Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Lessons from Libya: How Not to Intervene
Options
Comments
-
realweirdo wrote: »You are ignoring a lot of my points as well. I will make my point again but in another way. Look at Syria. You say its better for a dictator like Assad to stay in power, that the vacuam that occurs afterwards is worse.
However Assad is slowly and surely in the process of being overthrown and there is going to be a vacuam anyways.
And all without any meaningful western intervention.
All this renders your point about interventions not helping invalid. No intervention in Syria and the country is on the verge of being a failed state. There was no meaningful intervention either in Somalia before Barre was overthrown. And in numerous other countries.
To argue interventions alone cause vacuams is a false one. Non interventions also cause vacuams, usually bigger ones.
As for Gaddafi how many times do I have to tell you he was far worse than what is happening today? The cause of 25,000 dead in 6 months. Thousands dead in his time in power. Instability all across much of africa because of him. Provided the IRA with tons of weapons so they continue their bombing campaigns. Raping of women. Forced prostitution of women in his personal guard. And on and on. I think that pretty much trumps what is happening today in Libya.
That's the last reply I am making to you - we keep repeating the same arguments, at this stage its boring and tiresome and neither of us will change our point of view.
Not too sure your prediction of Assad being toppled will come true
Woe be tied Isis members when he regains control over the realm.0 -
I've never said that non intervention always and in all cases triumphs western intervention, oddly enough.realweirdo wrote: »I have no interest in responding to completely invalid points and questions. Given that I believe most of your views are based on flawed logic and false premises such as the idea that non intervention always and in all cases triumphs western intervention, I certainly won't be.
As to what you believe, you're welcome to do so, but until you can back up what you believe in discussion, all you're peddling is personal opinion that you are unwilling to put in the path of fire.
All from someone who seemingly believes that Somalis are better off in a failed state than in one under a dictatorship.
An argument which I responded to pages ago - why are you presuming that Libya and Syria are comparable? Why are you presuming that the situation now is worse than it would be had the West intervened? All points that you conveniently decided to ignore.We have seen how that has turned out in Syria. It's been an utter humanitarian catastrophe, a thousand times worse than Libya, which ultimately renders your points completely null and void.0 -
realweirdo wrote: »You are ignoring a lot of my points as well. I will make my point again but in another way. Look at Syria. You say its better for a dictator like Assad to stay in power, that the vacuam that occurs afterwards is worse.
However Assad is slowly and surely in the process of being overthrown and there is going to be a vacuam anyways.
And all without any meaningful western intervention.
All this renders your point about interventions not helping invalid. No intervention in Syria and the country is on the verge of being a failed state. There was no meaningful intervention either in Somalia before Barre was overthrown. And in numerous other countries.
Since you seem to want Assad gone so badly in Syria, I'm guessing you are on the side of ISIS then? If Assad goes, what will happen in Syria, is what happened in Iraq. They'll install in someone like Nouri al-Maliki, and we all know how well that has turned out don't we? So why should people believe Assad should be taken out? You haven't a clue who the enemy is, and who's side your on pal. Read one of Donald Trump's tweets:
We will now be helping Syria and Iran by attacking ISIS - ironic, isn't it!0 -
Since you seem to want Assad gone so badly in Syria, I'm guessing you are on the side of ISIS then? If Assad goes, what will happen in Syria, is what happened in Iraq. They'll install in someone like Nouri al-Maliki, and we all know how well that has turned out don't we? So why should people believe Assad should be taken out? You haven't a clue who the enemy is, and who's side your on pal. Read one of Donald Trump's tweets:
We will now be helping Syria and Iran by attacking ISIS - ironic, isn't it!
I wanted Assad gone in the early days of the conflict precrisely because of what we are seeing now. Instead of him organising democratic elections, respecting the result and handing over power peacefully to a democratically elected successor who would at the same time have control over a huge army, only an army that all sides were not trying to defeat, he decided to tough it out, and now as was entirely predictable the country is in ruins and ISIS are on the advance. I don't think I can be clearer than that can I. He and he alone had the power to ensure a peaceful transition to a strong new democratic government and he and he alone chose not to.
Generally when a dictator tries to tough it out and there are powerful forces against him, the country ends in ruins.
No-one is to blame for the state Syria is in today more than Assad.
There are thousands of moderate Syrians who if they weren't exiled and brought into the political process could have helped form an all inclusive government. But what did Assad do with these moderate syrians who took part in peaceful discussions on how to end the conflict? He labelled them all terrorists and banned them from standing in elections.
He is the sole architect of his own misfortune and worse the misfortune of the Syrian people.
There's nothing ironic about attacking ISIS now - as for we, the only we at fault here are the we, you included who supported Assad staying in power from the beginning. It's a policy that's ended in disaster.0 -
Assad is going nowhere in fact his position has been strengthened in the last 6 months
40 per cent of the population are in favour of him staying in power . Odds are this percentage has increased given what would be facing the Syrians if he is removed
A New Democratic leadership would certainly be hammered by ISiS due to all transitional governments who have major instability in the changeover for all the reasons mentioned regarding Iraq and Libya
The West knows this all too well
The dictator who is in power is the only hope of the country avoiding being brought to its knees.
This threat to Syria is what Gaddafi was extolling prior to his removal.
We can't have a clue what is going on in the country but I'll bet Assad is better informed than any international intelligent agencies .
Dictatorship is never an ideal but when the citizens of a country are facing an onslaught they probably prefer to have Assad at the helm rather than an interim government who would be jostling for positions and weakened as a result .0 -
Advertisement
-
realweirdo wrote: ».
Unfortunately you are making the same mistake as you did with Gaddafi, viewing the past through rose tinted glasses. The further back people look, the more nostalgic they view an era. There would have been no 25,000 dead of Gadaffi had not started a campaign to take back cities that wanted nothing to do with him. NATO involvement or no NATO involvement there would still have been tens of thousands of deaths, if not even more. Cities like Misrata were under a virtual siege where no food was being allowed in or out.
It is perhaps worthwhile at this juncture to refer back to the Belfer Centre Report which featured in Post#1.
For all of the mad-dog hype surrounding Gadaffi,evidence of atrocities involving non-combatant Civillians is quite thin on the ground.
It is difficult to find non-aligned accounts of the Libyan rebellion and subsequent events,however Prof Hugh Roberts with "Who said Gadaffi had to go ?" does attempt to provide a perspective less popular perhaps....
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v33/n22/hugh-roberts/who-said-gaddafi-had-to-go
It is a comprehensive work,but worth a bit of consideration for all of that.Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one.
Charles Mackay (1812-1889)
0 -
It is perhaps worthwhile at this juncture to refer back to the Belfer Centre Report which featured in Post#1.
For all of the mad-dog hype surrounding Gadaffi,evidence of atrocities involving non-combatant Civillians is quite thin on the ground.
It is difficult to find non-aligned accounts of the Libyan rebellion and subsequent events,however Prof Hugh Roberts with "Who said Gadaffi had to go ?" does attempt to provide a perspective less popular perhaps....
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v33/n22/hugh-roberts/who-said-gaddafi-had-to-go
It is a comprehensive work,but worth a bit of consideration for all of that.
Superb post AlekSmart which should at last put this argument to bed .0 -
realweirdo wrote: »I wanted Assad gone in the early days of the conflict precrisely because of what we are seeing now. Instead of him organising democratic elections, respecting the result and handing over power peacefully to a democratically elected successor who would at the same time have control over a huge army, only an army that all sides were not trying to defeat, he decided to tough it out, and now as was entirely predictable the country is in ruins and ISIS are on the advance. I don't think I can be clearer than that can I. He and he alone had the power to ensure a peaceful transition to a strong new democratic government and he and he alone chose not to.
Generally when a dictator tries to tough it out and there are powerful forces against him, the country ends in ruins.
No-one is to blame for the state Syria is in today more than Assad.
There are thousands of moderate Syrians who if they weren't exiled and brought into the political process could have helped form an all inclusive government. But what did Assad do with these moderate syrians who took part in peaceful discussions on how to end the conflict? He labelled them all terrorists and banned them from standing in elections.
He is the sole architect of his own misfortune and worse the misfortune of the Syrian people.
There's nothing ironic about attacking ISIS now - as for we, the only we at fault here are the we, you included who supported Assad staying in power from the beginning. It's a policy that's ended in disaster.
You dont just 'have democracy' in many of those countries, it has to evolve there itself, if at all. Look at Egypt? They 'got democracy' and then it got taken off them again because they decided to put in the muslim brotherhood. No regime or government is allowed in the region to have an anti-israeli stance. Those that do get attacked, such as Syria and Iran.
Your completely deluded in your hypothesis of where Isis come from and whos fault it is. The USA with Turkey, Saudi Arabia + Gulf states and Israel form an alliance block against Syria and Iran; divided along pro or anti Israeli stances and also on sectarian divisions.
The truth is that 'the west' should have been backing(albeit tacidly) Syria and Iran all along and not the other way round. Its all ending in disaster now, and its the USA's fault as per usual.
Screw the racist colonialist state of Israel, and to hell with the Saudi royal family too. They are the ones that need isolating.
The relentless assault on Syria and the destruction of Iraq by the opposing block is what spawned Isis.0 -
Fig of Fallacy wrote: »You dont just 'have democracy' in many of those countries, it has to evolve there itself, if at all. Look at Egypt? They 'got democracy' and then it got taken off them again because they decided to put in the muslim brotherhood. No regime or government is allowed in the region to have an anti-israeli stance. Those that do get attacked, such as Syria and Iran.
Your completely deluded in your hypothesis of where Isis come from and whos fault it is. The USA with Turkey, Saudi Arabia + Gulf states and Israel form an alliance block against Syria and Iran; divided along pro or anti Israeli stances and also on sectarian divisions.
The truth is that 'the west' should have been backing(albeit tacidly) Syria and Iran all along and not the other way round. Its all ending in disaster now, and its the USA's fault as per usual.
Screw the racist colonialist state of Israel, and to hell with the Saudi royal family too. They are the ones that need isolating.
The relentless assault on Syria and the destruction of Iraq by the opposing block is what spawned Isis.
Yep, you almost bring a tear to my eye when I think just how badly your pal Assad has been treated. And him only trying to fill mass graves and the like. Hard being a dictator these days what with "the west" and Amnesty International and the like sticking their noses in. God be with the days when the likes of Assad, Saddam and Gaddafi could do their killing in peace and without the west bothering them. Clearly you'd like a return to those days.
Like most on the Irish far left, you have no moral compass. The more these dictators fill up the mass graves the more you whoop and hollar and support them. It's you who are deranged my friend, extremely and I suspect irreversibly deranged. You contribute absolutely nothing, zilch. A nihilist of the worst kind, the kind of nihilist who has far more in common with ISIS than anything else. Well done, take a bow.0 -
It is perhaps worthwhile at this juncture to refer back to the Belfer Centre Report which featured in Post#1.
For all of the mad-dog hype surrounding Gadaffi,evidence of atrocities involving non-combatant Civillians is quite thin on the ground.
It is difficult to find non-aligned accounts of the Libyan rebellion and subsequent events,however Prof Hugh Roberts with "Who said Gadaffi had to go ?" does attempt to provide a perspective less popular perhaps....
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v33/n22/hugh-roberts/who-said-gaddafi-had-to-go
It is a comprehensive work,but worth a bit of consideration for all of that.
So Gaddafi forces killed no civilians? No snipers? No artillary? No random bombing of civilian areas? No attempts at sieges and starvation? All made up by "western" media?
Of course! It all makes sense now!
:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:0 -
Advertisement
-
If there was an equivalent to Catholic Beatification for the Irish Far Left, Gaddafi, Saddam and Assad would have been made saints long ago.
The more of their people they kill, the nearer to sainthood they become for the Irish far left.
It's become a bit of a joke at this stage, although hardly something to laugh about.
The Irish far left need to take a cold hard look at themselves. They have come to identify themselves more with billionaires like the Assad and Gaddafi family than the impoverished masses these dictators oppress.0 -
realweirdo wrote: »If there was an equivalent to Catholic Beatification for the Irish Far Left, Gaddafi, Saddam and Assad would have been made saints long ago.
The more of their people they kill, the nearer to sainthood they become for the Irish far left.
It's become a bit of a joke at this stage, although hardly something to laugh about.
The Irish far left need to take a cold hard look at themselves. They have come to identify themselves more with billionaires like the Assad and Gaddafi family than the impoverished masses these dictators oppress.
I've noticed this too. A love of dictators but only as long as they're anti-American.
I don't see anything left wing about them though.
Its not like social justice is very important to them.0 -
realweirdo wrote: »So Gaddafi forces killed no civilians? No snipers? No artillary? No random bombing of civilian areas? No attempts at sieges and starvation? All made up by "western" media?
Of course! It all makes sense now!
:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
How can that make sense ?
Who is suggesting This ?
By far and away the most interest in the Libyan affair came in the wake of the UN/NATO decision to intervene,with most of the coverage following the easier path.
Very little was "made up",however our nightly Al-Jazz,Sky,BBC or whatever clips generally tallied with the official line,with very little reportage of Government attempts to negotiate.
It was,after all, initially a rebellion with pro and anti armed factions engaging each other in the streets.
The issue is one of scale,with a major plank of the U.N/NATO action being the imminence,if not ongoing at the time,mass killing of non-combatant civillians.
Large numbers of civillian casualities were incurred,however,apart from repeatedly warning Civilians of the dire consequences of supporting the rebels,Gadaffi appears not to have actually ordered the Mass killings so necessary to underpin the U.N/NATO reaction.
With some posters continually referring to Gadaffi's Mass Murder and almost genocidal rule,the fact remains that the 1996 Abu Salim Prison Killings (c 1,200) apparently remain the only numerically verifiable atrocity.
The other incidents of harsh and/or cruel punishments over 42 years of rule all appear related to alleged plots and threats to the regime.
So just to be clear on it...Yes,of course Libya had Civillian Casualities,Yes Government Forces employed Snipers and Yes they did utilise artillery.
Perhaps there are incidences of Revolt and Rebellion which can be termed as "Bloodless" as Gadaffi's own accession to power was,but they are few and far between.
To suggest that Gadaffi,Hussein,Al Assad or other autocratic rulers are in any way desirable from our perspective is somewhat delusional,however that is NOT what this thread is suggesting.Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one.
Charles Mackay (1812-1889)
0 -
Why should he take a bow? You're the one on the stage.realweirdo wrote: »Like most on the Irish far left, you have no moral compass. The more these dictators fill up the mass graves the more you whoop and hollar and support them. It's you who are deranged my friend, extremely and I suspect irreversibly deranged. You contribute absolutely nothing, zilch. A nihilist of the worst kind, the kind of nihilist who has far more in common with ISIS than anything else. Well done, take a bow.
You're viewing the entire issue simplistically. Let me explain a few of the rather ridiculous, erroneous conclusions you seem to be arriving at in the course of this thread of anyone who disagrees with or opposed the Western intervention in Libya:- They must support dictatorships. Wrong. Neither dictatorship nor lawless anarchy are supported, but when faced with a Hobs son's choice you choose the option that causes least harm.
- They must be left wing. Wrong. For example I am certainly not 'left wing'; I am simply not blind to Realpolitik. In reality the World is not composed of simply left and right - if it were would Nixon have been left-wing for opening up to communist China? Or China right wing for introducing Capitalist-style reforms? Leave the labels to students who have nothing better to do with their time.
- They must oppose all interventions. Wrong. Depends on the scenario; if an intervention can be judged to cause more good than harm in the medium to long run then it has merit, if the reverse is true, then it may be better to refrain from doing so.
- They must be anti-American. Wrong. Even in the case of Libya, it was the UK and France that championed the cause for intervention, not the USA. The Americans, on this occasion, showed restraint and were, if anything, a moderating force when intervention became inevitable.
0 -
How can that make sense ?
Who is suggesting This ?
By far and away the most interest in the Libyan affair came in the wake of the UN/NATO decision to intervene,with most of the coverage following the easier path.
Very little was "made up",however our nightly Al-Jazz,Sky,BBC or whatever clips generally tallied with the official line,with very little reportage of Government attempts to negotiate.
It was,after all, initially a rebellion with pro and anti armed factions engaging each other in the streets.
The issue is one of scale,with a major plank of the U.N/NATO action being the imminence,if not ongoing at the time,mass killing of non-combatant civillians.
Large numbers of civillian casualities were incurred,however,apart from repeatedly warning Civilians of the dire consequences of supporting the rebels,Gadaffi appears not to have actually ordered the Mass killings so necessary to underpin the U.N/NATO reaction.
With some posters continually referring to Gadaffi's Mass Murder and almost genocidal rule,the fact remains that the 1996 Abu Salim Prison Killings (c 1,200) apparently remain the only numerically verifiable atrocity.
The other incidents of harsh and/or cruel punishments over 42 years of rule all appear related to alleged plots and threats to the regime.
So just to be clear on it...Yes,of course Libya had Civillian Casualities,Yes Government Forces employed Snipers and Yes they did utilise artillery.
Perhaps there are incidences of Revolt and Rebellion which can be termed as "Bloodless" as Gadaffi's own accession to power was,but they are few and far between.
To suggest that Gadaffi,Hussein,Al Assad or other autocratic rulers are in any way desirable from our perspective is somewhat delusional,however that is NOT what this thread is suggesting.
There have been ample accounts from first hand witnesses and insiders to Gadaffi regime as well as those who suffered in prisons and under torture of the excesses of the Gadaffi regime which included murders of opponents at home and abroad, mass murder including Abu Salim, Libyan Airlines flight he ordered blown out of the the skies, invasion of Chad, backing of Charles Taylor's brutal rebel group, as well as his well know reputation as a rapist.
Then there were the 25000 killed as a direct result of his actions in the Libyan uprising.
Your attempts to rehabilitate Gaddafi's reputation are frankly pitiful. The man was a maniac, end of story. No amount of you burying your head in the sand, turning a blind eye or sweeping it under the carpet will change this.0 -
You mean the 25,000 killed because the uprising was prolonged by Western intervention? What about those dying now as the country falls apart, because it was never in a position to build a democracy? Are they Gadaffi's fault too?realweirdo wrote: »Then there were the 25000 killed as a direct result of his actions in the Libyan uprising.
And falling apart it is, I'm afraid:
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-28963770
Ironically further intervention may be the only thing that may stop another Somalia.0 -
realweirdo wrote: »There have been ample accounts from first hand witnesses and insiders to Gadaffi regime as well as those who suffered in prisons and under torture of the excesses of the Gadaffi regime which included murders of opponents at home and abroad, mass murder including Abu Salim, Libyan Airlines flight he ordered blown out of the the skies, invasion of Chad, backing of Charles Taylor's brutal rebel group, as well as his well know reputation as a rapist.
Then there were the 25000 killed as a direct result of his actions in the Libyan uprising.
Your attempts to rehabilitate Gaddafi's reputation are frankly pitiful. The man was a maniac, end of story. No amount of you burying your head in the sand, turning a blind eye or sweeping it under the carpet will change this.
I'm afraid you misinterpret my posts again,perhaps accidentally ?
I have no interest in "Rehabilitating" Gadaffi's reputation.
Even his most ardent admirers could not describe his rule as anything less than autocratic,harsh and singular in nature.
Gadaffi's rule is not the topic here,but rather the manner in which an outside alliance determined to effect a Regime change,by using all manner of subterfuge to justify it.
I find it notable that,even today,the Abu Salim Prison massacre of 1996 remains the most referenced atrocity attributed to Gadaffi.
Given the nature of the region,a 42 year long rule of a vast inhospitable tribally dominated desert country,during which a c 1,200 casuality Prison Riot is the greatest single allegation against you would tend to put a question mark against the level of Lunacy,Bloodthirstiness and pure evil now being made.
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2011/09/20119223521462487.html
If anything,Gadaffi appears to have had a belief in Jailing his opponents,in order to rehabilitate them,rather than staging mass-executions or waging genocidal campaigns against errant tribes.
There were certainly show-trials,followed by executions,at least some of which appear to have been loudly supported by onlookers at the time.
However,yet again in the context of the cultures of the region and it's politics,such events are,even today,quite common.
Many of the main players in Gadaffi's final denouement,had been arrested and jailed before supposedly renouncing their rebellious ways,then on release,only for them to immediately set about overthrowing him (Would a truly evil,mad,bloodthirsty/lunatic dictator have allowed so many of his avowed enemies to survive and flourish ?)
The figures for those killed during the Uprising have always been an issue for me.
Right from the start,I felt there was something wildly improbable about the numbers of Innocent Civilians apparently on the brink of annihilation by Gadaffi's forces.
This was at a time when Gadaffi was using Anti-Aircraft weapons to fire on civillian demonstrators...or at least this was what was being laid before the U.N....as it transpires,the actual proof of the event melted away,as did many of the other accisations of mass Government slaughter of non-combatant civilians.
Figures of 100,000.....
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2011/09/20119223521462487.html
Then 50,000.....
http://www.presstv.com/detail/196642.html
Then,quite early on,a reassessment of the total....
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/17/world/africa/skirmishes-flare-around-qaddafi-strongholds.html?pagewanted=all
Even the largest of the "Mass Graves",with all the connotations of Genocide and Ethnic Cleansing,contained only 134 bodies as recorded by The Red Cross (Not an agency given to rehabilitating Gadaffi's reputation either).
What is now a generally accepted TOTAL figure for deaths due to the revolt is less than 10,000.
www.nytimes.com/2011/09/17/world/africa/skirmishes-flare-around-qaddafi-strongholds.html?pagewanted=allLibya's new government has drastically reduced its estimate of the number of people who were killed in the revolution against Muammar Gaddafi's regime, concluding that 4,700 rebel supporters died and 2,100 are missing, with unconfirmed similar casualty figures on the opposing side.
So,no I do not accept any allegations of Head Burying,Blind Eyeing or Carpet Sweeping,as I'm fully aware of the shortcomings of Gadaffi and his administrations.
However,I feel those same descriptions can be equally applied to those who unquestioningly accepted the U.N/NATO line that it was intervening to protect innocent Libyan Civilians from mass slaughter.
This was all about regime change,desired by outsiders and for reasons which remain less than clear...most of the remainder is all about plausible deniability.Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one.
Charles Mackay (1812-1889)
0 -
realweirdo wrote: »Yep, you almost bring a tear to my eye when I think just how badly your pal Assad has been treated. And him only trying to fill mass graves and the like. Hard being a dictator these days what with "the west" and Amnesty International and the like sticking their noses in. God be with the days when the likes of Assad, Saddam and Gaddafi could do their killing in peace and without the west bothering them. Clearly you'd like a return to those days.
Like most on the Irish far left, you have no moral compass. The more these dictators fill up the mass graves the more you whoop and hollar and support them. It's you who are deranged my friend, extremely and I suspect irreversibly deranged. You contribute absolutely nothing, zilch. A nihilist of the worst kind, the kind of nihilist who has far more in common with ISIS than anything else. Well done, take a bow.
Fund Isis to knock out Assad. Didnt work did it? What ya gonna do now?
Perhaps a sustained carpet bombing of the entire region until nothing but sand remains will be the next retarded plan concocted. Its bound to work surely! Dont forget to only bomb Syria and Iraq (and Iran too if needs be) while leaving Israel, Saudi and the rest alone as they are a bunch of angels.0 -
Mod:realweirdo wrote: »So Gaddafi forces killed no civilians? No snipers? No artillary? No random bombing of civilian areas? No attempts at sieges and starvation? All made up by "western" media?
Of course! It all makes sense now!
:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
realweirdo, I don't think anybody is suggesting anything like that. I get you are passionate about the subject, but it seems you aren't reading what users have posted, and clarified, repeatedly, on this thread. I don't think you are purposefully misrepresenting their posts, just so engrossed in your own points you aren't giving time to read what other posters are saying.realweirdo wrote: »If there was an equivalent to Catholic Beatification for the Irish Far Left, Gaddafi, Saddam and Assad would have been made saints long ago.
The more of their people they kill, the nearer to sainthood they become for the Irish far left.
It's become a bit of a joke at this stage, although hardly something to laugh about.
The Irish far left need to take a cold hard look at themselves. They have come to identify themselves more with billionaires like the Assad and Gaddafi family than the impoverished masses these dictators oppress.
I don't know what the far left has to do with this, I'm not aware of any left wing users posting on this thread recently.
I'd suggest taking time to reply from now on, and actually reply to each point made by other users, rather than what seem blanket statement replies. The thread is just going around in circles otherwise.Fig of Fallacy wrote: »Fund Isis to knock out Assad. Didnt work did it? What ya gonna do now?
Perhaps a sustained carpet bombing of the entire region until nothing but sand remains will be the next retarded plan concocted. Its bound to work surely! Dont forget to only bomb Syria and Iraq (and Iran too if needs be) while leaving Israel, Saudi and the rest alone as they are a bunch of angels.
Not singling you out, but it would be best for the thread if we stopped the dramatic and exaggerated replies, for now, anyway!Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.
0 -
The key element in this debate is whether the removal of Gaddafi which has had a fundamental undermining of the whole region was a smart move.
Most posters will assert that regardless of his past crimes the decision to support the rebels was the wrong one.
Everyone knows the atrocities committed by Gaddafi yet under his regime this radical and dangerous threat could not rear it's ugly head as it had not the military support it needed to launch a substantial attack on the Libyan ruling body.
Yes there was a hope that the removal of Gaddafi would create a new dawn where a democratically elected group would bring Libya back with a clean slate and free to trade internationally on a better scale than under Gaddafi.
Sadly this was never going to be as the vacuum at least was going to be file with clans who would be jostling for power and the only outcome would have been the carving up of Libya into independent regions governed by these clans.a recipe for utter chaos and short lived.
The worst case scenario is what is there now . This cancer sweeping across the nation will be impossible to supress.The conquering of ISIS will never happen. Pandora's box has been opened
The recruitment level is probably way above what is estimated.
The root of the problem was removing the dictator who could keep it at bay and had kept that radical ideal from emerging at this scale, for so long.
No One on this thread pardons or condones what Gaddafi did to his fellow countrymen.
He wasn't listened to.He was seen as a crackpot yet was a very intelligent man as was his successor Saif.
If continued dialogue had taken place with his international counterparts after the embargo for trading was lifted then there would have been a better understanding of what threat was there and how damaging that threat would really be to many once it was supported.0 -
Advertisement
-
Means Of Escape wrote: »The worst case scenario is what is there now . This cancer sweeping across the nation will be impossible to supress.The conquering of ISIS will never happen. Pandora's box has been opened
The recruitment level is probably way above what is estimated.
the industrial war machine wins again!! :mad:0 -
renegademaster wrote: »the industrial war machine wins again!! :mad:
This is just a meaningless statement.
Blaming "the west" for everything is just tiresome, lazy analysis.
Long before the modern west as we know it came about there were madmen all over the place particularly in the middle east and further afield who were rampaging across regions killing all before them.
90% of the worlds problems seem to come from that region and have done since about the 7th century.
Had the west not a strong military force in times past, the Venetians, the Austrians, the Prussians and so on, we'd all be under Islam now or some similar ideologue. And your argument would be entirely academic.
In other words be careful what you wish for. If you want to live under IS good luck to you. I'd prefer if we had a strong military in the west capable of knocking these guys out of commission.0 -
Means Of Escape wrote: »The key element in this debate is whether the removal of Gaddafi which has had a fundamental undermining of the whole region was a smart move.
Most posters will assert that regardless of his past crimes the decision to support the rebels was the wrong one.
Everyone knows the atrocities committed by Gaddafi yet under his regime this radical and dangerous threat could not rear it's ugly head as it had not the military support it needed to launch a substantial attack on the Libyan ruling body.
Yes there was a hope that the removal of Gaddafi would create a new dawn where a democratically elected group would bring Libya back with a clean slate and free to trade internationally on a better scale than under Gaddafi.
Sadly this was never going to be as the vacuum at least was going to be file with clans who would be jostling for power and the only outcome would have been the carving up of Libya into independent regions governed by these clans.a recipe for utter chaos and short lived.
The worst case scenario is what is there now . This cancer sweeping across the nation will be impossible to supress.The conquering of ISIS will never happen. Pandora's box has been opened
The recruitment level is probably way above what is estimated.
The root of the problem was removing the dictator who could keep it at bay and had kept that radical ideal from emerging at this scale, for so long.
No One on this thread pardons or condones what Gaddafi did to his fellow countrymen.
He wasn't listened to.He was seen as a crackpot yet was a very intelligent man as was his successor Saif.
If continued dialogue had taken place with his international counterparts after the embargo for trading was lifted then there would have been a better understanding of what threat was there and how damaging that threat would really be to many once it was supported.
You basically just don't get it do you. In fact I don't believe you will ever get it. Gaddafi was ok once you played by his rules. Once you didn't upset him or put your head above the parapat you were by and large ok in Libya. Once you didn't discuss politics, once you didn't criticise him or his in many cases insane policies such as killing all the camels in Tripoli or other policies around education which were designed to venerate him as a demi god and other bizzare policies you were ok. Once you didn't complain about relatives who disappeared in the prison system you were ok. But as soon as you put your head above the parapat he came after you. Basically the Libyan people were tired of living in the hellhole of Gaddafi's making and rose up, partly as a consequence of the Arab Spring. Gaddafi saw a threat to his power and decided to crush it mercillessly. He had already been the cause of 25000 dead before he himself was fortunately terminated. So yes he tried to keep the state together in the way the old French Monarchy tried to keep the state together, by attacking anyone who stood up to them. Libya under Gaddafi was not the kind of modern democracy that most young people in North Africa currently aspire too. I know its hard to believe but most people in the region actually want a modern pluralistic multi party democracy. Clearly you want to impose an old style Arab Dictatorship on them when its not what they want. How about if I told you, you were no longer free to express your opinion on the internet for example? Would you like it? Well the Libyans under Gaddafi and similar Arab dictators weren't even allowed do that. They were monitored online and offline around the clock. At least these days they can say what they like, just one of the benefits of the post Gaddafi era. Again, I don't believe you will ever get it. You are ok preaching to others but there isn't a snowballs chance in hell you would ever choose to live in such a society. It's all theory from the likes of you, you have nothing practical to offer anyone.0 -
realweirdo wrote: »You basically just don't get it do you. In fact I don't believe you will ever get it. Gaddafi was ok once you played by his rules. Once you didn't upset him or put your head above the parapat you were by and large ok in Libya. Once you didn't discuss politics, once you didn't criticise him or his in many cases insane policies such as killing all the camels in Tripoli or other policies around education which were designed to venerate him as a demi god and other bizzare policies you were ok. Once you didn't complain about relatives who disappeared in the prison system you were ok. But as soon as you put your head above the parapat he came after you. Basically the Libyan people were tired of living in the hellhole of Gaddafi's making and rose up, partly as a consequence of the Arab Spring. Gaddafi saw a threat to his power and decided to crush it mercillessly. He had already been the cause of 25000 dead before he himself was fortunately terminated. So yes he tried to keep the state together in the way the old French Monarchy tried to keep the state together, by attacking anyone who stood up to them. Libya under Gaddafi was not the kind of modern democracy that most young people in North Africa currently aspire too. I know its hard to believe but most people in the region actually want a modern pluralistic multi party democracy. Clearly you want to impose an old style Arab Dictatorship on them when its not what they want. How about if I told you, you were no longer free to express your opinion on the internet for example? Would you like it? Well the Libyans under Gaddafi and similar Arab dictators weren't even allowed do that. They were monitored online and offline around the clock. At least these days they can say what they like, just one of the benefits of the post Gaddafi era. Again, I don't believe you will ever get it. You are ok preaching to others but there isn't a snowballs chance in hell you would ever choose to live in such a society. It's all theory from the likes of you, you have nothing practical to offer anyone.
I'm afraid it is you who does not understand the integral element of this post
You regurgitate the same facts and statement time and time again and totally ignore what has presented by others
In fact your opinion is so entrenched that there is absolutely no way that you will accept anything that is presented to you, have no solid rebuttal so therefore it is you who has nothing practical to offer anyone .0 -
It's not anti west intervention it's anti intervention full stop given what has emerged.
The consequences of the action were either not fully understood or were considered a natural outcome following an upheaval
Regardless of this new threat the ramifications of intervention has presented a future for Libya that is worse than under his regime
Gaddafi was a spent force at that point anyway and it was a matter of time when a period of change was going to take place .
External influencing of that outcome always bodes poorly for the supporting nation as a percentage of those who were suppressed by the action will only have their resolve to seek revenge for the interference hardened.
There is no easy fix to remove a dictator. The most successful are those where the army moves to the side if the rebels.
This was not going to happen under Gaddafi and one has to question why that was the case.
The rebellion was not fully fledged without external assistance and as a product of that you are left travelling a road to perdition.0 -
realweirdo wrote: »You basically just don't get it do you. In fact I don't believe you will ever get it. Gaddafi was ok once you played by his rules. Once you didn't upset him or put your head above the parapat you were by and large ok in Libya. Once you didn't discuss politics, once you didn't criticise him or his in many cases insane policies such as killing all the camels in Tripoli or other policies around education which were designed to venerate him as a demi god and other bizzare policies you were ok. Once you didn't complain about relatives who disappeared in the prison system you were ok. But as soon as you put your head above the parapat he came after you. Basically the Libyan people were tired of living in the hellhole of Gaddafi's making and rose up, partly as a consequence of the Arab Spring. Gaddafi saw a threat to his power and decided to crush it mercillessly. He had already been the cause of 25000 dead before he himself was fortunately terminated. So yes he tried to keep the state together in the way the old French Monarchy tried to keep the state together, by attacking anyone who stood up to them. Libya under Gaddafi was not the kind of modern democracy that most young people in North Africa currently aspire too. I know its hard to believe but most people in the region actually want a modern pluralistic multi party democracy. Clearly you want to impose an old style Arab Dictatorship on them when its not what they want. How about if I told you, you were no longer free to express your opinion on the internet for example? Would you like it? Well the Libyans under Gaddafi and similar Arab dictators weren't even allowed do that. They were monitored online and offline around the clock. At least these days they can say what they like, just one of the benefits of the post Gaddafi era. Again, I don't believe you will ever get it. You are ok preaching to others but there isn't a snowballs chance in hell you would ever choose to live in such a society. It's all theory from the likes of you, you have nothing practical to offer anyone.
At this point it's worth repeating what I and other posters have said in relation to Col.Gadaffi.
He was,without doubt a harsh ruler...there evidence for this is well documented.
How he managed to rule a large and disparate country such as Libya in this manner for 42 years may well be testimony to his Lunacy alone,OR it could well indicate a significant level of support for the state of things under his rule (Call it complacency if you wish).
Were I living my life in a country largely composed of arid desert,then a ruler who could provide me and my family with reliable,clean and free supplies of potable water would have my attention,if not passive support.
Libyan's,whether Gadaffi supporters or deniers,were not dying of starvation as a result of famine,nor were their infants dying due to lack of post natal medical care.
The main difference in Gadaffi's rule,for me,was his often OTT showmanship,which he had cultivated and honed over his tenure at the top.
Like him or not,he was a Ruler who made it impossible to ignore him,and,as a result ended up posing often difficult policy decisions for the "Westernized" world to make.....hence the safe options of "Sanctions" whilst "Westernized" world leaders tried to figure out what exactly they could do to rid themselves of this troublesome anti-cleric.
It is,I believe,somewhat self-serving to suggest that....
,particularly as it is readily apparent that throughout "the region",significant numbers of young people are prepared to die in order to prevent just such democratic societies taking root.most people in the region actually want a modern pluralistic multi party democracy.
Personally,I would be reluctant to ascribe to any understanding of the African/Middle Eastern take on anything to do with democratic principles,as I understand them.
There is a rather interesting Blog by Ed Moloney which,although long,is well worth reading in it's entirety for some,still pertinent insights into Libya,before and during the earlier stages of his reign.
http://thebrokenelbow.com/category/libya/Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one.
Charles Mackay (1812-1889)
0 -
realweirdo wrote: »You basically just don't get it do you. In fact I don't believe you will ever get it. Gaddafi was ok once you played by his rules. Once you didn't upset him or put your head above the parapat you were by and large ok in Libya. Once you didn't discuss politics, once you didn't criticise him or his in many cases insane policies such as killing all the camels in Tripoli or other policies around education which were designed to venerate him as a demi god and other bizzare policies you were ok. Once you didn't complain about relatives who disappeared in the prison system you were ok. But as soon as you put your head above the parapat he came after you. Basically the Libyan people were tired of living in the hellhole of Gaddafi's making and rose up, partly as a consequence of the Arab Spring. Gaddafi saw a threat to his power and decided to crush it mercillessly. He had already been the cause of 25000 dead before he himself was fortunately terminated. So yes he tried to keep the state together in the way the old French Monarchy tried to keep the state together, by attacking anyone who stood up to them. Libya under Gaddafi was not the kind of modern democracy that most young people in North Africa currently aspire too. I know its hard to believe but most people in the region actually want a modern pluralistic multi party democracy. Clearly you want to impose an old style Arab Dictatorship on them when its not what they want. How about if I told you, you were no longer free to express your opinion on the internet for example? Would you like it? Well the Libyans under Gaddafi and similar Arab dictators weren't even allowed do that. They were monitored online and offline around the clock. At least these days they can say what they like, just one of the benefits of the post Gaddafi era. Again, I don't believe you will ever get it. You are ok preaching to others but there isn't a snowballs chance in hell you would ever choose to live in such a society. It's all theory from the likes of you, you have nothing practical to offer anyone.
Did Al Queda and ISIS emerge to topple dictators for the greater good and allow democracy to sprout or are they now a form dictatorship on a macro scale?0 -
At this point it's worth repeating what I and other posters have said in relation to Col.Gadaffi.
He was,without doubt a harsh ruler...there evidence for this is well documented.
How he managed to rule a large and disparate country such as Libya in this manner for 42 years may well be testimony to his Lunacy alone,OR it could well indicate a significant level of support for the state of things under his rule (Call it complacency if you wish).
Were I living my life in a country largely composed of arid desert,then a ruler who could provide me and my family with reliable,clean and free supplies of potable water would have my attention,if not passive support.
Libyan's,whether Gadaffi supporters or deniers,were not dying of starvation as a result of famine,nor were their infants dying due to lack of post natal medical care.
The main difference in Gadaffi's rule,for me,was his often OTT showmanship,which he had cultivated and honed over his tenure at the top.
Like him or not,he was a Ruler who made it impossible to ignore him,and,as a result ended up posing often difficult policy decisions for the "Westernized" world to make.....hence the safe options of "Sanctions" whilst "Westernized" world leaders tried to figure out what exactly they could do to rid themselves of this troublesome anti-cleric.
It is,I believe,somewhat self-serving to suggest that....,particularly as it is readily apparent that throughout "the region",significant numbers of young people are prepared to die in order to prevent just such democratic societies taking root.
Personally,I would be reluctant to ascribe to any understanding of the African/Middle Eastern take on anything to do with democratic principles,as I understand them.
There is a rather interesting Blog by Ed Moloney which,although long,is well worth reading in it's entirety for some,still pertinent insights into Libya,before and during the earlier stages of his reign.
http://thebrokenelbow.com/category/libya/
Again, like means of escape you are not understanding why Gaddafi was overthrown or even trying to understand why he was overthrown. The fact he was in power so long gives him no added legitimacy. The fact the Libyan people were scared to express an opinion such as an interest in democracy also is discounted by you.
In other words, the Libyan people should have been quite content to stay quiet and live at the whim of what most people even you concede was a lunatic.
Arab people are no different to Irish people. Most of them want the same thing. A small minority, in fact a tiny minority of extremists want to take over countries and run them at the point of a gun.
The majority, 90% want a pluralistic democracy like any other country. The vast majority of Libyans certainly don't a return to an Arab strongman, nor do they want an AQ type group to take over.
So lets support the majority in their ambitions and not as you would support a small minority.
Again, you just don't get it, nor I believe will you ever. You think the vast majority of Libyans want a return to a Gaddafi type era when they couldn't budge but for being watched yet there was "stability". It's total nonsense. In fact if I understand you right, you want an Arab strongman/dictator imposed on the Libyan people, anyone who speaks of democracy rounded up and imprisoned, political parties banned and political opponents jailed or exiled. That seems to be what you want. And yet you call that progress.
Getting tired of hypocrits around here who preach the value of dictatorship to other nations yet benefit from democracy in their own country. I suppose the best thing is to ignore such people.0 -
realweirdo wrote: ».
Again, you just don't get it, nor I believe will you ever. You think the vast majority of Libyans want a return to a Gaddafi type era when they couldn't budge but for being watched yet there was "stability".
It's total nonsense. In fact if I understand you right, you want an Arab strongman/dictator imposed on the Libyan people, anyone who speaks of democracy rounded up and imprisoned, political parties banned and political opponents jailed or exiled.That seems to be what you want. And yet you call that progress.
Getting tired of hypocrits around here who preach the value of dictatorship to other nations yet benefit from democracy in their own country. I suppose the best thing is to ignore such people.
No I'm afraid you misunderstand my view alright.
I have no idea what "The Libyan People" want right now,but I would suspect significant amounts are not exactly best-pleased with what has been delivered to them courtesy of a group of odd,mainly European bedfellows.
What they now have,may well be "progress" to some,but I beg to differ.
My suggestion is the needs of "The Libyan People" were NOT the motivating elements of the UN/NATO intervention,and that lessons DO need to be learned from that.
It's worth bearing in mind that there is a highly vocal element of radical protest here in Ireland which characterises our current government as being dictatorial,because it is implimenting new taxation measures or presides over an allehedly flawed asylum system.
Would these folk be the Hypocrits you refer to ?Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one.
Charles Mackay (1812-1889)
0 -
Advertisement
-
Advertisement