Thread: The Libyan Crisis

Originally Posted by Norton

Originally Posted by mao say dung

I don't think they really worry about the choices North Africans and other Arabs are likely to make when they get their new democracies.

If they don't like the outcome simply label the winner a terrorist group and refuse to deal with them.

and it's likely going to happen,

in some ways, winning Libya would bring two wins ethically, not one. The removal of Gadaffi and the defeat of the west once AQ insurgents take over and start dictating new policies in complete contradiction to their pre-war principles

a lose-lose situation for us at the end,

Originally Posted by Norton

Originally Posted by mao say dung

I don't think they really worry about the choices North Africans and other Arabs are likely to make when they get their new democracies.

If they don't like the outcome simply label the winner a terrorist group and refuse to deal with them.

I take it you are talking about the Hamas/Fatah fiasco in Palestine a few years ago? USA backed democratic elections. Hamas won fair and square, -- all international observers agreed on that. But Israel and USA didnt like the outcome, so they banned aid to the Hamas democratically elected government and funded a coup. Fatah won government through force of arms in the East Bank and Hamas managed to fight off the coup in Gazza. Now Hamas and Fatah appear to be getting together to form a unity government for the divided country and its causing great distress in Israel and of course USA.
And to top it off, now that the US backed Mubarak dictatorship has been toppled in Egypt, the new government has opened the border with the previously isolated Gaza, partially ending the US backed Israeli blockade of Gaza and allowing humanitarian aid in.

Yes, democracy (not that Egypt is fully there yet) is not always in western nations best interest. Sometimes, and most times, western supported and armed dictatorships are more profitable than democracy.

being a realist is actually being an idealist here,

what do they think they will accomplish once they removed Gaddaffi ?

Originally Posted by Panda

Yes, democracy (not that Egypt is fully there yet) is not always in western nations best interest.

Glad you brought Egypt up. All quiet there for the moment but the fat lady has yet to sing. For the moment the democracy movement is relying on the military's goodwill. What happens when the democracy folks want a constitutional change which puts the military under full control of a democratically elected government?

^Maybe they'll follow the Turkish model and not bother?

Originally Posted by Norton

Originally Posted by Panda

There is a difference between being an idealist and a realist.

As experienced in Iraq and Afghanistan, overthrowing the Qaddafi regime is the easy bit. Then what? Does the EU and NATO simply say mission accomplished and refuse to provide any further military support? If they do, prevention of civilian deaths which was the reason for intervention in the first place will be a joke as the tribes and insurgents slaughter one another in a power struggle. With regime change comes an obligation to fully support the installation of a new one. Putting the rebel based government in place, providing security against those who oppose the government and helping them to build a viable "democratic" government.

Being a realist, this will not be over quickly.

You are quite right in one respect there Norton. The national internal political conflict will not be over quickly, just as it is not in Iraq. But the end of The Gaddafi regime is likely to be over quickly and the western politicans will go away smugly smiling and saying that they have brought democracy and freedom to yet another country. "Mission Accomplished".

Fact is that in a country like Iraq that was thrown together by western powers back after WW1, out of three or four different and competing ethnic/religious groups, it was never going to hang together as a single country except under the control of a ruthless dictator. And Saddam Hussein did a pretty good job of holding the new country together , all be it through brutal military power.

Under Hussein the country was relatively prosperous and internally peaceful, despite the fact that agitators were routinely executed. But generally, the people had a much better life under Hussein than they do now under a so called democracy that is little better than a civil war.

WMDs was the pretence for the illegal Iraq invasion, the real reason of course being to capture Irans oil resources.
Then after the the successful invasion and their pretence for war being discredited, the USA put up another pretentious excuse, -- regime change and democracy. What a shamble it has turned out to be. The country is now more divided than ever. The Shia majority government is closer than ever to USAs next oil rich target; -- Iran, the Kurds are threatening to break away and the Suni minority are mounting an insurgency. The "democratic" government, rather than rolling over to US military pressure actually put tenders out for oil contracts on the world market. And guess what? The Chinese and Russians are back in there. Maybe not a s strongly as they were when the west had sanctions on Hussein's Iraq and they were sneaking in under USAs neck, but they certainly have quite a presence again.

So, in the end it was all for shit. Hundreds of US$ Billions gone, hundreds of thousands of lives lost, a few thousands of them Americans. And all for what? Democracy in Iraq? A country now in a state of perpetual civil war and in danger of falling apart.

I dont see Libya as much different. The west jumped in when they thought the rebels were going to do it and they wanted to endorse the winners. Too late to swap sides when the tables turned.

Gaddafi is fcuked. He will be ousted one way or another.
But whats going to be left of the place if it becomes a democracy of sorts like Iraq? Warring tribal groups who are prepared to mount a civil war to protect their own interests? Or perhaps infiltration by Al Qaeda, which some analysts already report is happening. What will the west end up wit after Gaddafi is gone? Will it be better oer worse for us in the west than it was with him there? How it affects the people of Libya is irrelevant to us as we are not there to play Santa Claus handing out gifts to them at our expense. We are in this for our own benefit, otherwise we wouldn't be in there at all. Plenty of other nasty dictators around the world we could attack, but not so many with a popular uprising and loads of oil.

Its a bit of an uncertain gamble backing a popular uprising against a dictator who was a former allie. Western nations have to have a pretty fair idea which side is likely to win and thus which side they want to be on before committing support to an uprising. Eg; no problem with Saudi Arabia and Bahrain royal dictators slaughtering their own people. Not much chance of the losing and they are our military and economic allies. So, no problem there at all in backing a dictatorship.

The real problem lies in places like Iraq, Afghanistan, and now Egypt and Libya where democracy may cause more economic/political/military problems for the west than under a western controled dictatorship.

Freedom and democracy may be a great catch cry for the western politicans at home, but would the western voters still support that ideal if the people in far away places like Middle East said fcuk off USA, we can get a better deal with Russia or China?

Originally Posted by Panda

WMDs was the pretence for the illegal Iraq invasion, the real reason of course being to capture Irans oil resources.

Since all the American government had to do was drop the sanctions regime to have Iraqi oil back on stream, this oft repeated canard is just that. The goal is and was to maintain a serious military presence in a strategic location. It remains to be seen how that plays out.

Originally Posted by Panda

Freedom and democracy may be a great catch cry for the western politicans at home, but would the western voters still support that ideal if the people in far away places like Middle East said fcuk off USA, we can get a better deal with Russia or China?

It seems that the whole point of the "rebranding"--this is NATO and the EU and NOT the USA-- is to avoid the whole "fuck off USA" syndrome, support a popular uprising, and make the point again and again that it's China who deals with dictators willy-nilly and Russia who supports the Syrian regime to maintain its naval base(s) there.

Originally Posted by Panda

Fact is that in a country like Iraq that was thrown together by western powers back after WW1, out of three or four different and competing ethnic/religious groups, it was never going to hang together as a single country except under the control of a ruthless dictator.

Ditto Libya. So if these countries are all just post-colonial fictional hangovers to begin with, what does sovereignty mean and why shouldn't they be restructured to suit Western purposes? Old boss meet the new boss, it's the same boss.

The thing is, the people in Libya and Syria (and Iraq) want(ed) out from under these regimes, so why not pitch in, regardless of conflicting layers of intent and motivation?

It can only be hoped that things will be done better as this "new" Imperial alliance works out the kinks, because with all the conflict coming up over resources, Africa in particular is in for some changes. The Chinese are going to find building schools and roads for dictators insufficient for their purposes. And that is really what this is all about.

I find it hard to take a "moral" stand on this sort of thing because there really are no good guys among the major players, native or foreign.

Originally Posted by mao say dung

the people in Libya and Syria (and Iraq) want(ed) out from under these regime

What makes you think your statement is true?

^The same sort of thing that makes me think the people in Thailand want out from under the Dem-Army-Palace regime: sustained protest, rebellion, willingness to die.

In the case of Iraq, anyone who thinks the Shiite majority or the Kurds didn't want out from under Sadaam has odd notions about human nature.

Why do you ask?

^
Does the same apply to the shiite majority of Bahrain or eastern Saudi? And what about Iran? They seem to have been pretty keen on their revolution. Are we to now re-write history indicating that they didn't want that and it was all a big mirage?

We need to stand by what a majority wants - regardless of whether it suits our preferences. Otherwise we're hypocrites

Originally Posted by OhOh

Originally Posted by mao say dung

the people in Libya and Syria (and Iraq) want(ed) out from under these regime

What makes you think your statement is true?

This is thread about Libya.

Your comments on that would be of interest to me.

You noticed.

And like I said, "the same sort of thing that makes me think the people in Thailand want out from under the Dem-Army-Palace regime: sustained protest, rebellion, willingness to die."

Which part didn't you understand?

Originally Posted by Tom Sawyer

Does the same apply to the shiite majority of Bahrain or eastern Saudi? And what about Iran? They seem to have been pretty keen on their revolution. Are we to now re-write history indicating that they didn't want that and it was all a big mirage?

Guess I'm not sure what you mean? These people want what they want. I hope they get it. Who wants to rewrite history?

Surely you're not suggesting the Imperial Corps go into every one of these countries and start bombing and putting boots on the ground...

I think I mean the same as you - but wanted to emphasise that it doesn't matter whether they are shiite or sunni, the majority decision precedes the minority. If the minority don't like it, they can wait til the next election (like many of us have done in past) or they can leave. As for Iran, I think you can see what I mean, the US is trying to now pretend the Iranian revolution was some sort of conspiracy against the real majority. No evidence of that at all.

Ah. Gotcha.

I take it you're talking about the old Iranian revolution and not the recent street-and-Tweet business?

Yes. The current one is probably being fed by the CIA - but that's okay (with me) as long as it reflects the will of the majority and is not some pretence by carefully selected and broadcast images in the west - which it may well be. My guess is it's somewhere in the middle.

Colonel Gaddafi's youngest son and three of his grandchildren have been killed in a Nato airstrike in Tripoli, the Libyan government has said.

Government spokesman Moussa Ibrahim said the incident which killed Sayf al-Arab Gaddafi was "a direct operation to assassinate the leader of this country".

Mr Ibrahim added that Colonel Gaddafi himself was in the large residential villa which was hit by the strike, but was unharmed.

BBC News - Libya: Nato strike 'kills Gaddafi son'
Vid at link

Originally Posted by Panda

But the end of The Gaddafi regime is likely to be over quickly and the western politicans will go away smugly smiling and saying that they have brought democracy and freedom to yet another country. "Mission Accomplished".

Frankly, thats the way I see it. Ousting Qadaffi and inner circle is now basically a matter of necessity. What becomes of 'freedom and democracy' after that is an internal Libyan matter, for Libyans to decide. You're certainly better off without Q, and so are we- but we're not your sugar daddy, and 'nation building' is an expensive western fantasy anyway. Personally, I think Obama & Co have too many smarts to allow this to drag into another drawn out Iraq style debacle. I hope so too. We are decapitating a despotic regime and a declared enemy, thats all.

Fuck's sake. Why is NATO getting involved in the business of assassination? Because that's what this is, and the UN resolution does not allow for it. What a con this 'No-Fly-Zone' has turned out to be.

Originally Posted by Norton

Originally Posted by Panda

Yes, democracy (not that Egypt is fully there yet) is not always in western nations best interest.

Glad you brought Egypt up. All quiet there for the moment but the fat lady has yet to sing. For the moment the democracy movement is relying on the military's goodwill. What happens when the democracy folks want a constitutional change which puts the military under full control of a democratically elected government?

Err.. the Egyptian military is under the control of the US government through US funding amounting to one third of their total budget. The Egyptian military leaders run a lot of very profitable businesses in Egypt with this cash bonus from USA. So they are not going to roll over and take a pay cut from any democratically elected Egyptian government if their political aims differ. The Egyptian military leaders take their orders directly from Washington. The new Egyptian government has opened the border wit Gaza. It remains to be seen if the US/Israeli alliance directs the Egyptian military to close it again.

Originally Posted by FarangRed

Fuck's sake. Why is NATO getting involved in the business of assassination? Because that's what this is, and the UN resolution does not allow for it. What a con this 'No-Fly-Zone' has turned out to be.

Reason being is that is the quickest way to end the conflict. Not that NATO or the Yanks particularly want to kill Gaddafi and his family. Its more to put pressure on his front line political/military commanders to swap sides. When you know that you and your family are not safe in your own beds at night its a big incentive to consider the alternative options. Expect to see some of Gaddafi's top line comanders getting taken out soon.

unbelievable, so now it's ok to kill innocent civilians to get what you want ?

don't you see the irony of all this ?

so the cowards at NATO are going after young children and his immediate family to send him message ?

even Stalin and Mao couldn't do better,