The Libya problem.

[Darth Rotor]

So now that we've reduced yet another NON-US politics thread to Dem/Rep/OBAMA/Bushitler, has anyone brought up Israel yet in any way? That way this thread can be identical to every other thread.

Well, it's a Jewish plot to steal all of Libya's oil so that the Rothschild's can sell it for pure gold and ruin Will and Kate's wedding by inserting Borat as the vicar.

Happy?

 

[mike3]

Can I just get this straight, mike - you have no qualms at all about our dear friends the civilian protestors taking Libyan soldiers "hostage" - their word, not mine?

If that is what is happening, then it does not look to be good. However, it is also not good to let the Qaddafi regime keep going. That has to end, too. The thing I'd want to know is, how do you get a third option in here that avoids these bad things from both sides and sets Libya on track to get something much better than Qaddafi's regime?

 

[egslim]

And if this is right, what is the correct way to save as many lives of Libyans as possible and truly prevent as many atrocities in all forms from all parties? Note that none of these kinds of pieces seem to give answers to those big, huge, nagging questions. All criticisms, NO solutions.

Suppose we could turn back the time to the moment before the intervention. Then the solution would be:
1) Don't intervene, let Gadaffi crush the rebellion. Quietly offer key rebels asylum, if you want to save their lives. Crackdown follows, but deaths will be far fewer than those in a protracted civil war/stalemate.
2) Wait until Gadaffi dies - probably less than 20 years.
3) Quite likely his sons will implement significant reforms after his death. Younger, better educated people tend to do so.

Unfortunately we can't do that anymore. Probably the best solution now is to partition the country.

 

[Virus]

I'm sure Gaddafi's sons would have been great reformers. They're younger, so they'd inevitably be reformers. That iron-clad rule apples everywhere and across all cultures.

 

[egslim]

I'm sure Gaddafi's sons would have been great reformers. They're younger, so they'd inevitably be reformers. That iron-clad rule apples everywhere and across all cultures.

Actually, the one recurring theme for autocracies everywhere, of all times, is change caused by succession.

No autocrat lives forever, and his death almost invariably marks major changes in policy.

Successors who've had a modern education always want to modernize their developing country. And that often leads to positive change.

 

[little grey rabbit]

Perhaps the question should be what to do about the NATO problem?

It seems that NATO really doesn't believe that bombing the insurgents into Tripoli is an option and so now is just looking for a face saving exit. Obviously if they just stopped bombing that would be a tacit admission they didn't know what they were doing in the first place. So there planes just roam around the country inflicting random damage, hoping against hope that something will come along so they don't end up looking foolish. An army coup? Gaddafi agrees to go to Uganda? Anything so long as we can say we won again and get the hell out.

I have to say my prediction rate has been startlingly good.

On Feb 22 on this forum I noted that the "protesters" that I had seen were already waving AK47s and RPGs and that at this particular moment Gaddafi probably represented the best option for Libya. Proven correct.

On March 19 I compared the UN Security Council vote the equivalent of voting in favor of a Tsunami - predicting that by the time the UN Security Council decision had played out it would result in more deaths than the recent Tsunami in Japan. Prediction well on track.

A few days later I was suggesting that the supposed attack on Benghazi was largely fraudulent and the Libyan army was genuinely trying to implement a ceasefire outside the city - before being mercilessly attacked from the air by the French. Again, quite correct. I also suggested that if only the Libyan army had had the knowledge to understand the extreme dishonesty of the Western elites and gone straight into Benghazi that the bloodbath we are finding ourselves in could have been averted and countless lives saved - again, looking like it was right on the money.

Finally, I repeatedly said Libya had the highest standard of living in Africa and wondered how long it would be before Libyans know again the prosperity and security they knew in January 2011. The answer at the moment appears to be a very long time indeed.

But hopefully we can solve the NATO problem and the wiser heads of the African Union can mediate a solution.

 

[bigjelmapro]

So now that we've reduced yet another NON-US politics thread to Dem/Rep/OBAMA/Bushitler, has anyone brought up Israel yet in any way? That way this thread can be identical to every other thread.

Israel only really comes up when the IAF is supposedly hitting weapon convoys in Sudan that have come via Libya to be shipped to Hamas and Hezbollah. This would include alleged chemical weapons being smuggled.

Other than that (and the gaping disconnect of Libya's involvement in international terrorism), crickets....for now.

 

[Virus]

Successors who've had a modern education always want to modernize their developing country. And that often leads to positive change.

Can you prove your rule applies to the Arab world?

 

[Caustic Logic]

But hopefully we can solve the NATO problem

Interesting twist. NATO ... well, they like to help people.

and the wiser heads of the African Union can mediate a solution.

I saw the crowds outside the hotel in Banghazi. Not a single Black face remained after the ethnic cleansing there. They will not take anything the African (mercenary) Union proposes. They called Gaddafi "brother leader" instead of "mad despot spinning out of control." Zero credibility. They were being told to go back to Africa.

One problem with this thread is there's so many problems with what's going on in Libya, and I forget which one we were supposed to be discussing.

 

[Darth Rotor]

One problem with this thread is there's so many problems with what's going on in Libya, and I forget which one we were supposed to be discussing.

His hot nurse defected. She did a short article in Newsweek last week. With the Mad Colonel missing his nurturing moments, he may become less stable.

 

[McHrozni]

Perhaps the question should be what to do about the NATO problem?

It seems that NATO really doesn't believe that bombing the insurgents into Tripoli is an option and so now is just looking for a face saving exit. Obviously if they just stopped bombing that would be a tacit admission they didn't know what they were doing in the first place. So there planes just roam around the country inflicting random damage, hoping against hope that something will come along so they don't end up looking foolish. An army coup? Gaddafi agrees to go to Uganda? Anything so long as we can say we won again and get the hell out.

I have to say my prediction rate has been startlingly good.

I have to say you have been flat-out wrong.
http://edition.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/africa/04/20/libya.war/index.html?hpt=T2

McHrozni

 

[McHrozni]

I decided to comment on a few of these absurdities as well.

On Feb 22 on this forum I noted that the "protesters" that I had seen were already waving AK47s and RPGs and that at this particular moment Gaddafi probably represented the best option for Libya. Proven correct.

Proven correct how and where, exactly? According to what standards?

[qutoe]On March 19 I compared the UN Security Council vote the equivalent of voting in favor of a Tsunami - predicting that by the time the UN Security Council decision had played out it would result in more deaths than the recent Tsunami in Japan. Prediction well on track.[/quote]

Of course since you didn't put a time limit on when it "plays out", you can claim it will happen whenever a certain amount of deaths you can remotely attribute to the vote. The 'prediction' is entirely meaningless.

A few days later I was suggesting that the supposed attack on Benghazi was largely fraudulent and the Libyan army was genuinely trying to implement a ceasefire outside the city - before being mercilessly attacked from the air by the French. Again, quite correct.

Oh, they genuinely tried to implement a cease fire, but were continuosly attacked by the rebels who, a day earlier, weren't able to stand against the same army in defensive positions. Very credible indeed. What is your evidence again?

I also suggested that if only the Libyan army had had the knowledge to understand the extreme dishonesty of the Western elites and gone straight into Benghazi that the bloodbath we are finding ourselves in could have been averted and countless lives saved - again, looking like it was right on the money.

Please remind me where this bloodbath is taking place.

You apperantly postulated some things, claimed they were true in spite of evidence to the contrary, and are now claiming that because those postulates were correct, you made good predictions on the events in Libya.

McHrozni

 

[little grey rabbit]

mike3 is way off script here.

According to the cream of American middle eastern academic experts, there is no problem in Libya, rather civil war is just what the doctor ordered and should be embraced and celebrated.

Professor Juan Cole

Those who complain about the course of the Libya intervention are being impatient or cynical. The intervention has saved Benghazi and other eastern cities from falling to Gaddafi's tanks and jets. It has allowed Ajdabiya to be restored to rebel hands. It has allowed Misrata, Zintan, Yafran, Naluf and other western cities to hold out against vicious attacks by Qaddafi loyalist armour...

I think there is actually some benefit to the war not ending quickly with a swift eastern conquest of the west with Nato backing. That may be what happens in the end. But in my view it would be preferable for the elites in Tripoli to gradually be pushed back and surrounded and put under such pressure that they turn on Gaddafi and declare for Free Libya. That way you don't have a permanent group of losers, like the Sunni Arabs in Iraq, who would tend to make trouble in the medium term if not the long term.

Meanwhile the Great Western Hate machine grinds on......

 

[egslim]

Professor Juan Cole

It's a dumb statement.

The evidence of defections indicates much of the Libyan elite is actually anti-Gadaffi - which makes sense, since they are most familiar with life in other countries. The large number of defections also shows they have already turned on him, and it made no difference.

Gadaffi's main supporters are the tribesmen from his own tribe and those allied with it.

 

[Mark6]

Actually, the one recurring theme for autocracies everywhere, of all times, is change caused by succession.

No autocrat lives forever, and his death almost invariably marks major changes in policy.

Really? Are you talking about son (or another close relative) taking reins? I did not notice major policy changes when that happened in Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, North Korea, or Cuba.

 

[Mark6]

I just had to look out the window to check for flying pigs. Juan Cole, whom until now I considered a disgusting apologist for tyrants and dictators everywhere said something I actually agree with!

If former Soviet block is any example, then amount of freedom and democracy after dust settles is roughly proportional to how much common people invested in removing the dictator. If they feel, rightly or wrongly, that Western Uncle did it for them (or did most of the work), they are far more likely to fall for the new demagogue. It was not their revolution, after all.

 

[egslim]

Really? Are you talking about son (or another close relative) taking reins? I did not notice major policy changes when that happened in Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, North Korea, or Cuba.

In April 2011 Raúl Castro announced a plan of 300 economic reforms similar to the Chinese economic model, among them are the limitation of presidential mandates including himself, encouraging private initiative, reducing state spending, encouraging foregin investment and agrarian reforms.

Bashar al-Assad in Syria flirted with implementing liberal reforms when he came to power, though not much came from it.

When King Abdullah II ascended the throne Jordan embarked on an aggressive economic liberalization program.

In 2005, King Fahd died and his half-brother, Abdullah ascended to the throne in Saudi Arabia. The king subsequently introduced a new program of moderate reform.

We can argue about the definition of 'major', but it's clear the death of a ruler marks the start of political change for his country.

 

[Mark6]

I did not consider any of these reforms "major", but you are right -- they are a start.

 

[ladmo]

It is astonishing that the most repressive regime in the Arab community (Saudi Arabia) is not even affected. When the government expected protests (March 11), it ended being more police and photographers than protesters. Are we expected to believe that protesters in Syria spontaneously erupted complete with Satellite phones and real-time videos? Yet, we all believe that the Libyan revolution was organically grown.

 

[Caustic Logic]

It is astonishing that the most repressive regime in the Arab community (Saudi Arabia) is not even affected. When the government expected protests (March 11), it ended being more police and photographers than protesters. Are we expected to believe that protesters in Syria spontaneously erupted complete with Satellite phones and real-time videos? Yet, we all believe that the Libyan revolution was organically grown.

Not all of us believe that. (see this thread) But we're supposed to.