrastructure damage caused by NATO is around 15 Bn$ (according to an estimate by Libya's Central Bank.) including 1.5 bn$ to telecom and 1 bn$ to electrical infrastructure.   http://www.nbcnews.com/id/44249828/ns/world_news-mideast_n_africa/t/rebuilding-poor-oil-rich-country-libya/

 

The loss of life and property during the uprising was severe and many suffered permanent injuries.  But the damage done to the infrastructure was essentially superficial. As Libyans living in Libya never tire of saying, Libya in 2012 isn’t like Iraq in 2003.   http://www.meed.com/sectors/economy/government/a-libyan-miracle-emerging-from-the-arab-uprising/3138170.article

 

Gaddafi exerted massive control over the Libyan budget.  Infrastructure investment was severely constrained at the expense of oil sector investment and overseas projects of which Gaddafi (and his family) retained 100% ownership. His control was so complete that he had diverted large portions of LIbyan gold reserves and oil industry revenues to his and his families personal accounts.  The theftwas so massive that Gaddafi amassed a personal fortune valued from 80 to 200 bn$.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/23/as-libya-takes-stock-muam_n_1027160.html

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/10119100/South-Africa-to-hand-back-Col-Gaddafis-money.html

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8749631/Col-Muammar-Gaddafi-sold-20-per-cent-of-Libyas-gold-in-regimes-final-days.html

 

 

Those diverted funds were part of the reason that the Libyan medical infrastructure had degraded so badly that most Libyans under Gaddafi went out of country for serious medical care. 

 

Libya was also already facing a critical housing shortage.  Contracts for construction include both repairs to existing housing and badly needed new housing; at least 1.1 bn$ of which were already underway before NATO intervened. 

 

The oil infrastructure damage was so minimal that by September 2012, Libya’s oil production had nearly reached its pre-revolution levels of 1.6 million barrels per day (BPD). The 344% increase in the hydrocarbon component of gross domestic product (GDP) in 2012 was the main driver behind the high GDP growth (95.5%) in 2012.

 

Then there are projects to improve ports, air transport, and tourism just to mention a few.

 

The post-Libyan reconstruction is not a NATO created corporate gold rush.  The infrastructure projects already existed and most of the countries currently involved in current infrastructure projects were already invested in Libya.  e.g. Italy, Spain, UK, France etc. even China who actually abstained at the UN vote and has since expanded their investments as well.  The removal of Gaddafi returned a huge stockpile of desperately needed cash to its rightful owners.

 

http://www.reportbuyer.com/industry_manufacturing/construction/libya_infrastructure_report_2013.html

 

http://www.africaneconomicoutlook.org/en/countries/north-africa/libya/

 

http://www.libyaherald.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Libya-Herald-supplement-Nov2012.pdf

 

"Post war democratic changes" is not simply a convenient truth or a old tired song.  Substantive changes do not occur overnight and often require significant internal changes.  Here's what Libyans have to say:

 

“Usually, people who live under dictatorship for a long time, they lose their creativity. I think if people are given the freedom and the corruption is minimized, I think Libya will be in very good shape,” he says, noting the immense enthusiasm he saw on a recent trip to rebel-held areas. “People are looking forward to working hard and changing the country.”

 

To move or dismantle Libya's socialist economy is likely to dislocate many people who have been working in Libya's state industries or simply warming chairs in its vast bureaucracy. Libyans talk about diversifying — into tourism or alternative energy, perhaps, but those industries don't yet exist to absorb workers.

 

“Gadhafi ran a very complicated patronage system that guaranteed people jobs,” says Khan. “That's why it worries me that the new council, when it takes over, will not want to upset the people (by) taking hard decisions of letting people go from government employment.”

 

Spending decisions will also be difficult.Libyans “are concerned about food prices, jobs, subsidies, employment schemes. The new politicians coming in will be promising them that. As a result, spending can be fairly high right away,” says Khan. Unless they can be fiscally conservative, he says, they risk wiping out their existing national wealth.

 

 

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/44249828/ns/world_news-mideast_n_africa/t/rebuilding-poor-oil-rich-country-libya/

 

Here are a few links detailing the post-Qaddafi political situation.

 

http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RR100/RR129/RAND_RR129.pdf

 

http://www.egyptindependent.com/news/un-adviser-shares-thoughts-libya-s-post-war-stability

 

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2011/10/20111021412582958.html

Edited September 7, 2013 by kgambit

[Walsingham]

I fear that you have touched upon a potent question across all nations. Historically employment was guaranteed by virtue of being able to create, or to manipulate. When even the UK, with all its infrastructure and education is heavily reliant on government jobs... but perhaps that's another discussion.

[kgambit]

I fear that you have touched upon a potent question across all nations. Historically employment was guaranteed by virtue of being able to create, or to manipulate. When even the UK, with all its infrastructure and education is heavily reliant on government jobs... but perhaps that's another discussion.

 

I hadn't considered that aspect.  So I did a quick check:

 

 

Now let's see what the middle east looks like:

 

In many countries in the region [MENA], the public sector remains the primary employer, employing anywhere between 14 percent and 40 percent of all workers.

 

 

http://menablog.worldbank.org/governance-and-public-sector-employment-middle-east-and-north-Africa

 

I haven't torn thru this next one but here's a link:

 

http://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/@dgreports/@dcomm/@publ/documents/publication/wcms_150440.pdf

 

The Middle East is tricky.  It has historically had high youth unemployment and high numbers of foreign workers.

Edited September 7, 2013 by kgambit

[Guard Dog]

The whole "US fighting alongside Al-Qaeda" smacks of serious hyperbole.  It oversimplifies a very complicated situation.

Of course it is, this is an internet forum after all!

 

But on a serious note since it is a pretty well known fact that over half of the rebels fighting in Syria are affiliated with a terrorist backed group, and al Nusura outright claiming to be part of al Qaeda any action taken against Assad benefits them. So it really isn't that much of a stretch is it Hurlie? 

[Walsingham]

If I were a moderate fighting for a decent future for my country I would get pretty annoyed if my group was denied aid just because AlQ were also fighting. Even if they were in the majority.

 

This is an internet forum, but remember that I for one have modified my views on things because of arguments I've read here. I talk about those views with dozens of other people, and so on. A hyperbole thrown out carelessly here could cast a long shadow.

[Drowsy Emperor]

Well it wouldn't be the first time the US fought alongside, funded or enabled Islamic fundamentalist terrorist groups. Its just that Americans have started to care after 9/11.

[BruceVC]

Well it wouldn't be the first time the US fought alongside, funded or enabled Islamic fundamentalist terrorist groups. Its just that Americans have started to care after 9/11.

 

Drowsy are you still bitter about the role that NATO played in bombing sense into the Serbs in there campaign of genocide against the Bosnians?

 

Or is your dislike of the West and the important role that they play in this global world about something else?

[Guard Dog]

If I were a moderate fighting for a decent future for my country I would get pretty annoyed if my group was denied aid just because AlQ were also fighting. Even if they were in the majority.

 

This is an internet forum, but remember that I for one have modified my views on things because of arguments I've read here. I talk about those views with dozens of other people, and so on. A hyperbole thrown out carelessly here could cast a long shadow.

Wals they are NOT fighting for a descent future. They are fighting to replace one strongman with another one whose religion they like. I'll repeat, there are no good guys here. This is one band of savages fighting several other bands of savages who all want something different. And when it's all over the bands of savages who survive will start fighting the other bands that survived. This war will not end with the fall of Assad. And it's just not our problem anymore. It's long past time the rest of the world begins to exploit their own resources and wash their hands of the middle east.

[BruceVC]

 

If I were a moderate fighting for a decent future for my country I would get pretty annoyed if my group was denied aid just because AlQ were also fighting. Even if they were in the majority.

 

This is an internet forum, but remember that I for one have modified my views on things because of arguments I've read here. I talk about those views with dozens of other people, and so on. A hyperbole thrown out carelessly here could cast a long shadow.

Wals they are NOT fighting for a descent future. They are fighting to replace one strongman with another one whose religion they like. I'll repeat, there are no good guys here. This is one band of savages fighting several other bands of savages who all want something different. And when it's all over the bands of savages who survive will start fighting the other bands that survived. This war will not end with the fall of Assad. And it's just not our problem anymore. It's long past time the rest of the world begins to exploit their own resources and wash their hands of the middle east.

 

 

But not all the rebels are extremists and linked to Al-Qaeda. Also you can never wash your hands of the Middle East until your country isn't dependant on oil anymore. So like it or not the events of the Middle East do effect us so we need to care

[Walsingham]

I'm sorry, GD. But I'm going to have repeat myself. Leaving aside the moral question it is indisputable that:

 

- The 'Middle East' is a source of fossil fuels which keeps the World not just moving but actually _alive_ using petrochem based fertilisers and pharmaceuticals

- The 'Middle East' impacts, via the Horn of Africa and t Suez canal, two of the World's most important seagoing trade routes

- The 'Middle East' contains hundreds of millions of people who will not simply sit still if the region goes to hell, and will promptly do legs for all points of the compass

- The importance of the Middle east is shared by the United States, Europe, and Asia alike. If even one region was crippled by the Mideast failing then that in itself could drag down everyone else.

 

It seems to me that the United States cannot afford to 'wash its hands' on purely practical grounds.

 

I really don't think fantasising about sweeping an entire global region under a massive tarpaulin is helping the debate.

[Gorgon]

We need a Ceasar, or a Ghengis Khan to conquer the entire world and do away with nation states and wars alike permanently.   That's how you solve the situation in the middle east. 

[Lexx]

And then he will be turning into the emperor of mankind, the immortal ruling monarch of the Imperium of Man.

[Walsingham]

And then he will be turning into the emperor of mankind, the immortal ruling monarch of the Imperium of Man.

 

Fideles purgator, baby.

[Guard Dog]

I'm sorry, GD. But I'm going to have repeat myself. Leaving aside the moral question it is indisputable that:

 

- The 'Middle East' is a source of fossil fuels which keeps the World not just moving but actually _alive_ using petrochem based fertilisers and pharmaceuticals

- The 'Middle East' impacts, via the Horn of Africa and t Suez canal, two of the World's most important seagoing trade routes

- The 'Middle East' contains hundreds of millions of people who will not simply sit still if the region goes to hell, and will promptly do legs for all points of the compass

- The importance of the Middle east is shared by the United States, Europe, and Asia alike. If even one region was crippled by the Mideast failing then that in itself could drag down everyone else.

 

It seems to me that the United States cannot afford to 'wash its hands' on purely practical grounds.

 

I really don't think fantasising about sweeping an entire global region under a massive tarpaulin is helping the debate.

We're going to have to agree to disagree then my friend. If you put a Sunni & a Shia together in a room and informed each that the other was the last of his kind they would fight to the death. They will stop fighting only when one has wiped other out. And then they remaining ones will look for someone else to fight. No one can help them.

[kgambit]

A new blog is up at the Institute for the Study of War that details the daily happenings in Syria. 

Currently covers activities from August 30th to September 6th

 

http://iswsyria.blogspot.com/

[Malcador]

And then he will be turning into the emperor of mankind, the immortal ruling monarch of the Imperium of Man.

Well, at least we'd get 200 years of glory that way....

[Hurlshort]

We're going to have to agree to disagree then my friend. If you put a Sunni & a Shia together in a room and informed each that the other was the last of his kind they would fight to the death. They will stop fighting only when one has wiped other out. And then they remaining ones will look for someone else to fight. No one can help them.

 

 

 

 

Time has a wonderful way of making differences irrelevant.  There are tons of examples in history where two sides eventually unite for the greater good.  

 

It's already happened in the US.  We have a bunch of non-denominational mosques in my area alone.