Libya - civil unrest & now NATO involvement

[belboid]

We are confusing two issues here, which is perhaps my fault, and though they are obviously connected it is a good idea to separate them from each other. The first is the question of the degree of popular support enjoyed by the regime and the second is the degree of popular support enjoyed by the rebels. I'm sure you will agree that lack of support for one doesn't necessarily mean support for the other.

Taking the latter first (popular support for the rebels) You made the claim that the rebels obviously must enjoy enormous national support because they would never have reached Tripoli without it..

I said they clearly enjoyed popular support, I didn't ever say anything like 'enormous' because I dont know. When you have to put words in my mouth to make your own argument, yours must be a tad weak.

I was replying to your claim that

If they weren't popular, they wouldn't be winning. NATO bombing can help them, but it cannot make them actually win. That can only come from popular support

As I said this is clearly nonsense. In fact you have just agreed with me that it is nonsense by your post quoted above. If, as you claim (rightly as it happens) that the rebels initial defeat by overwhelming military power is 100% NOT evidence that the regime enjoyed significant support, then rebel victories enabled by the far more massive military power of NATO is also 100% not evidence of significant support for the rebels. You can't have it both ways. It is you, after all, who is making the claim that the rebellion is nationally popular.

You are right to a certain extent, I agree. But the way the rebels win in the areas taken in the first month or so does show support for them in those regions. And even now, I'd still say a rebel army has to have fair degree of support in order to win over urban areas, and to have the sheer numbers to completely overrun the, supposedly, strongest bastions of Gaddafi's army.

I don't know the degree of support enjoyed by the regime, although I think he has a significant base in Tripoli and several other towns but in a way it doesn't really doesn't matter. Saddam probably had far less support than Gaddafi and still managed to unleash havoc following his fall. Also even, as is likely, a significant number of people are not loyal to the regime, it doesn't follow that they automatically support the rebels.

Saddam unleashed no havoc after his downfall. That was a large number of other factions (okay, and a few old ba'athists), ones who had played no part in the overthrow of the regime. That the fall of Gaddafi is largely down to various factions means this may well play out differently.

I trust Amnesty and Human rights watch. I trust the dozens and dozens of eye witness accounts of atrocities, and they have reported continuing racist attacks by rebel forces since this war began.

Fiar do's. i havent seen anything from Amnesty, I may be underestimating the levels of 'revenge' against black libyans, but I'm not convinced I am.

Given that you have made the extraordinary claim that "the rebels are clearly popular" based on nothing more than SkyTV footage of people dancing in green square, it is your critical thinking that is in question. Quite frankly I find it extraordinary that someone who claims to be a socialist should find himself posting on here in defence of yet another NATO regime change

And were back to you having to come up with nonsense to justify your argument. I have never argued either of those things. I simply reject your ill-thought out argument. That isn't supporting NATO action, its just admitting that it hasn't turned everything to shit.[/quote][/quote]

 

[pocketscience]

....posting on here in defence of yet another NATO regime change

Just out of curiousity Dylans, how bad does a dictator have to be in your book, to warrant external assistance to a home grown rebellion?
Or is it a complete no no?

Previously you mentioned in this thread that you had no problem with Gadaffi (or the Nazi Germans) providing arms to the IRA to resist the British because, as invading forces Britain was fair game. I find it weird that you can justify that, yet you oppose intervention by outside international forces in Libya today supporting the (aptly named) rebels.

From post 4677:

Actually I don't really have a problem with the IRA getting guns off the Germans, (or off Gaddafi for that matter)The Arabs did the same thing. Why should they care about the security of a colonial regime that is occupying them. The enemy of my enemy etc. What is important is that they keep their independance and didnt adopt the ideologies of those whose aid they sought and as far as I know they didnt. Hate to say it but I agree with Gaddafi boy on this one

The reason I ask, is that as I'm from Irish/ London stock I always considered the troubles as a regional/ domestic problem between religious & political fractions. Many menbers of my Family and friends hold dual Irish/ British citizenship and we never really considered being in a foreign county when in either.
I'm no expert on the differences of Tribal North Africa but, I'd guess the differences within the borders of Libya between the different peoples are more nuanced than even between the British and Irish... But, as I say I'm no expert... just curious about your ethical metrics.

 

[belboid]

I trust Amnesty and Human rights watch.

just been through the 75 amnesty news articles on libya, not one mentions the attacks you are talking about. cant see it on a (admittedly rather quick) look on human rights watch either

 

[dylans]

just been through the 75 amnesty news articles on libya, not one mentions the attacks you are talking about. cant see it on a (admittedly rather quick) look on human rights watch either

Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch both said there were documented cases of extra-judicial killings by rebel forces, including deaths in custody under torture.
In particular, in the early phases of the uprising, loyalists and sub-Saharan Africans accused of being mercenaries were lynched. Since then, men in rebel-held areas suspected of being members of Col Gaddafi's security services have been taken from the homes, and subsequently found dead with their hands tied.

Human rights watch
http://www.hrw.org/news/2011/07/13/libya-opposition-forces-should-protect-civilians-and-hospitals
http://www.hrw.org/news/2011/07/15/libya-contact-group-should-press-rebels-protect-civilians

UNHCR
http://www.speroforum.com/a/49907/L...ports-of-violence-against-subSaharan-migrants

Allegations of mass graves
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...rrying-questions-about-Libyas-rebel-army.html

Allegations of ethnic cleansing around Misrata
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304887904576395143328336026.html
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304887904576395143328336026.html

 

[dylans]

Pocket science, your post requires a longer and more detailed reply than I can make right now (with an eleven year old kid jumping on me) I will reply to your post when I have a spare hour to give it the attention it deserves

 

[dylans]

Just out of curiousity Dylans, how bad does a dictator have to be in your book, to warrant external assistance to a home grown rebellion?
Or is it a complete no no?

My objection to NATO involvement in Libya (or anywhere else) is not because such intervention is external in and of its self, its not an objection because it is foreign. It is because it is imperialism, not assistance. I reject the entire concept of humanitarian intervention The same western nations which we are expected to believe are assisting with a national democratic struggle against a dictatorship, are responsible for supporting and arming dictatorships around the globe. In the Arab world the same countries who are bombing Libya in the name of democracy also supported Mubarak and Ben Ali. France, offered Ben Ali French riot police during its revolution and we are all familiar with the Egyptian tear gas with made in USA printed on the sides. The list goes on and on. Bahrain. Saudi Arabia. Qatar,Israel All enjoy uncritical support from the very same countries championing human rights and democracy in Libya. No. Its a con and it will not and cannot bring democracy

It doesn't take a genius to realise that the motives are something else. We can disagree with the principle motives. Oil. Geopolitics. neoliberalism. A combination of all these factors. The point is Western nations are not in Libya for democracy and human rights but for motives which are diametrically opposed to such goals. The purpose is the installation of a client regime amenable to Western interests, a regime that will serve the political and economic interests of imperialism not the interests of Libya. The regime that emerges from the dust of Gaddafi's demise will not be a regime that serves the democratic or economic aspirations of the Libyan people. Of course it wont. It will be a neo colonial puppet serving the interests of those who imposed it and for that reason it cannot be a genuinely representative government. There is no free lunch so why invite the wolf to dinner?

On your other point, I think there is always a danger of seeking outside assistance in a national democratic struggle. Almost all national liberation movements that accepted Soviet assistance during the cold war ( Cuba, Mozambique, Vietnam etc) found their political systems distorted by being forced to follow the Stalinist model, nevertheless I do see a difference between seeking assistance from the enemy of a foreign occupying power (such as Arabs or Irish seeking German assistance) and seeking the assistance of imperialist powers in a purely internal national democratic struggle. In the case of Arab or Irish nationalists, they were attempting to tempt the enemy of a foreign occupying power to support their struggle in order to pit one against another and weaken the hold of the nation occupying them. A dangerous game for sure but not comparable with a purely internal national democratic struggle. Libyans were being oppressed by Gaddafi but they were not under foreign occupation. They were oppressed by an internal Libyan elite therefore the call for NATO support was not attempting to pit one Imperial enemy against another but seeking the assistance of imperialism against an internal enemy. This amounts to selling their country to an occupying power, in effect replacing the self interested rule of an internal dictatorship for the self interested dictatorship of puppet regime of a foreign power.

Hope this gives you some idea of my thinking on this. I have more to add and will do so at another time

 

[Divisive Cotton]

There's reports now coming through of the role mercenaries played in Gadaffi's army:

http://old.news.yahoo.com/s/time/20110825/wl_time/08599209020500

 

[TomUS]

There's reports now coming through of the role mercenaries played in Gadaffi's army:

http://old.news.yahoo.com/s/time/20110825/wl_time/08599209020500

His fighters were paid. The rebel fighters weren't. His "support" was mostly bought or came out of fear. Gee, where is that sea of supporters that "rallied" for him? He had to buy Milosevic's goons to defend him. What a hero of the masses against the "West."

"I noticed that many Libyans pretended loyalty just out of fear and were just seeking a way to turn against [Gaddafi]," Mario said.

 

[dylans]

His fighters were paid. The rebel fighters weren't.

NATO fighter pilots and special forces get paid quite well I believe.

Details of the rebel uprising in Tripoli are emerging, showing weeks of careful planning by rebels and their international allies before theyseized the Libyan capital.
Rebel leaders had been hoping that the people of Tripoli would rise up against Muammar Gaddafi, but after a bloody crackdown crushed local opposition they began planning their own revolt.
British military and civilian advisers, including special forces troops, along with those from France, Italy and Qatar, have spent months with rebel fighters, giving them key, up-to-date intelligence and watching out for any al-Qaida elements trying to infiltrate the rebellion.
More details emerged yesterday of how Nato forces helped Libyan rebels storm Tripoli. "Honestly, Nato played a very big role in liberating Tripoli. They bombed all the main locations that we couldn't handle with our light weapons," said Fadlallah Haroun, a military spokesman who helped organise the operation, according to the Associated Press.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/aug/25/libya-rebel-backers-free-funds?intcmp=239

 

[phildwyer]

It doesn't take a genius to realise that the motives are something else. We can disagree with the principle motives. Oil. Geopolitics. neoliberalism. A combination of all these factors.

ISRAEL.

Why is this obvious and vital motive always left out of British discussions of this issue? They're much more open about it in the USA.

 

[belboid]

Human rights watch
http://www.hrw.org/news/2011/07/13/libya-opposition-forces-should-protect-civilians-and-hospitals
http://www.hrw.org/news/2011/07/15/libya-contact-group-should-press-rebels-protect-civilians

UNHCR
http://www.speroforum.com/a/49907/L...ports-of-violence-against-subSaharan-migrants

Allegations of mass graves
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...rrying-questions-about-Libyas-rebel-army.html

Allegations of ethnic cleansing around Misrata
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304887904576395143328336026.html
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304887904576395143328336026.html

so, you cant find owt from Amnesty then, which is why you resort to a Torygraph article claiming they said something. Its all rather vague, isnt it?

From those HRW articles - rebels have "beaten some individuals alleged to have supported government forces," and carried out some looting. Oh, the same articles point out that the rebel leadership have condemned such actions. There is absolutely nothing like the appalling acts of 'retribution' you were claiming, and a fairly mild stuff for the overthrow of a brutal dictatorship. I'm sure you've read all the reports about Gaddafi's actions in the Nafusa mountains to which the rebels were reacting too, and realised the context of mass disappearances carried out by Gaddafi supporters there. Something which might just possibly have some bearing on what happened.

 

[phildwyer]

Neo-con and Zionist think-tanks have been openly planning to instigate regime change throughout the Arab world for over a decade now.

No-one should be surprised that they are now implementing that policy. Nor should anyone doubt that it is they who are implementing it.

 

[dylans]

ISRAEL.

Why is this obvious and vital motive always left out of British discussions of this issue? They're much more open about it in the USA.

Absolutely. In fact I made that point in an earlier post. I would place Israel under "geopolitics" but you are right, Israel is a key reason why NATO will oppose genuine representational government on Libya. A genuinely democratic regime would reflect the universal hostility of Arabs towards Israel and that flies in the face of American geopolitical interests. It is interesting that the question of the TNCs recognition has already been announced and then denied. In June Bernard Henri Levy delivered a message to Israel claiming that the TNC intended to recognise and extend diplomatic relations to Israel.

As the news that 270 people went missing after a fishing boat carrying migrants from Libya to Italy broke down just off the Tunisian coast hit, French writer Bernard Henri Levy announced he delivered a message on Thursday from Libyan rebel leaders to Israel's premier saying they would seek diplomatic ties with Israel if they came to power.
The future regime will maintain normal relations with other democratic countries, including Israel," he added.

http://uk.ibtimes.com/articles/1564...matic-ties-with-israel-says-french-writer.htm

The arrogance of this is quite astonishing, a Sarkozy ally claiming to define Libya's foreign policy regardless of the wishes of the Libyan population. It is a very telling example of the kind of regime NATO is planning to install in Libya.

 

[dylans]

so, you cant find owt from Amnesty then, which is why you resort to a Torygraph article claiming they said something. Its all rather vague, isnt it?

From those HRW articles - rebels have "beaten some individuals alleged to have supported government forces," and carried out some looting. Oh, the same articles point out that the rebel leadership have condemned such actions. There is absolutely nothing like the appalling acts of 'retribution' you were claiming, and a fairly mild stuff for the overthrow of a brutal dictatorship. I'm sure you've read all the reports about Gaddafi's actions in the Nafusa mountains to which the rebels were reacting too, and realised the context of mass disappearances carried out by Gaddafi supporters there. Something which might just possibly have some bearing on what happened.

Oh do fuck off. I have listed numerous accounts of rebel atrocities across the country in that and many other posts on this thread. Yet you wish to downplay or deny them all. You are turning into a NATO stooge and blindly accepting the entire Gaddafi bad/rebels good narrative of the Western media. You should know better. How fucking shameful.

 

[phildwyer]

A genuinely democratic regime would reflect the universal hostility of Arabs towards Israel and that flies in the face of American geopolitical interests.

Precisely. That is why democracy will never come to the middle east on America's watch.

 

[phildwyer]

You should know better.

Why should he, really?

It's hardly surprising that a simple fool like Belboid has fallen for the propaganda. Far more intelligent people than he have done the same. Propaganda works very well, when done properly.

 

[dylans]

Why should he, really?

It's hardly surprising that a simple fool like Belboid had fallen for the propaganda. Far more intelligent people than he have done the same. Propaganda works very well, when done properly.

Talking of propaganda. There was a refreshing article in the independant today that presented a much more nuanced and realistic picture of Tripoli than the increasingly tedious pap that is coming from most of the press

"We are afraid of both Gaddafi and the rebels"

The men in the newly renamed Martyrs' Square were triumphant as celebratory gunfire blasted and horns blared from the rebel pickup trucks parading past them. Jubilant fighters told of their new-found freedom and embraced each another in the streets.

But away from the euphoric crowds and the fighters manning the many checkpoints, there were people in Tripoli filled with fear for the coming days and doubts about the future of a rebel-held Libya. "The situation here reminds me of Iraq in 2003," Mehdi Drar, 52, said. "We don't know who has
entered the city. We don't know anything about the people who will rule this country, about their mentality

I think it is very revealing and echoes my earlier point that Tripoli wasn't taken by an uprising of its residents. It was imposed from without, not least by NATO bombs and special forces, and for that reason the opposition is seen by many as an invading occupying force. These tendencies should be expected to grow as the city descends into further insecurity. Despite the rosy picture that was initially presented by the western press of the city falling virtually without a fight, all indications are that the city is set for a prolonged and bloody urban war. Western journalists were briefly kidnapped yesterday (now released) and this does not bode well for the future. Tripoli is in danger of turning into Beirut.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...d-of-both-gaddafi-and-the-rebels-2343462.html

 

[belboid]

My objection to NATO involvement in Libya (or anywhere else) is not because such intervention is external in and of its self, its not an objection because it is foreign. It is because it is imperialism, not assistance. I reject the entire concept of humanitarian intervention The same western nations which we are expected to believe are assisting with a national democratic struggle against a dictatorship, are responsible for supporting and arming dictatorships around the globe. In the Arab world the same countries who are bombing Libya in the name of democracy also supported Mubarak and Ben Ali. France, offered Ben Ali French riot police during its revolution and we are all familiar with the Egyptian tear gas with made in USA printed on the sides. The list goes on and on. Bahrain. Saudi Arabia. Qatar,Israel All enjoy uncritical support from the very same countries championing human rights and democracy in Libya. No. Its a con and it will not and cannot bring democracy

It doesn't take a genius to realise that the motives are something else. We can disagree with the principle motives. Oil. Geopolitics. neoliberalism. A combination of all these factors. The point is Western nations are not in Libya for democracy and human rights but for motives which are diametrically opposed to such goals. The purpose is the installation of a client regime amenable to Western interests, a regime that will serve the political and economic interests of imperialism not the interests of Libya. The regime that emerges from the dust of Gaddafi's demise will not be a regime that serves the democratic or economic aspirations of the Libyan people. Of course it wont. It will be a neo colonial puppet serving the interests of those who imposed it and for that reason it cannot be a genuinely representative government. There is no free lunch so why invite the wolf to dinner?

On your other point, I think there is always a danger of seeking outside assistance in a national democratic struggle. Almost all national liberation movements that accepted Soviet assistance during the cold war ( Cuba, Mozambique, Vietnam etc) found their political systems distorted by being forced to follow the Stalinist model, nevertheless I do see a difference between seeking assistance from the enemy of a foreign occupying power (such as Arabs or Irish seeking German assistance) and seeking the assistance of imperialist powers in a purely internal national democratic struggle. In the case of Arab or Irish nationalists, they were attempting to tempt the enemy of a foreign occupying power to support their struggle in order to pit one against another and weaken the hold of the nation occupying them. A dangerous game for sure but not comparable with a purely internal national democratic struggle. Libyans were being oppressed by Gaddafi but they were not under foreign occupation. They were oppressed by an internal Libyan elite therefore the call for NATO support was not attempting to pit one Imperial enemy against another but seeking the assistance of imperialism against an internal enemy. This amounts to selling their country to an occupying power, in effect replacing the self interested rule of an internal dictatorship for the self interested dictatorship of puppet regime of a foreign power.
Hope this gives you some idea of my thinking on this. I have more to add and will do so at another time

irrelevant, fact free, abstract. It tells us nothing except you deal solely with things in purely theoretical terms, without actually tying to apply them to reality.
Its laughable really, the very same people who you were no doubt cheering when they first took on the dictatorship become 100% different because of imperialist involvement. Even when they get absolutely no support from NATO (eg the berbers, who NATO, like you, thought were irrelevant and there was no value in supporting their war in the south), they must be evil racist bastards. And now they are all selling out wholesale to imperialism by....what exactly? Dylans has apparently seen all the post-war plans for the country, which includes selling everything to france and britain. Personally I've only seen a couple of documents which say the rebels will.... honour agreements made by dylans friend Gaddafi! The bastards.

Oh do fuck off. I have listed numerous accounts of rebel atrocities across the country in that and many other posts on this thread. Yet you wish to downplay or deny them all. You are turning into a NATO stooge and blindly accepting the entire Gaddafi bad/rebels good narrative of the Western media. You should know better. How fucking shameful.

no, I am actually tying to look at things honestly, not just my own narrow view. Your links (several of which I doubt you even read, or you wouldnt have posted them) are very weak, and offer little real evidence. This is shown from the fact that you have never actually replied to anything I've said, just shouted 'stooge'. Well, I suppose I shouldnt expect anything else from a Gaddafi supporter like you.
Come on dylans, try and deal with the facts, not just your abstract theory.
The fall of Gaddafi will allow workers, students, oppressed peoples, to orgainse for their own self defense, for their own rights. Dylans is opposing that.

 

[belboid]

Talking of propaganda. There was a refreshing article in the independant today that presented a much more nuanced and realistic picture of Tripoli than the increasingly tedious pap that is coming from most of the press

"We are afraid of both Gaddafi and the rebels"

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...d-of-both-gaddafi-and-the-rebels-2343462.html

No different to what I have actually been arguing. Not what you claim I've been arguing, but thats no surprise

 

[dylans]

This is shown from the fact that you have never actually replied to anything I've said, just shouted 'stooge'. Well, I suppose I shouldnt expect anything else from a Gaddafi supporter like you.

Yes because its a binary argument. Opposing NATO regime change makes me a Gaddafi supporter. I believe you opposed the invasion of Iraq, does that make you a supporter of Saddam Hussein.? Cheap, very cheap but I really shouldn't expect more from you.

The fall of Gaddafi will allow workers, students, oppressed peoples, to orgainse for their own self defense, for their own rights. Dylans is opposing that.

Yes of course it will. But be consistant then. If you think the experience of having a country smashed to pieces by NATO bombs is such a great liberating experience the people of Iraq should be dancing in the streets right now. Pathetic, really pathetic.If you think the imposition of a NATO created puppet dictatorship under the heel of NATO diktat will help the Libyan people fight for their rights then call for NATO to do the same to other countries. Support the bombing of Syria and Iran. Why not?

 

[elbows]

Yes of course it will. But be consistant then. If you think the experience of having a country smashed to pieces by NATO bombs is such a great liberating experience the people of Iraq should be dancing in the streets right now.

Hyperbole. Death from the skies is one of the great horror mankind has brought upon itself in the last 100 years. But don't you think that the comparison of this NATO campaign to the 'shock and awe' in Iraq with its grotesque and staggering body count, does a disservice to the truth?

Things are bad enough, why do you need the hype? You can build a case without it, and you'd be better off without the shrill tones anyway.

 

[phildwyer]

The fall of Gaddafi will allow workers, students, oppressed peoples, to orgainse for their own self defense, for their own rights.

If you believe that, you'll believe anything.

 

[belboid]

Silly boy. I simply applied your logic to your argument. If my saying NATO involvement hasn't had as devastating consequences as I feared makes me a 'NATO stooge', then your accepting every anti-rebel argument at face value makes you a Gaddafi stooge. You can't have it both ways.

And it is the fact that Gaddafi is being overthrown by a coalition of, overwhelmingly, Libyans that makes it a very very diffeent situation to Iraq.

Tell me, when NATO dropped the no fly zone after the first gulf war, allowing Saddam to bomb the he'll out of the popular uprising against him, did you argue they were right?

 

[Random]

And now they are all selling out wholesale to imperialism by....what exactly? Dylans has apparently seen all the post-war plans for the country, which includes selling everything to france and britain. Personally I've only seen a couple of documents which say the rebels will.... honour agreements made by dylans friend Gaddafi! The bastards.

This will be a crucial event to watch: "France said Wednesday it would host an international conference Sep. 1 to help coordinate efforts to rebuild Libya after a six-month civil war." http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904009304576528593929516616.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

I'll be very surprised if French companies anren't to the forefront, when it comes to using Ghaddaffi's frozen money for reconstruction. And likewise, the situation in Iraq may be repeated, where the novice government was advised/created by Western consultant firms.

Hopefully I will be surprised.

 

[dilute micro]

Precisely. That is why democracy will never come to the middle east on America's watch.

Democracy is a whore. At least ours is.

 

[dylans]

Hyperbole. Death from the skies is one of the great horror mankind has brought upon itself in the last 100 years. But don't you think that the comparison of this NATO campaign to the 'shock and awe' in Iraq with its grotesque and staggering body count, does a disservice to the truth?

We don't know the death toll from NATO bombing. We do know that 5000 targets have been hit and that those attacks have decimated the Loyalist forces (who were in the main conscripts) its not hyperbole to recognise that this war has been won by a massive air campaign or to speculate that the death toll is likely to be very high

Things are bad enough, why do you need the hype? You can build a case without it, and you'd be better off without the shrill tones anyway

Nothing I have posted is hype. Before the fall of Tripoli I predicted that Tripoli was in danger of falling into a bloody urban warfare. In the euphoria of the initial fall I was accused by the likes of you of being unduly pessimistic but all indications are that I was right and a scenario similar to Iraq is a very real possibility.More accurately, I think Tripoli is beginning to resemble Beirut, I predicted that the TNC was in serious danger of collapsing into factional fighting and that a post Gaddafi civil war was a possibility, again I was dismissed as hopelessly pessimistic, time will tell if I am right or not. The legitimacy of the TNC is extremely questionable, and it is questionable precisely because it hasn't taken power on the back of a genuine national uprising. It has been imposed from without. That lack of legitimacy will be tested in the coming days and weeks and months, an ongoing urban insurgency is in turn likely to exacerbate those tensions

I don't need your advice on the content or tone of my posts thanks.

 

[elbows]

Nothing I have posted is hype. Before the fall of Tripoli I predicted that Tripoli was in danger of falling into a bloody urban warfare. In the euphoria of the initial fall I was accused by the likes of you of being unduly pessimistic but all indications are that I was right and a scenario similar to Iraq is a very real possibility.More accurately, I think Tripoli is beginning to resemble Beirut, I predicted that the TNC was in serious danger of collapsing into factional fighting and that a post Gaddafi civil war was a possibility, again I was dismissed as hopelessly pessimistic, time will tell if I am right or not. I don't need your advice on the content or tone of my posts thanks.

You were not dismissed as hopelessly pessimistic, in so much as very few people denied that your predictions were possible. I don't deny these possibilities, but I sure aint gonna talk about them as if they have already come true.

In your quest to find one moral high ground to screech from, you have jumped the gun, you described Libya as a failed state and I find that truly pathetic on a number of levels. You can predict this stuff will happen, fine, but to make out like it has already happened makes a chump of you. You are as guilty as anyone of arranging the facts to fit your wider beliefs. I don't knock you for deciding that you could not support this stuff once NATO got involved, but please recognise the effect this has on analysis of quickly-evolving realities.

 

[belboid]

This will be a crucial event to watch: "France said Wednesday it would host an international conference Sep. 1 to help coordinate efforts to rebuild Libya after a six-month civil war." http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904009304576528593929516616.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

I'll be very surprised if French companies anren't to the forefront, when it comes to using Ghaddaffi's frozen money for reconstruction. And likewise, the situation in Iraq may be repeated, where the novice government was advised/created by Western consultant firms.

Hopefully I will be surprised.

But I bet you wont be. This is, of course, why France got involved - well, that and trying to repair its reputation locally after that minister said they'd send troops to help Ben Ali. No doubt they'll do okay from it. How much they'll really be able to dictate with no troops on the ground (or precious few anyway) is questionable. This is one reason for my disagreement with dylans, he has actually fallen for NATO propaganda that it is te mighty military force which no one can brook. Fact is, they wont have the forces in Libya to do what they have in Iraq. No doubt they'd like to have, and their intent is to set up a nice friendly state (like Gaddafi had come to be), but whether they actually have the strength to do so....

 

[treelover]

On another blog someone has said the TNC has agreed to wide scale privatisations, I wonder who with and why it is deemed so necessary, well, the Washington Consensus is clearly still alive and well, a lot of the rebels won't be too happy about this...

 

[Random]

How much they'll really be able to dictate with no troops on the ground (or precious few anyway) is questionable. This is one reason for my disagreement with dylans, he has actually fallen for NATO propaganda that it is te mighty military force which no one can brook. Fact is, they wont have the forces in Libya to do what they have in Iraq. No doubt they'd like to have, and their intent is to set up a nice friendly state (like Gaddafi had come to be), but whether they actually have the strength to do so....

It doesn't have to be about strength, but rather about the weakenss of the TNC, that they will turn to Western advisors rather like a time-stressed MP turns to lobbyists for info and support.