Gaddafi's useful idiots.

[Virus]

Jane, can you tell us why you support Gaddafi when Libya:

• Has no Rule of Law.
  
• Has no democracy.
  
• Banned all political parties.
  
• Punishes all political activity with jail terms and death.
  
• Is one of the most corrupt governments in the world.
  
• Has no independent press.
  
• Censors the internet.
  
• Has no academic freedom.
  
• Has no freedom of assembly, outside of state-run theatrics.
  
• Has no independent labour unions.

Summary from http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=22&year=2010&country=7862

 

[egslim]

He's a commie who thinks Quackdaffy's Al-Fatah coup was a great socialist revolution.

Regardless of what you think about Gadaffi, the guy he replaced was an old-fashioned monarch without regard for democracy.

His overthrow was no loss.

 

[McHrozni]

Regardless of what you think about Gadaffi, the guy he replaced was an old-fashioned monarch without regard for democracy.

His overthrow was no loss.

It wasn't a gain either. It was an utter waste.

McHrozni

 

[egslim]

It wasn't a gain either. It was an utter waste.

It made little difference.

Under Idris Libya received the lowest price per barrel of any oil-exporting country. He was an undemocratic autocrat, and a poor or at best mediocre ruler. Originally he represented only the Cyrenaican tribes. When Britain created Libya, they decided he should rule Tripolitania as well.

No wonder the Tripolitanians were unhappy with Idris.

Libya is barely a nation. That makes it very hard to govern, so the country ends up with poor governments. The basic problem is not Gadaffi, it's Libya.

 

[NWO Sentryman]

egslim,

I thought Libya was created by the Italians in the 1884 Berlin conference.

 

[egslim]

egslim,

I thought Libya was created by the Italians in the 1884 Berlin conference.

No, Italy only took control of the area from the Ottomans in 1911.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libya#Italian_colonial_era_and_World_War_II_1911.E2.80.931951
From 1912 to 1927, the territory of Libya was known as Italian North Africa. From 1927 to 1934, the territory was split into two colonies, Italian Cyrenaica and Italian Tripolitania, run by Italian governors.

In 1934, Italy adopted the name "Libya" (used by the Greeks for all of North Africa, except Egypt) as the official name of the colony (made up of the three provinces of Cyrenaica, Tripolitania and Fezzan).

From 1943 to 1951, Tripolitania and Cyrenaica were under British administration, while the French controlled Fezzan.

On November 21, 1949, the UN General Assembly passed a resolution stating that Libya should become independent before January 1, 1952.

Continue from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Libya
First, after the first general elections, which were held on 19 February 1952, political parties were abolished. The National Congress Party, which had campaigned against a federal form of government, was defeated throughout the country. The party was outlawed, and Bashir es Sadawi was deported.

Second, provincial ties continued to be more important than national ones, and the federal and provincial governments were constantly in dispute over their respective spheres of authority.

Idris himself was first and foremost a Cyrenaican, never at ease in Tripolitania. His political interests were essentially Cyrenaican, and he understood that whatever real power he had—and it was more considerable than what he derived from the constitution—lay in the loyalty he commanded as amir of Cyrenaica and head of the Sanussi order.

many Libyans had also become conscious that its benefits reached very few of the population. An ominous undercurrent of dissatisfaction with corruption and malfeasance in the bureaucracy began to appear as well

While Italy first coined the name "Libya" in 1934, the regions were independently controlled by the French and British during WWII. The country was created by Britain, following the UN resolution.

 

[Gazpacho]

Jane, can you tell us why you support Gaddafi when Libya:

• Has no Rule of Law.
• Has no democracy.
• Banned all political parties.
• Punishes all political activity with jail terms and death.
• Is one of the most corrupt governments in the world.
• Has no independent press.
• Censors the internet.
• Has no academic freedom.
• Has no freedom of assembly, outside of state-run theatrics.
• Has no independent labour unions.

Taking all of that as true, it still is not yours to bomb. But I don't expect you to understand the distinction.

 

[Pardalis]

These dark-skinned foreigners have all got funny names anyway so what does it really matter, eh, Mr McQuackerzni?

Those dark skinned foreigners that are being killed by their own government that you don't seem to care about you mean?

Funny, you seem to care more about the appropriate spelling of a dictator's name than the actual people who are being violently oppressed by him.

 

[Virus]

Taking all of that as true, it still is not yours to bomb. But I don't expect you to understand the distinction.

Why not? They asked for NATO support.

 

[Johny2x4]

I find something deeply ironic. Some of the people who voiced their concerns over the NATO intervention are military people, with years of career, and those who are more happy for the intervention are civilians with no clue on the matter other than "freedom ** yeah!".

I know it´s not the general rule, but I find this ironic.

 

[JihadJane]

Jane, can you tell us why you support Gaddafi when Libya:
Has no Rule of Law.
Has no democracy.
Banned all political parties.
Punishes all political activity with jail terms and death.
Is one of the most corrupt governments in the world.
Has no independent press.
Censors the internet.
Has no academic freedom.
Has no freedom of assembly, outside of state-run theatrics.
Has no independent labour unions.

Taking all of that as true, it still is not yours to bomb. But I don't expect you to understand the distinction.

Virus' camp premise (hilited) is faulty, as ever.

When are you going to stop beating your wife, Virus?

 

[egslim]

I find something deeply ironic. Some of the people who voiced their concerns over the NATO intervention are military people, with years of career, and those who are more happy for the intervention are civilians with no clue on the matter other than "freedom ** yeah!".

The intervention in Libya broke three military principles:
1) Go in big, or don't go in at all.
2) Go in only to pursue a well-defined goal.
3) Don't set goals that require either enemy or unproven allied cooperation.

I think most people in the West, including those who oppose intervention, are generally supportive of freedom-loving, democratic rebels who revolt against a nasty autocrat. (Some of us are sceptical about how "pure of heart" these rebels really are, but that's another matter.)

But anyone with some sense of military strategy could see from the start that the intervention was a poorly conceived military operation:
1) We went in small, on the cheap.
2) The goal shifted from protecting civilians to removing Gadaffi, next to establish a stable government?
3) To remove Gadaffi requires him to either step down voluntarily, or for the rebels to mount and support major offensives.

 

[BStrong]

Not to tell tales out of school, but some of the story has already been told in the book

Firepower by Dempster & Tompkins

http://www.amazon.com/Fire-Power-Chris-Dempster/dp/0312291159

So I'll throw it into the mix.

As the story goes, when Gaddafi pulled the coup with King Idris out of the country, King Idris quite understandably took issue with losing his gig.

The good King went to a gentleman by the name of David Stirling, founder of the British Special Air Service, and owner of a little retirement company called Watchguard International Ltd - aka the S.A.S retired service unit.
.
For an undisclosed amount of filthy lucre, Striling devised a simple plan, recruited a bunch of bored ex- S.A.S. , S.B.S., and Para's and bought themselves a boat to take a little trip.

Americans were deliberately excluded from the operation, other than some communication tech wizzos.

The comm guys must have slipped a little because the C.I.A. picked up on the op.

Now the American view at the time was that Gaddafi was just another tinpot dictator, easily distracted by shiny metal and blondes.

The C.I.A. had some undisclosed interest against Idris, and rather than allow nature to take it's course, blew the whistle to the Italians, who nabbed the boat while it transited Italian waters, held the troopers for a while, then PNG's the lot back to England.

The C.I.A. has a certain level of reponsibility in Gaddafi's survival and ability to become the PITA that he became.

 

[JihadJane]

The intervention in Libya broke three military principles:
1) Go in big, or don't go in at all.
2) Go in only to pursue a well-defined goal.
3) Don't set goals that require either enemy or unproven allied cooperation.

I think most people in the West, including those who oppose intervention, are generally supportive of freedom-loving, democratic rebels...

Evidence that "rebels" are freedom-loving and democratic?

...who revolt against a nasty autocrat. (Some of us are sceptical about how "pure of heart" these rebels really are, but that's another matter.)

Cop-out.

But anyone with some sense of military strategy could see from the start that the intervention was a poorly conceived military operation:
1) We went in small, on the cheap.
2) The goal shifted from protecting civilians to removing Gadaffi, next to establish a stable government?

What makes you think to stated goal of "protecting civilians" was ever genuine?

3) To remove Gadaffi requires him to either step down voluntarily, or for the rebels to mount and support major offensives.

Or special assassination forces to assassinate him.

 

[egslim]

Evidence that "rebels" are freedom-loving and democratic?

I didn't claim they are.

And since I focussed on why people with military experience (and thus with a sense of military strategy) are more likely to oppose the intervention than ordinary civilians, the rebels' freedom-lovingness and democraticness are irrelevant.

What makes you think to stated goal of "protecting civilians" was ever genuine?

It was used to obtain popular and international support for the operation. When the goal shifted, much of that support fell away. Which is why shifting goals is a bad thing.

Or special assassination forces to assassinate him.

Assuming they can find him. So far, NATO's attempts to kill Gadaffi have met little success.

 

[theprestige]

Taking all of that as true, it still is not yours to bomb.

Actually, the whole thing about bombing is that yes, it bloody well is.

Do they not explain what war is, in your schools?

 

[Gazpacho]

Actually, the whole thing about bombing is that yes, it bloody well is.

If you want to talk about military might, sure, NATO has it. I was responding to a question of moral justification. The Freedom House country reports for the US and Australia are not spotless, and these countries could be proposed as bombing candidates for several reasons:

- world-record incarceration rates (and post-release hardships)
- racial disparities in incarceration
- dispossession and grinding poverty among native people
- restrictions on labor organizing
- ongoing raids against left-wing activists

 

[Virus]

The moral justification is that the regime was using terror to suppress legitimate protest and demands for reform. The Libyans and the Arab league asked for intervention and the UN signed off on it.

Legitimate, multilateral operation. No matter how much you cry about it.

And don't even pretend that it's cute to compare Australia and the US with third-world totalitarian regimes.

 

[theprestige]

If you want to talk about military might, sure, NATO has it. I was responding to a question of moral justification. The Freedom House country reports for the US and Australia are not spotless, and these countries could be proposed as bombing candidates for several reasons:

- world-record incarceration rates (and post-release hardships)
- racial disparities in incarceration
- dispossession and grinding poverty among native people
- restrictions on labor organizing
- ongoing raids against left-wing activists

Now you're getting the hang of it!

Indeed yes, these countries are anybody's to bomb. So go ahead and bomb them already.

 

[Gazpacho]

Why not? They asked for NATO support.

There was a reported request for defense against massacres of unarmed civilians. NATO has broadened this, as everyone should have expected, into support for armed rebellion, and obstructing several attempts at political settlements (not just from Tripoli), and guiding the outcome of the conflict towards European/American interests.

And don't even pretend that it's cute to compare Australia and the US with third-world totalitarian regimes.

I'm not pretending anything.