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

1…5791011

Comments

  • #182
    realweirdo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 974 ✭✭✭realweirdo


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    It's also the China that seen protestors killed by the government yesterday. On the same day we also read that Chinese officials are being punished for practicing their faith. Two days ago their military were advancing into Indian territory. All that is missing is the asinine claims of "Gadaffi-sponsored viagra-fueled rape mobs". It looks like the only thing standing in the way of "altruistic" intervention is the 2,000 McDonalds's.

    And protestors were shot in America the other day too. What's your point? Shooting of protestors has little to do with how advanced a nation is. Syria and Libya were considered fairly advanced by people like you when they were under dictators and they too shot protestors. Its ok to shoot protestors in Syria but not in China, is that what you are saying?


  • #183
    Means Of Escape
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,897 ✭✭✭Means Of Escape


    realweirdo wrote: »
    I have addressed it - failed state or failing state, again far from it. Oil production is being ramped up, most people go about their daily lives, there's been democratic elections, things are improving for most people. Yes there are low level conflicts which inevitably make the news.

    That's not quite true
    Oil production has plummeted from 1.4 million barrels to just over 230k
    Some of the key ports are governed by the rebels who are trading oil for their own gains
    The 'new' government is suffocating under the pressures bearing down on them from insurgents and localised strife
    The rebels are heavily armed compliments of gaddaffi looted arsenal and are becoming more entrenched by the month.
    Clans are forging alliances in attempts to snuff out others

    Libya post gaddaffi is a failed state not a failing one
    The country 3 years after his removal has gone 20 years backward
    He was a spent force internationally.
    No longer this mad dog threat
    Nuclear programme dismantled
    Reparations for Pan Am paid to the victims eventhough there is now a belief that it was the Iranians.
    There was an anticipation that his learned son Saif would have taken over the reigns 2 years ago as gaddaffi ,as previously mentioned in another post ,had turned to the unification of Africa and fair distribution if wealth
    He looked to ensure that the countries with bountiful precious natural resources were no longer exploited by the west .
    It can't be played both ways .
    His removal was well planned and orchestrated by vested interests
    His escape stopped and his execution swift as he had too many tales to tell that would have had many EU countries soul searching .


  • #184
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    realweirdo wrote: »
    I could explain my use of the McDonalds example to you but unfortunately it would fly way way over your head, so I won't bother. The explanation for it is actually quite complex.
    That's unlikely as pretty much all of your arguments to date have been quite simplistic.

    If you start a blog, you never have to justify your views to others, btw. Just a thought.


  • #185
    czx
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 544 ✭✭✭czx


    Conas wrote: »

    It could be left to the Chinese or Russians to go in and clean up this awful mess. Obama is clueless and incapable of it.

    The wish for China/Russia to intervene says all you need to know about this thread


  • #186
    czx
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 544 ✭✭✭czx


    The Corinthian wrote: »
    That's unlikely as pretty much all of your arguments to date have been quite simplistic.

    Such as lets remain under a dictatorship?


  • Advertisement
  • #187
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    czx wrote: »
    Such as lets remain under a dictatorship?
    Had someone other than yourself actually made that argument, sure.


  • #188
    czx
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 544 ✭✭✭czx


    The Corinthian wrote: »
    Had someone other than yourself actually made that argument, sure.

    Libya is better off under dictatorship, according to you.


  • #189
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    czx wrote: »
    Libya is better off under dictatorship, according to you.
    That's not actually the same thing as your simplistic statement such as "lets remain under a dictatorship" though. Are you trying to misrepresent what's said or just don't understand it?


  • #190
    czx
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 544 ✭✭✭czx


    The Corinthian wrote: »
    That's not actually the same thing as your simplistic statement such as "lets remain under a dictatorship" though. Are you trying to misrepresent what's said or just don't understand it?

    Impossible to misrepresent. You said Libya should have remained under dictatorship. From your comfortable, all-seeing middle-class democracy


  • #191
    flutered
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,724 ✭✭✭flutered


    at the time nato were like kids at a sweet shop window, except they were looking at cheap oil, they would already have agents in place, so know the keg was about to blow, the same with tunisia, they failed in the rich arab nations as they had the power to deal wit surbersives, fast foeward to syria, nato were in a hury to get rid of their top honcho, this would have worked only for the intervention of putin, he told them a few home truths, they accused him of lying, no the chickens are coming home to roost, yup putin had a better crystal ball that billy hague and obama, anyways hague was always looking for fight.


  • Advertisement
  • #192
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    czx wrote: »
    Impossible to misrepresent. You said Libya should have remained under dictatorship.
    I said that on balance it was better off remaining under the dictatorship. Not the same thing as you've just accused me of in your first statement - which you've now decided to change.

    I even argued why and instead of addressing those arguments you turned to a mantra of 'democracy good, dictators bad' as if it was an article of religious faith. So feel free to attack what I've actually said as opposed to skipping over everything and reading just the last line.
    From your comfortable, all-seeing middle-class democracy
    LOL. I presume the irony that this statement applies equally to you is completely lost?


  • #193
    czx
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 544 ✭✭✭czx


    The Corinthian wrote: »
    I said that on balance it was better off remaining under the dictatorship.

    There we go. Better off under dictatorship. Everything else is superfluous.


  • #194
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    czx wrote: »
    There we go. Better off under dictatorship. Everything else is superfluous.
    I'm afraid not and you've simply not shown why it should be. From what I can see all you're doing is cherry picking things that are said, out of context, and ignoring everything else that is inconvenient to your position.


  • #195
    czx
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 544 ✭✭✭czx


    The Corinthian wrote: »
    I'm afraid not and you've simply not shown why it should be. From what I can see all you're doing is cherry picking things that are said, out of context, and ignoring everything else that is inconvenient to your position.

    Cherry picking? You just said Libya is better off under a dictatorship. I find nothing inconvenient about opposing dictatorships


  • #196
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    czx wrote: »
    Cherry picking? You just said Libya is better off under a dictatorship. I find nothing inconvenient about opposing dictatorships
    When did I say you found opposing dictatorships inconvenient? I said you are finding the arguments against your position inconvenient and thus are ignoring them.

    TBH, unless you're doing this intentionally, I'd have to ask if you have literacy problems as you don't seem to be able to comprehend anything that's written down and are repeatedly claiming things that are not said.


  • #197
    czx
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 544 ✭✭✭czx


    The Corinthian wrote: »
    When did I say you found opposing dictatorships inconvenient? I said you are finding the arguments against your position inconvenient and thus are ignoring them.

    TBH, unless you're doing this intentionally, I'd have to ask if you have literacy problems as you don't seem to be able to comprehend anything that's written down and are repeatedly claiming things that are not said.

    Sorry, I'm so working class I can barely read good.

    You still think Libya is better off under a dictatorship


  • #198
    Means Of Escape
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,897 ✭✭✭Means Of Escape


    czx wrote: »
    Sorry, I'm so working class I can barely read good.

    You still think Libya is better off under a dictatorship

    To the oppressed he was a dictator yet there were people who were prosperous under his rule . There was a level if stability and security during his leadership
    Those who disagree with Putins ethics are also under a dictatorship ?
    It was gafaffi who stated that he was holding back the threat to his country.
    He was moving to restore order when he was stopped .
    Now he is gone the country has gone to pot with little chance of emerging without serious intervention by the West.


  • #199
    czx
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 544 ✭✭✭czx


    Means Of Escape wrote: »
    To the oppressed he was a dictator yet there were people who were prosperous under his rule . There was a level if stability and security during his leadership
    Those who disagree with Putins ethics are also under a dictatorship ?
    It was gafaffi who stated that he was holding back the threat to his country.
    He was moving to restore order when he was stopped .
    Now he is gone the country has gone to pot with little chance of emerging without serious intervention by the West.

    40 years of restoring order.


  • #200
    Means Of Escape
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,897 ✭✭✭Means Of Escape


    czx wrote: »
    40 years of restoring order.[/

    There was order under Gadaffi
    There isn't now and I expect Libya will be carved up before it vapourises.


  • #201
    K-9
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 43,313 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    Mod:

    Cut out the sniping please, it's getting way too personal.

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • Advertisement
  • #202
    AlekSmart
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,004 ✭✭✭✭AlekSmart


    czx wrote: »
    40 years of restoring order.

    Some achievement alright...?

    However,in the context of Libyan society during the rule of King Idris,it's unlikely that our definition of "order" would match their own.

    What Gadaffi did,was to maintain a semblance of order over his 42 year rule,something which very few leaders in the region ever managed to do.

    It kinda gets back to the Corinthians point about perception,and perhaps a form of modernist quasi-colonial belief that Westill know whats best for these people....


    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)



  • #203
    czx
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 544 ✭✭✭czx


    AlekSmart wrote: »
    Some achievement alright...?

    However,in the context of Libyan society during the rule of King Idris,it's unlikely that our definition of "order" would match their own.

    What Gadaffi did,was to maintain a semblance of order over his 42 year rule,something which very few leaders in the region ever managed to do.

    It kinda gets back to the Corinthians point about perception,and perhaps a form of modernist quasi-colonial belief that Westill know whats best for these people....

    These people?


  • #204
    AlekSmart
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,004 ✭✭✭✭AlekSmart


    czx wrote: »
    These people?

    Libyans...Syrians....Egyptians...inhabitants of any State requiring our "Intervention" .....You can,of course,insert whatever descriptive word you favour.


    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)



  • #205
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    czx wrote: »
    You still think Libya is better off under a dictatorship
    And you disagree with my argument why because...


  • #206
    czx
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 544 ✭✭✭czx


    The Corinthian wrote: »
    And you disagree with my argument why because...

    It was a rotten dictatorship. I don't buy the 'at least it's stable' excuse


  • #207
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    czx wrote: »
    It was a rotten dictatorship. I don't buy the 'at least it's stable' excuse
    That's not disagreeing with my argument, that's ignoring it. Try again.


  • #208
    czx
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 544 ✭✭✭czx


    The Corinthian wrote: »
    That's not disagreeing with my argument, that's ignoring it. Try again.

    You argue that Libya is better off under a dictatorship. I disagree. Don't see what else there is


  • #209
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    czx wrote: »
    You argue that Libya is better off under a dictatorship. I disagree. Don't see what else there is
    Then what are you doing here? The whole point of these discussion boards is to discuss issues.

    Edit: And for the last time, I have not argued that Libya is better off under a dictatorship, I've argued that while ideally it is better off under a functioning and peaceful democracy that option is not there, leaving the options of dictatorship and anarchy that will most likely end up becoming another dictatorship - and given that choice, skipping the anarchy phase seems like the lesser of two evils. Furthermore, I've pointed out that it was western intervention that ultimately facilitated this descent into anarchy. Without it, Gadaffi would, by most evidence, still be in power. Ignoring why completely misrepresents my position.

    Do you really think that the Libyans are better off in a failed state, where various factions impose arbitrary rule on a daily basis than under a dictatorship? If so why is anarchy preferable?


  • #210
    realweirdo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 974 ✭✭✭realweirdo


    Means Of Escape wrote: »
    There was order under Gadaffi
    There isn't now and I expect Libya will be carved up before it vapourises.

    That's like saying there was order in Germany in the 1930s under Hitler. Which of course there was. But only because he locked up, eliminated or exiled any social misfits or those who opposed him, as did Gadaffi, Saddam and Assad. The problem post these dictatorships is also mostly down to the dictators themselves. The people have no experience of running the country and the intellectuals and best and brightest have been murdered or exiled. Much of the strife post Saddam in Iraq was caused by hardline Baathists themselves, the kind of thugs the Iraqis had been under the jackboot of for decades.


  • Advertisement
  • #211
    realweirdo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 974 ✭✭✭realweirdo


    The Corinthian wrote: »
    Then what are you doing here? The whole point of these discussion boards is to discuss issues.

    Edit: And for the last time, I have not argued that Libya is better off under a dictatorship, I've argued that while ideally it is better off under a functioning and peaceful democracy that option is not there, leaving the options of dictatorship and anarchy that will most likely end up becoming another dictatorship - and given that choice, skipping the anarchy phase seems like the lesser of two evils. Furthermore, I've pointed out that it was western intervention that ultimately facilitated this descent into anarchy. Without it, Gadaffi would, by most evidence, still be in power. Ignoring why completely misrepresents my position.

    Do you really think that the Libyans are better off in a failed state, where various factions impose arbitrary rule on a daily basis than under a dictatorship? If so why is anarchy preferable?

    Still blaming the west I see? When the Arab League were the ones initially begging for intervention and a no fly zone. When the UNSC authorised it in a democratic vote with several countries not from the west, and which China and Russia did not oppose. When Scandanavian countries played a large part in the bombing. When several countries condemned Gadaffi and immediately cut ties with the regime. When many Libyan ministers, diplomats and so on defected and left the government. When the Libyan Ambassador to the UN himself begged the UNSC to stop Gadaffi attacking Banghazi and for a no fly zone.

    This was clearly a multinational operation with massive support from all around the world, something you convienently choose to overlook or ignore.

    At some stage the Libyans are going to have to grow up and stop looking to the west as you call it or elsewhere to solve their problems. In fact that goes for most countries.


Advertisement