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
24567…11

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    323
    Registered Users Posts: 1,135 ✭✭✭323


    czx wrote: »
    Quite a few people feel that Libya was a good, well run country before intervention. They probably saw these events as a disgrace

    +1

    Was there working a number of times in the 10 years or so before it was destroyed (intervention). Was much better than any of the Pseudo-Democracies of Africa and elsewhere.
    Many others but, just a few of the good points various people there pointed out

    Education: Very Good, free, as far as you wish to go including abroad to follow your chosen field. 25% had degree.

    Healthcare: The best in Africa, available to all citizens free of charge, including treatment abroad if needed.

    Housing: Was considered a human right in Libya, there was no homeless. Can we say that?

    Libya gave more of its profits from its resources (petroleum) to its people than any other, ever.

    Recall while in Tripoli early 2004, seeing on the news that the first US diplomatic trade delegation arrived same day. Remember the bit about rebuilding trade/business relations after 30 odd years seemed strange. As judging by the military airport next to the civilian one at Tripoli various US military hardware outfits seemed to be doing OK there. Also, contrary to what he was saying, the then Vice presidents outfit were doing OK there too.

    Personally believe that's where it started, because. Intervention ie Destroying a country’s standard of living, is very, very good for business.

    “Follow the trend lines, not the headlines,”



  • Options
    #33
    walshb
    Registered Users Posts: 54,714 ✭✭✭✭walshb


    hmmm wrote: »
    Seeing as you are the king of hindsight, how many people do you think would have been massacred in Benghazi, Misrata and Zintan by Gadaffi in revenge?
    http://in.mobile.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idINIndia-55719620110319

    Would you have been smugly sitting here following the deaths of perhaps tens of thousands to tell us all "it was for the best, the Libyans are better off"?

    "The women wept as she spoke.

    Her sister railed at the failure of foreign powers to act more quickly.

    "Words are nothing. we need actions," she said.

    "We know what Gaddafi plans to do. We know he is going to torture and humiliate everyone in Benghazi."

    I prefer to live in the present and deal with the facts. Libya was far from perfect, and it's now farther from perfect. Figure that out.

    Interesting, and somewhat balanced view:

    http://warontherocks.com/2014/05/the-consequences-of-natos-good-war-in-libya/


  • Options
    #34
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    AlekSmart wrote: »
    Indeed,and now two years on,those same Sky Reporters are gravely reporting on the ongoing chaos which threatens a far broader theatre than Gadaffi ever did.

    The orchestrated overthrow of Gadaffi at all costs,has in fact,cost Libya almost everything...the ordinary Libyan has no more freedom today than was available under the Gadaffi regime.

    The British scratch their heads as their embassy convoy's are fired upon...the French shrug their shoulders and proffess sadness at it all.

    Yet,amongst many Libyans,the ongoing war continues the debate about how their previously largely stable lives were usurped by a European resourced "Popular Rebellion"...which is now continually proven to have been anything but popular.

    You've some evidence of this, I trust?


  • Options
    #35
    czx
    Registered Users Posts: 544 ✭✭✭czx


    323 wrote: »
    +1


    Housing: Was considered a human right in Libya, there was no homeless. Can we say that?


    No, but at least we can have our say


  • Options
    #36
    hmmm
    Registered Users Posts: 11,205 ✭✭✭✭hmmm


    323 wrote: »
    Many others but, just a few of the good points various people there pointed out
    It's the arrogance of this sort of attitude that gets me. The people are living under a dictator, and we get to see the joy of almost the entire nation when he was overthrown. But somehow, the people living in Libya are to be told in the most condescending manner possible that "life under a dictator was not so bad really" and "you shouldn't have looked for a better life".

    It's a means of putting down those who rebel against every dictator or tyrannical regime anywhere in the world, and it's an argument that can only be made by someone sitting in some cushy democracy who has never experienced life in a country where they are not free to express their opinions, or free to choose their own rulers.

    "What about the aqueduct he built" is no argument in favour of not supporting a population trying to overthrow a dictator.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    323
    Registered Users Posts: 1,135 ✭✭✭323


    walshb wrote: »
    I prefer to live in the present and deal with the facts. Libya was far from perfect, and it's now farther from perfect. Figure that out.

    Interesting, and somewhat balanced view:

    http://warontherocks.com/2014/05/the-consequences-of-natos-good-war-in-libya/

    Thanks for the link.

    Like the line "Though the desire to see the spread of democracy and the fall of dictators is noble, decisions of state should be judged by the results rather than the intent."

    Result in Libya so far, multiple tyrants instead of one.

    full.png

    “Follow the trend lines, not the headlines,”



  • Options
    #38
    AlekSmart
    Registered Users Posts: 14,005 ✭✭✭✭AlekSmart


    323 wrote: »
    +1

    Was there working a number of times in the 10 years or so before it was destroyed (intervention). Was much better than any of the Pseudo-Democracies of Africa and elsewhere.
    Many others but, just a few of the good points various people there pointed out

    Recall while in Tripoli early 2004, seeing on the news that the first US diplomatic trade delegation arrived same day. Remember the bit about rebuilding trade/business relations after 30 odd years seemed strange. As judging by the military airport next to the civilian one at Tripoli various US military hardware outfits seemed to be doing OK there. Also, contrary to what he was saying, the then Vice presidents outfit were doing OK there too.

    Personally believe that's where it started, because. Intervention ie Destroying a country’s standard of living, is very, very good for business.

    Got it in one I'd suggest.

    My own belief is that Gadaffi's belief in a new destiny for Libya, at the head of a broader pan-African alliance had begun to spook many of the Western power-brokers.

    The very real probability that Gadaffi was on the verge of giving the African Continent self-sufficiency in it's satellite telecommunications was surely a shivery moment in SO many Western Hi-Tech boardrooms..

    http://www.thelondoneveningpost.com/africa/the-lies-behind-the-wests-war-on-libya/

    Even worse from the Western perspective was the proven ability of Gadaffi to deliver on projects such as the Great Man Made River project....http://www.globalresearch.ca/libyas-water-wars-and-gaddafis-great-man-made-river-project/5334868

    This Gadaffi quote,from 1991,at the top of that article is particularly prophetic..
    .After this achievement, American threats against Libya will double. The United States will make excuses, but the real reason is to stop this achievement, to keep the people of Libya oppressed.

    However,whilst America may well have been Gadaffi's major enemy at that time,I believe it was a far broader church of Western "Interests" that rolled the dice on endgame Libya.

    Whilst we like to think that Subjugation of Africa is now a historic memory,the extent to which countries such as France continue to play a major hands-on role in the Dark Continents affairs tells a different tale.

    The French appetite to topple gadaffi was indeed of some note,as a guide to how it's foreign policy a l'Afrique was to be played out.

    However,as it played out,the mad,bad,evil,despotic ,mass-murdering Gadaffi was indeed put down.

    The Libyan people were freed from the Jackboot of repression etc etc.

    They are now free to resume living a "true Libyan/African lifestyle" more to the liking of it's cultured Western supporters....and without the need to engage in mad stuff such as breaking those very important business links with the Free World.

    Makes one wonder if the current Self-Destruction of Libya is achieving the very result which the E.U/U.N backers always wanted,but were reluctant to commit militarily to ?

    More evidence required though....?


    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)



  • Options
    #39
    AlekSmart
    Registered Users Posts: 14,005 ✭✭✭✭AlekSmart


    Nodin wrote: »
    You've some evidence of this, I trust?

    Evidence....I'd be inclined to see the current chaos as evidence of substantial disaffection with where Libya is being dragged to....with the ever increasing toll of Death,Destruction and Misery...one might be forgiven for thinking Gadaffi had returned....except of course,his level of madness and evil never quite led him to destroy large swathes of the Country as effectively as the Freedom Fighters now have.

    http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2014/07/28/oil-depot-catches-fire-amid-clashes-in-tripoli/13260507/

    http://www.libyaherald.com/#axzz390TU7OeN


    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)



  • Options
    #40
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    AlekSmart wrote: »
    Evidence....I'd be inclined to see the current chaos as evidence of substantial disaffection with where Libya is being dragged to....with the ever increasing toll of Death,Destruction and Misery...one might be forgiven for thinking Gadaffi had returned....except of course,his level of madness and evil never quite led him to destroy large swathes of the Country as effectively as the Freedom Fighters now have.

    http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2014/07/28/oil-depot-catches-fire-amid-clashes-in-tripoli/13260507/

    http://www.libyaherald.com/#axzz390TU7OeN


    Civil strife after a rebellion does not prove that the rebellion was unpopular. This is the settling of grudges and jockeying for power which often follow an overthrow. Had you a unified pro-gadaffi movement fighting the rebels now in power you'd have some case. As it is, this is simplistic nonsense.


  • Options
    #41
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    hmmm wrote: »
    It's the arrogance of this sort of attitude that gets me. The people are living under a dictator, and we get to see the joy of almost the entire nation when he was overthrown. But somehow, the people living in Libya are to be told in the most condescending manner possible that "life under a dictator was not so bad really" and "you shouldn't have looked for a better life".
    Yet can you not see that telling them that "you'll be much better off if you overthrow your dictator" is just as arrogant, and objectively speaking, often also false?
    It's a means of putting down those who rebel against every dictator or tyrannical regime anywhere in the world, and it's an argument that can only be made by someone sitting in some cushy democracy who has never experienced life in a country where they are not free to express their opinions, or free to choose their own rulers.
    Just as presuming that they will be better off out of a dictatorship is also an argument that can only be made by someone sitting in some cushy democracy who has never experienced life in a country where the rule of law has collapsed because the only thing holding things together was the dictatorship. Or even experienced living under a dictatorship, for that matter - on a day-to-day basis, what difference do you really think it makes to most people?

    It's all very well that you want them to overthrow the 'yoke of tyranny' from your comfortable, Western middle-class home, but there are often consequences either way and you seem to be ignoring these in favour of higher ideals that you need not pay for.

    I addressed this in my last response to you, but you appear not to have bothered registering this point, I note.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    czx
    Registered Users Posts: 544 ✭✭✭czx


    The Corinthian wrote: »
    Yet can you not see that telling them that "you'll be much better off if you overthrow your dictator" is just as arrogant, and objectively speaking, often also false?


    It's all very well that you want them to overthrow the 'yoke of tyranny' from your comfortable, Western middle-class home, but there are often consequences either way and you seem to be ignoring these in favour of higher ideals that you need not pay for.


    There's a very good reason why we now live in comfortable, Western homes. Europe has experienced years of suffering and sacrifice to get to this point.

    The fact is they need to overthrow their dictator. Just because they are in the Arab world doesn't mean they are incapable of democracy and shouldn't be given the chance. Perpetual dictatorships lead nowhere.


  • Options
    #43
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    czx wrote: »
    There's a very good reason why we now live in comfortable, Western homes. Europe has experienced years of suffering and sacrifice to get to this point.
    Centuries actually. Do you think we were ready to embrace democracy in 1789? France wasn't. In 1917? Russia wasn't, and arguably still isn't a century later.

    Indeed, we didn't really have democracy until well into the 20th century in Europe. For all the talk of women's emancipation, people forget that many men also lacked the vote until only a few years before women got it.
    The fact is they need to overthrow their dictator. Just because they are in the Arab world doesn't mean they are incapable of democracy and shouldn't be given the chance. Perpetual dictatorships lead nowhere.
    Eventually, sure. Are you qualified to say when they should do so? Especially as you don't have to suffer the cost of such foreign wisdom?


  • Options
    #44
    walshb
    Registered Users Posts: 54,714 ✭✭✭✭walshb


    For some people/countries dictatorships work better than democracies. What is so wrong with this? We are not all the same. As it stands "democracy" right now and recently in Libya is a lot more unstable than the Gadaffi reign. Will Libya prosper and thrive and live in relative peace in years to come? Who knows....


  • Options
    #45
    czx
    Registered Users Posts: 544 ✭✭✭czx


    The Corinthian wrote: »
    Centuries actually. Do you think we were ready to embrace democracy in 1789? France wasn't. In 1917? Russia wasn't, and arguably still isn't a century later.

    Indeed, we didn't really have democracy until well into the 20th century in Europe. For all the talk of women's emancipation, people forget that many men also lacked the vote until only a few years before women got it.

    Eventually, sure. Are you qualified to say when they should do so? Especially as you don't have to suffer the cost of such foreign wisdom?

    It's the 21st century. Democracy is well established in many stable and successful countries around the world. There is absolutely no reason why they shouldn't strive for a better system right now. There's nothing 'foreign' about democracy. It doesn't belong to any race or culture.


  • Options
    #46
    czx
    Registered Users Posts: 544 ✭✭✭czx


    walshb wrote: »
    For some people/countries dictatorships work better than democracies. What is so wrong with this? We are not all the same.

    People are all the same. Everyone wants peace, freedom and a better life for their family. These are universal desires which are generally better served in democratic states.


  • Options
    #47
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    czx wrote: »
    It's the 21st century. Democracy is well established in many stable and successful countries around the world. There is absolutely no reason why they shouldn't strive for a better system right now.
    Actually there's plenty of reasons, and some have been already cited, such as educational levels or tribal divisions, for example. Any reason you choose to ignore the differences between the West and many of these countries and presume that naturally they must be just like us?
    There's nothing 'foreign' about democracy. It doesn't belong to any race or culture.
    I said foreign wisdom, that we - enlightened Westerners - know better than them. I am highlighting the sheer arrogance of those who know nothing about the nations they speak of, presume bizarrely (on the basis of this ignorance) that they will behave as we expect them to (i.e. just as we would) and, to cap it all off, don't suffer the consequences of our moral guidance, when it turns out to be a crock of shìt.


  • Options
    #48
    walshb
    Registered Users Posts: 54,714 ✭✭✭✭walshb


    czx wrote: »
    People are all the same. Everyone wants peace, freedom and a better life for their family. These are universal desires which are generally better served in democratic states.

    Yes, and sometimes in a dictatorship these values are better attained. Democracy isn't some guarantee that there will be relative peace and harmony. It doesn't work like that. In some countries dictatorships work as regards stability and relative peace. Not perfect, I know, but democracy isn't always the better solution.


  • Options
    #49
    AlekSmart
    Registered Users Posts: 14,005 ✭✭✭✭AlekSmart


    czx wrote: »
    It's the 21st century. Democracy is well established in many stable and successful countries around the world. There is absolutely no reason why they shouldn't strive for a better system right now. There's nothing 'foreign' about democracy. It doesn't belong to any race or culture.

    I would suggest that there are so many definitions of this well embedded "Democracy"as to make it somewhat trite to refer to it as some one-size-fits-all answer to other societies ill's.

    To read many Western accounts of Libya under Gadaffi,it would appear to have been an entity incapable of civilized existance,with the regime apparently presiding over vast amounts of oppression and all the rest.

    Yet,whilst engaging in all of this widespread (and resource consuming) disaffection,the Gadaffi regime also managed to keep this vast nation functioning at a level WAAY above it's nearest (and more distant ) neighbours.

    And,yes,in a huge country made up of vast swathes of arid desert,having access to secure,plentiful supplies of clean water would,to me,trump some of the supposed benefits of our definition of democracy anyday.


    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)



  • Options
    #50
    hmmm
    Registered Users Posts: 11,205 ✭✭✭✭hmmm


    A stirring defence of dictatorship over democracy, that's not something you see very often in public. Should we rescind the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and promote despotism? Is it only Libyans who are seemingly incapable of self-organising in your eyes who are to be denied a chance at choosing their own government, would that also apply to people in the "civilised" West?

    What about the people in Tunisia who overthrow their dictator. Would they be better off in your eyes under a dictator? How about Cambodia? Or the Spanish? At least Franco kept those damn lefties out of power, now look at them.

    I'm reminded of the great Herbert Block cartoon "Hitler wasn't so bad, at least he made the trains run on time". Or better still Mae West - "Don't put all your eggs in the one b*****d".


  • Options
    #51
    walshb
    Registered Users Posts: 54,714 ✭✭✭✭walshb


    Hardly a stirring defence. Just points made regarding Libya's current climate vs. pre NATO attack climate. Not sure anyone is lobbying for dictatorship.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    hmmm wrote: »
    A stirring defence of dictatorship .
    Pretty sure it's not any defense of a dictatorship over democracy but a defense of common sense.

    You can't simply finance, arm and train international jihadis, give air to support to official Al Qaeda partners against a legitimate state and leave them with democracy in a box and expect everyone to live happily ever after together.


  • Options
    #53
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    hmmm wrote: »
    A stirring defence of dictatorship over democracy, that's not something you see very often in public.
    Well given all you're doing is ignoring said stirring defences, and not bothering to respond to the points made, instead periodically soapboxing with appeals to emotion, can we take it you concede those points?


  • Options
    #54
    czx
    Registered Users Posts: 544 ✭✭✭czx


    The Corinthian wrote: »
    Actually there's plenty of reasons, and some have been already cited, such as educational levels or tribal divisions, for example. Any reason you choose to ignore the differences between the West and many of these countries and presume that naturally they must be just like us?

    I said foreign wisdom, that we - enlightened Westerners - know better than them. I am highlighting the sheer arrogance of those who know nothing about the nations they speak of, presume bizarrely (on the basis of this ignorance) that they will behave as we expect them to (i.e. just as we would) and, to cap it all off, don't suffer the consequences of our moral guidance, when it turns out to be a crock of shìt.

    The west overcame all of those issues, they're not unique to Libya. I dont presume anything, they are just like us and they deserve to choose who governs them.

    There is nothing arrogant about democratically electing government. Frankly, the results speak for themselves.


  • Options
    #55
    czx
    Registered Users Posts: 544 ✭✭✭czx


    walshb wrote: »
    Yes, and sometimes in a dictatorship these values are better attained. Democracy isn't some guarantee that there will be relative peace and harmony. It doesn't work like that. In some countries dictatorships work as regards stability and relative peace. Not perfect, I know, but democracy isn't always the better solution.


    I dont see how freedom is better obtained in a dictatorship. It's inherently un-free.

    Democracy is overwhelmingly the better option. All of the most successful countries are democratic. Many of the worst are dictatorships.


  • Options
    #56
    czx
    Registered Users Posts: 544 ✭✭✭czx


    AlekSmart wrote: »

    And,yes,in a huge country made up of vast swathes of arid desert,having access to secure,plentiful supplies of clean water would,to me,trump some of the supposed benefits of our definition of democracy anyday.

    Access to water is a very basic need and is not unique to dictatorships. I would certainly expect more from my government


  • Options
    #57
    czx
    Registered Users Posts: 544 ✭✭✭czx


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    Pretty sure it's not any defense of a dictatorship over democracy but a defense of common sense.

    You can't simply finance, arm and train international jihadis, give air to support to official Al Qaeda partners against a legitimate state and leave them with democracy in a box and expect everyone to live happily ever after together.

    You cant just leave people in perpetual dictatorship and expect everyone to live happily ever after


  • Options
    #58
    czx
    Registered Users Posts: 544 ✭✭✭czx


    The Corinthian wrote: »
    Well given all you're doing is ignoring said stirring defences, and not bothering to respond to the points made, instead periodically soapboxing with appeals to emotion, can we take it you concede those points?

    Democracy isn't an appeal to the emotion. You haven't given any reason why the people of Libya don't deserve democracy and can't attain it.


  • Options
    #59
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    czx wrote: »
    The west overcame all of those issues, they're not unique to Libya.
    Then leave them to overcome those issues, rather than intervene.
    I dont presume anything, they are just like us and they deserve to choose who governs them.
    They're not though, and you'd have to be in pretty serious denial to believe they are. Is culturally acceptable FGM 'just like us'? Is the notion that hanging someone for apostasy 'just like us'? Is their experience with democracy 'just like us'? How about their attitudes twoards gender equality or homosexuality? Are those 'just like us' too?

    Tell me, are they 'just like us' or, you'll have to concede, quite a bit different in terms of culture, history and attitudes. Or would you like to persist in this fantasy of yours whereby they're 'just like us'?
    There is nothing arrogant about democratically electing government.
    Oh, I'm not saying they're arrogant; I'm saying we're arrogant for interfering with the mistaken assumption that once we help them throw off the yoke of dictatorship that they will naturally behave 'just like us'.
    Frankly, the results speak for themselves.
    LOL. Yes they do...


  • Options
    #60
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    czx wrote: »
    Democracy isn't an appeal to the emotion. You haven't given any reason why the people of Libya don't deserve democracy and can't attain it.
    1. Strawman argument. I never said democracy is an appeal to emotion. I said his posts are little more than appeals to emotion. And it's called an appeal to emotion, not 'the' emotion, so you clearly don't actually know what it is. Feel free to educate yourself.

    2. Another, partial, strawman argument. I never said the people of Libya don't deserve democracy. I have said that they are very unlikely to attain it because of various reasons that I listed earlier. Thus unless you want to rebut those, I have given reasons, despite your claim to the contrary.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    czx
    Registered Users Posts: 544 ✭✭✭czx


    The Corinthian wrote: »
    Then leave them to overcome those issues, rather than intervene.

    They're not though, and you'd have to be in pretty serious denial to believe they are. Is culturally acceptable FGM 'just like us'? Is the notion that hanging someone for apostasy 'just like us'? Is their experience with democracy 'just like us'? How about their attitudes twoards gender equality or homosexuality? Are those 'just like us' too?

    Tell me, are they 'just like us' or, you'll have to concede, quite a bit different in terms of culture, history and attitudes. Or would you like to persist in this fantasy of yours whereby they're 'just like us'?

    Oh, I'm not saying they're arrogant; I'm saying we're arrogant for interfering with the mistaken assumption that once we help them throw off the yoke of dictatorship that they will naturally behave 'just like us'.

    LOL. Yes they do...


    They are human just like us, therefore they desire the same things as us. A free, open society will help foster independent thought and gradually their views on fgm etc. will change, as they have in other countries.

    There's nothing special about western people. We enjoy a good standard of living and freedom that others can achieve. Freedom and prosperity are universal desires, culture is secondary


Advertisement