The war in Libya continues.

Jaafa

Ah well Libya is yesterdays news. Coming up today something brand new, openly arming,funding and declaring the legitimacy of oppositions groups in Syria! I'm sure it'll end better this time.

Sunnyisland

Is it not true that too much freedom, too quickly, places new states/countries in total "democratic chaos".With corrupt politicians, and left-wing and right-wing and religious extremists all claiming to know whats best and all trying to best one another rather than do whats in the best Interest of there respective countries and also a lot of them seek out and get revenge against former enemies real and imagined.Is this not the case in libya ? This is a qustion not an opinion thanks :-)

AlekSmart

cyberhog wrote: »

147 killed in 6 days of clashes in south

http://news.yahoo.com/libya-147-killed-6-days-clashes-south-160950775.html

The US and its puppets from NATO have created a hell of a mess.

Those stats are,by any standards indicative of substantial military encounters.

The Libyan situation increasingly lends credence to Gadaffi's warning of how he was keeping the lid on his country,largely I might add,successfully and without large scale bloodshed until the UN took an interest.

xflyer

Amazing how many Gadaffi supporters have surfaced since the tyrant was toppled. Well not so amazing given their obviously superficial understanding of how a dictatorship works.

Of course there's also those who know full well but simply use any event to further their anti American/British/Nato/western/capitalism etc ad nausuem.

Of course there's ongoing unrest in Libya, why should anyone be surprised? Gadaffi not only kept a lid on potential unrest, his regime is a direct cause of it. Because just like Saddam and Assad and others he favoured certain groups, tribes or interests. Anywhere you find a dictator it's the norm. No dictator can survive if he represses the entire population. So he looked after his own and they provided his loyal powerbase. That's how it works.

Now there's a reckoning, that's hardly surprising. We saw it in Iraq and we see it in Libya. His cronies are paying the ultimate price for their loyalty to his regime.

Gadaffi was a tyrant and he suffered the fate of many tyrants. He was overthrown by his own people with the help of his outside enemies. Just a repeat of history.

His downfall was his own fault. If he was serious about the interests of the Libyan people as a whole instead of his own clique he would still be in charge. If there's a consistent theme about the whole Arab spring it's that the disenfranchised have had enough.

cyberhog

xflyer wrote: »

Amazing how many Gadaffi supporters have surfaced since the tyrant was toppled....

What's amazing is that you construe a discussion on the bloody aftermath of regime change as support for Gaddafi. Do you also consider journalists from The New York Times, The Telegraph, and many more in the mainstream media that have reported on the bloody aftermath of regime change in Iraq to be Saddam Hussein supporters?

Your argument is clearly driven by some deeply held prejudice but that approach will get you nowhere. You'll receive more respect if you play the ball, and not the player.

old_aussie

cyberhog wrote: »

147 killed in 6 days of clashes in south



http://news.yahoo.com/libya-147-killed-6-days-clashes-south-160950775.html

The US and its puppets from NATO have created a hell of a mess.

You sound like a broken record, same thing over and over ....lets blame the US

So the US is responsible for everything that's happened in Libya.:rolleyes:

A Primal Nut

AlekSmart wrote: »

Those stats are,by any standards indicative of substantial military encounters.

The Libyan situation increasingly lends credence to Gadaffi's warning of how he was keeping the lid on his country,largely I might add,successfully and without large scale bloodshed until the UN took an interest.

So the Libyan people should accept him and his family as their leader forever and never look for anything better?

davoxx

old_aussie wrote: »

You sound like a broken record, same thing over and over ....lets blame the US

no canada is to blame ... blame canada!!!

old_aussie wrote: »

So the US is responsible for everything that's happened in Libya.

no, so therefore the exact opposite must be true and the us must not be responsible for anything that happened and now happens to libya

SamHarris

cyberhog wrote: »

What's amazing is that you construe a discussion on the bloody aftermath of regime change as support for Gaddafi. Do you also consider journalists from The New York Times, The Telegraph, and many more in the mainstream media that have reported on the bloody aftermath of regime change in Iraq to be Saddam Hussein supporters?

Your argument is clearly driven by some deeply held prejudice but that approach will get you nowhere. You'll receive more respect if you play the ball, and not the player.

What do you propose should have been done in the after math? If doing nothing was not an option (it wasnt considering the situation and rhetoric when NATO was forced to step in) what was and is?

A situation where NATO merely held a "balance" and allowed both sides to war but neither win?

A full on invasion to seperate and police?



Or to quickly remove the obstacle to peace (Gadaffi) and quickly support a framework which can be brought step by step into stability? As in, what was done.



The math at the time came down to was it worth taking the risk that Gaddafi (a proven mass murderer, despite the CT crazies opinion) was only 'joking' when refering to what he would do to the rebels et al upon his destroying them militarily, with the knowledge that the real problem would still exist (Gadaffi and the regime) and that the collapse and rebuilding would have to come eventually. Or that the oppurtunity was to be ceased now to prevent an untold number of deaths, face the ensuing chaos of Gadaffis removal with SOME sort of body in place (the NCT) and hope that the period of chaos was not too long (like Iraq).

If you expected Gadaffi, or any dictator or regime to fall and for there to be no violence in the aftermath then I would advise reading any history book. France was a bloodbath after such a short occupation as the Nazis put up, for gods sake. The clientship during a dictatorship and the chaos which will inevitably ensue ensures this.

In a nutshell, what do those who believe the intervention was a bad idea believe should have been done/ should be done? If it boils down to all of them believing Gadaffi was just not that bad a guy and was joking about the revenge he would take, I think the rest of us can agree that it can be dropped as being even in contention and everyone can move on.

To those that believe it was all carried out for oil etc etc etc humanitarian needs played no part etc etc etc, do they believe NATO intervention would have taken place if Libya was a democrtic state in a situation of civil peace? No? Then your wrong in your first assertion.

Any answers involving some African Union that was going to challenge the Wests dominance or other BS will be disregarded without some excellent scouces.

The vast majority of this thread should be in the CT forums.

RichieC

cyberhog wrote: »

147 killed in 6 days of clashes in south



http://news.yahoo.com/libya-147-killed-6-days-clashes-south-160950775.html

The US and its puppets from NATO have created a hell of a mess.

looks like the grand scheme is working! the defence industry must be rubbing their grubby little hands with glee.

davoxx

SamHarris wrote: »

To those that believe it was all carried out for oil etc etc etc humanitarian needs played no part etc etc etc, do they believe NATO intervention would have taken place if Libya was a democrtic state in a situation of civil peace? No? Then your wrong in your first assertion.

incorrect. you are wrong in your premise and it's faulty conclusion.

the correct comparison is: would nato have forcefully removed the government of libya had it no oil?
if the answer is no, then the assertion was correct.
if the answer is yes, then the assertion is false.

but since this is a hypothetical question, we need to base the answer nato's past history and unfortunately that doesn't look good for nato.

SamHarris

davoxx wrote: »

incorrect. you are wrong in your premise and it's faulty conclusion.

the correct comparison is: would nato have forcefully removed the government of libya had it no oil?
if the answer is no, then the assertion was correct.
if the answer is yes, then the assertion is false.

but since this is a hypothetical question, we need to base the answer nato's past history and unfortunately that doesn't look good for nato.

Wrong, I was debunking the assertion the imminent humanitarian catastrophe and the nature of the Libyan government played no part in the descision to back the rebels, not that it was the only criteria, nor should it have been.

Why should there not have be many factors in the descision making process? I dont see why people on this forum, and particularly those who leak in from the CT forums are so terrified of complexity.

Further why is the need for energy seen as some massive blight on foreign policy, as though the various nations involved are placing the need for diamonds ahead of their values? It is not a luxury, it is a necessity and should be treated as such.

It was patently not the only reason for helping the rebels, nor given the mathematics or the choices available was it the only one.

davoxx wrote: »

but since this is a hypothetical question, we need to base the answer nato's past history and unfortunately that doesn't look good for nato.

It doesnt? Then name an invasion that took place under NATO auspices into a nation even with oil reserves. Ever.

I think your confusing either countries with oil, or what consitutes NATO in the first place.

Even if you take Iraq, as you are obviously alluding to, as a case that is not also entirelly hypothetical. Which it is, it is also not nor was it ever a NATO invasion.

Given the past you have created for NATO is entirely fictional, and if that is the declared base of your hypothesis then you should now change your hypothesis. Unless, of course, it turns out you were merely making up history to better suit your ideology and that your argument will now merely shift. . . :rolleyes: God forbid.

SamHarris

To whoever was 'clever' enough to point out what is the difference between Syria and Libya if humanitarian matters were the only concers - besides the massive political, economic, geographical, military and security matters, not much. How thought provoking.

Cork boy 55

The Libyian Civil war appears to have destablised Mali
as a result of Tureg fighters and merceneries returning home
battle hardered and armed with looted weapons from Gaddafis stockpiles.

A coup d'etat and a northern rebellion.

A Tuareg nations could press its claims. Niger could be next to go with France's Uranium supply put at risk. Any fight in Algeria could case massive social and political upheaval.
Huge volumes of Gaddafi arms , Tuareg nationhood could occur at this stage. Mali is in crises, facing sanctions for its recent coup and has had its national army routed in the North. All it can do is offer talks, and as of today the Tuaregs have stated that as far as they are concerned the fighting is over and there is no need for more war. So all a weak Malian government has to do is accept the status quo. If they don't they either have to attack the well armed Tuareg or brace for attack from the Tuaregs Islamist allies, who are probably more a threat Western Mali.
The Islamists that are floating around this part of the world
al qaeda in maghreb are another factor could they gain a safe haven?
A Tuareg Dawn in Saharan Africa. If Algeria gets involved in stopping recognition of the Mali Tuareg, a Tuareg homeland may be claimed there too.

The territory claimed as traditionally Tuareg
# Niger: 1,790,000 (1998)
# Mali: 1,450,000 (1991)
# Burkina Faso: 330,000 (1991)
# Algeria: 825,000 (1987)
# Libya: 620,000 (1993)

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hagyDu-fNsr4S0n6WH-pJy7Buc3A?docId=CNG.e6d734782f5f57154f36a51f91130e28.2d1
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-17562066
http://www.magharebia.com/cocoon/awi/xhtml1/en_GB/features/awi/features/2012/03/25/feature-01

davoxx

SamHarris wrote: »

Wrong, I was debunking the assertion the imminent humanitarian catastrophe and the nature of the Libyan government played no part in the descision to back the rebels, not that it was the only criteria, nor should it have been.

of course it did, it was the perfect pretense for gullible people to follow along and cry "think of the children" ... but that is different to what you wrote though ...

SamHarris wrote: »

To those that believe it was all carried out for oil etc etc etc humanitarian needs played no part etc etc etc, do they believe NATO intervention would have taken place if Libya was a democrtic state in a situation of civil peace? No? Then your wrong in your first assertion.

so to clarify are you saying it was not about oil/resources? or are you saying that humanitarian needs was not a cover?
because the argument that it was about oil/resources includes the fact that they used the humanitarian claim as an excuse.

also, i don't get your issue with 'ct', nor do i understand your fear of their opinions ...
we can all hide behind the nasty truth with "it's complicated". try explaining it so ...

it is funny how you note that syria has not been invaded, yet you still play the 'gaddafii was a mad dog' card in justification of an illegal invasion ... very telling indeed.

RichieC

Bahrain hasn't been invaded either, nor has it been the focus of western media hate campaign. But then, they are friendly to western business interests.

WHO has heard anything concrete about the protests in Bahrain? Very few people, no doubt. Not because it is a small country, but because in the contemporary world, what doesn’t appear in the media virtually does not exist. The same media which is exacerbating what is occurring in Syria is silent when it comes to passing judgment on allies of the United States. In this case, the ally being the monarchy of King Al Khalifa.

If there is any reference to the conflict in Bahrain in the media, it is reduced to a confrontation between Shiites and Sunnis. Although 70% of the country’s inhabitants are Shiite and the other 30% Sunni – the branch of Islam professed by the ruling dynasty – the essence of the protest in this country is neither sectarian nor religious.

For more than 12 months, the demonstrations in Bahrain have focused on demands linked to work, fighting poverty and social improvements. The perspective is a secular and peaceful one. "Not Shiites or Sunnis, but Bahrainis," is the central slogan.

The reaction of authorities has been one of brutal repression. February 14, 2011 will be remembered as the day on which Saudi Arabian troops invaded Bahrain via an elevated highway linking the two countries, to "help" crush the uprising.

http://www.granma.cu/ingles/international-i/4abr-15monarq.html

Jonny7

davoxx wrote: »

of course it did, it was the perfect pretense for gullible people to follow along and cry "think of the children" ... but that is different to what you wrote though ...

Just about every country on earth condemned what Gaddafi was doing. It was pretty much universal.

so to clarify are you saying it was not about oil/resources?

As has already been established many times over, oil or resources were not the primary reason for intervention. Gaddafi, his family and the leadership were doing very well lining their pockets and buying mansions with money from Western trade before the conflict.

they used the humanitarian claim as an excuse.

There were a myriad of factors that caused the UN, the West, Arab League, etc to get involved. Humanitarianism was the main reason.

also, i don't get your issue with 'ct', nor do i understand your fear of their opinions ...

Davoxx we just had a fella arguing against a half a dozen people, common sense and reason that there was no way batteries could work in Apollo spacecraft. It's common fare from CT forums.

it is funny how you note that syria has not been invaded, yet you still play the 'gaddafii was a mad dog' card in justification of an illegal invasion ... very telling indeed.

Libya was not "invaded", there was a no-fly zone implemented. Syria is a very different scenario. As much as people are bitter about Iraq there is no need to supplant it onto every successive conflict involving the "West".

Jonny7

RichieC wrote: »

Bahrain hasn't been invaded either, nor has it been the focus of western media hate campaign. But then, they are friendly to western business interests.
http://www.granma.cu/ingles/international-i/4abr-15monarq.html

There were protests and uprisings in about a dozen countries across the ME and N Africa, including, Kuwait, Jordan, Algeria, Morocco - these were all occurring at the same time - overshadowed by the much more dramatic and urgent scenarios being played out Tunisia, Egypt, Yemen, Libya.

There was also the situation in the Ivory coast - where UN/French military intervention took place.

Despite all this there was still media coverage of the situation in Bahrain.

If the Bahrain uprising was the sole incident to have occurred last year then logically there would be more worldwide media coverage of the event, much like the Burmese uprising and the 2009 Iranian uprising (where there was no Western intervention despite having relatively poorer relations than Libya)

AlekSmart

Jonny7 wrote: »

Just about every country on earth condemned what Gaddafi was doing. It was pretty much universal.

As has already been established many times over, oil or resources were not the primary reason for intervention. Gaddafi, his family and the leadership were doing very well lining their pockets and buying mansions with money from Western trade before the conflict.

There were a myriad of factors that caused the UN, the West, Arab League, etc to get involved. Humanitarianism was the main reason.

.

Good oul bit of an article here touching on some of Jonny7's points,especially the "universal" condemnation of Col G and his regime....

http://www.meattradenewsdaily.co.uk/news/220811/ireland___the_history_of_the_libyan_cattle_trade_and_colonel_gadafi.aspx

During the fuel crisis of 1974 Libya kept Ireland supplied with oil in exchange for cattle.

Remember it well,still have the Petrol Ration Book issued to my father for his Cortina....someplace !!

Despite all his failures, Gadaffi was a good man for his people. Unlike other African States, you never saw Beggars, Homeless or Poor People in Libya . There was no Starvation.

That can't be correct surely ??

A visit by then taoiseach Charles Haughey to Tripoli in 1983, during which he met Gadafy, helped cement agreements on live cattle exports which resulted in Libya becoming the State’s single-biggest market for live cattle. At its peak in the early 1990s, this trade was worth more than £70 million.

Libya banned such imports from the Republic and other EU countries in 1996 following the BSE scare and, despite efforts to return to previous levels, Irish live cattle and meat exports never fully recovered.

Oh dear...It's That Man Again....:)

A significant proportion of the Libyan community in Ireland sought political asylum here from the 1990s on. Of these, several were involved in the Muslim Brotherhood and other opposition groupings.

One of the quirkier facets of the relationship between Libya and Ireland is the fact students at the ISM international school in Tripoli sit the Leaving Cert.

In 1995, school officials settled on the Irish exam system as the best option for their multinational student body

The Muslim Brotherhood.....nah...could'nt be....not after a Trinity Education ..??

In 2009, Libya was Ireland’s 39th largest merchandise trade partner. Trade that year amounted to €284.6 million, an increase of more than 55 per cent on the previous year. Of this, imports from Libya – mostly petroleum and petroleum-related products – amounted to €258.21 million. Exports amounted to €26.48 million, and included medical and pharmaceutical products as well as dairy and other food products.

wingsof daun

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oWwTW_jn2hI

The bearded devils are sprouting up again, do you know what group has a black flag? What a country. The video is surreal. They will cross the border again to Syria if their government is defeated, then who knows where else? With whatever legitimacy the NTC or CNT has... they have an obligation to stamp out extremists. One wonders how much control they have if any? Is this group not a threat to civilians NATO? Obama?

Jaafa

In case people were wondering, the violence continues, there has been several incidents in the last few months claiming hundreds of lives, the latest here or here ( I provided two links to stave off the inevitable RT propaganda claims).

Interesting to note the RT story was on the front page of the site, the BBC one needed a little digging to find, the front page was too full of headlines regarding the latest western adventure in Syria.

Jonny7

Its a country that has had practically the whole command structure ripped out. It is also a tribal country.

My friend is down there working on getting the first proper elections in over 40 years underway, he's has been welcomed everywhere he has gone.

I have read/watched all the recent events, including the airport take-over, on "mainstream" media.

Eggy Baby!

Libya was not "invaded", there was a no-fly zone implemented.

Wow people are still parroting the old "no-fly zone" myth?

NATO air forces used attack jets to enact air support for rebel fighters. They achieved air superiority and then proceeded to take out many loyalists, effectively helping the rebels win. The "no-fly zone" was apparently to stop Gaddafi's "warplanes" attacking protestors. Obviously this was not the case.

Jonny7

Eggy Baby! wrote: »

Wow people are still parroting the old "no-fly zone" myth?

Who is parroting what myth? care to elaborate?

The "no-fly zone" was apparently to stop Gaddafi's "warplanes" attacking protestors.

The full resolution is here which you may like to read before making comments such as the above.

Eggy Baby!

Ahk never mind I thought you said just a no-fly zone was implemented. My bad.

davoxx

Jonny7 wrote: »

My friend is down there working on getting the first proper elections in over 40 years underway, he's has been welcomed everywhere he has gone.

i'd welcome your friend too if he let me win, i promise i'll sell the oil in dollars and at a fair price too ... just saying

Jaafa

Another 5 days of battles are continuing, 47 dead in the last 3 alone.

http://www.rt.com/news/tribal-clashes-libya-dead-three-135/

AlekSmart

Jaafa wrote: »

Another 5 days of battles are continuing, 47 dead in the last 3 alone.

http://www.rt.com/news/tribal-clashes-libya-dead-three-135/

It's quite interesting to note that the Libyan "Government Forces" are not taking an active part in these conflicts.

It must be somewhat challenging to now find themselves occupying the same role as Gadaffi's administration did pre UN/NATO.

Lets see now how long it will take before the "Freedom Fighters" have to redefine the word "Freedom" in order to restore the order they so comprehensively destroyed....It's a funny ol World that's for sure

Jonny7

AlekSmart wrote: »

It's quite interesting to note that the Libyan "Government Forces" are not taking an active part in these conflicts.

What government forces?

It must be somewhat challenging to now find themselves occupying the same role as Gadaffi's administration did pre UN/NATO.

There's been no elections yet

Lets see now how long it will take before the "Freedom Fighters" have to redefine the word "Freedom" in order to restore the order they so comprehensively destroyed....It's a funny ol World that's for sure

Its a tribal country with split alliances, gone through 6 months of heavy conflict, and has had a 4 decade old command and control apparatus ripped out. In spite of this its still relatively peaceful.

Still, I am outraged, OUTRAGED I tell you that it has not turned into a functioning utopian democracy overnight.. and I *disclaimer* dictatorships are bad, but at least life was "peaceful" under Gadaffi, before the usual culprits regime changed him

AlekSmart

Jonny7 wrote: »

Its a tribal country with split alliances, gone through 6 months of heavy conflict, and has had a 4 decade old command and control apparatus ripped out. In spite of this its still relatively peaceful.

Still, I am outraged, OUTRAGED I tell you that it has not turned into a functioning utopian democracy overnight.. and I *disclaimer* dictatorships are bad, but at least life was "peaceful" under Gadaffi, before the usual culprits regime changed him

Indeed,and I share that Outrage...although perhaps not to the extent of Capitalizing it...

However,there is substantial and ongoing evidence that,what Jonny7 refers to as a Command & Control "Apparatus" has been relpaced with nothing les than an overwhelming and,for many,equally brutal and distasteful regime...

As is referred to in this clip,the "New" Libya does not have a functional legal system,nor does it appear to be high on the agenda of the Government ,...sorry...Transitional Council...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=V4ibHFEelJk

It does seem to me that having actively promoted and orchestrated the desired regime change,it is disappointing that the UN/NATO consortium then simply beat a hasty retreat leaving the "ordinary" Libyans to fend for themselves....:(