ah ok. So someone somewhere is having a little joke? Anyone know who actually names these missions?
Libya - civil unrest & now NATO involvement
- Thread starter ernestolynch
- Start date
ah ok. So someone somewhere is having a little joke? Anyone know who actually names these missions?
Lol at all the new pbmen on this thread.
I hope your UN planes fall out of the sky.
I hope your UN planes fall out of the sky.
I don't know about fall out the sky ,i was wondering if gadaffi as the means to down any planes.The fella on dylans clip said it is possible
Barking_Mad
Non sibi sed omnibus
OBAMA: 'Today we are part of a broad coalition. We are answering the calls of a threatened people. And we are acting in the interests of the United States and the world'
MARCH 19, 2003
BUSH: 'American and coalition forces are in the early stages of military operations to disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger'
MARCH 19, 2003
BUSH: 'American and coalition forces are in the early stages of military operations to disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger'
Divisive Cotton
Now I just have my toy soldiers
There's a poll on the Arabic Al-Jazeera site asking viewers whether they are for military intervention in Libya. 18952 77.5% voted for it. Hardly scientific I know but interesting nevertheless
You really think Al Jaz is some grass roots organisation...lol.
Is this an American war endorsed by Beans, Obama's
twitter war?
They're all fucking quiet now lol.
twitter war?
They're all fucking quiet now lol.
Divisive Cotton
Now I just have my toy soldiers
Have you put the front cover of NOTW in your front window yet, div?
Idaho
blah blah blah
I'm glad your position on this makes no sense Ernesto. It would have been disorienting otherwise.
chilango
Hypothetical Wanker
Whilst, obviously, the taking out of military forces preparing to attack rebels/civilians/etc. is a good thing, other consequences of this intervention are worth consideration.
Primarily, for me, the issue to be concerned about is how this intervention changes the dynamic of struggle in the Libyan uprising (and thus potentially elsewhere too). No longer is this a revolution from below, the Libyan people are no longer in charge of their own destiny. Will we see this repeated in other states? Instead of rising and taking matters into their own hands will the temptation now be to call for the cavalry?
If so, then the movement in the Arab world is dead.
What made the risings in Egypt, Tunisia, Libya, Yemen, etc etc. so inspiring to us, and to each other, what made them important and took them beyond something to tut at or sympathise with on the TV was the popular nature of the risings, the movement "from below". It was, quite literally, empowering.
Calling in Western airpower ain't.
Primarily, for me, the issue to be concerned about is how this intervention changes the dynamic of struggle in the Libyan uprising (and thus potentially elsewhere too). No longer is this a revolution from below, the Libyan people are no longer in charge of their own destiny. Will we see this repeated in other states? Instead of rising and taking matters into their own hands will the temptation now be to call for the cavalry?
If so, then the movement in the Arab world is dead.
What made the risings in Egypt, Tunisia, Libya, Yemen, etc etc. so inspiring to us, and to each other, what made them important and took them beyond something to tut at or sympathise with on the TV was the popular nature of the risings, the movement "from below". It was, quite literally, empowering.
Calling in Western airpower ain't.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
In brief, this is an attempt to end the other developing movements yes.
dylans
overlord of all acorns
Exactly. To divert and control a regional movement for self determination.
Louis MacNeice
Autumn Journalist
It is several things, including the short term means of protecting the anti-Gaddafi population, and including what you say. Whether it will be successful, in any of its objectives, is a whole other matter; which makes those trying to authoritatively forclose on the regions (albeit from a variety of ideological perspectives, not forgetting Ern's virtual performance art Stalinism) future more than a little odd.
Louis MacNeice
Combustible
Well-Known Member
As opposed to the effect on developing movements if the rebels are crushed?
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
No, as added to that option - the consequences of your scenario are not known either - and they're potentially far more dangerous (no matter who comes out victorious) to 'western' interests than an imposed/chaperoned change of govt and return of equally friendly 'stability'.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Yes, it's very tempting to simplify this down to a few clashing large propositions (one of the reasons i've kept away from this thread for a while) - i think the intervention is only going to encourage that, both on here and more importantly within Libya.
dylans
overlord of all acorns
Which just begs the question. If it is possible for Gaddafi to crush the Eastern revolt so easily and if the rebels are incapable of mobilising mass support in other areas of the country such as Tripoli then perhaps the revolt is not a widespread and genuinely popular as we were led to believe. Those claiming it is have to answer the question why Tripoli has seen no mass demonstrations and simply claiming this is solely because of regime oppression is simplistic and smacks of wishful thinking. I think this is a popular revolt but a popular revolt with significant regional and tribal dynamics. A revolt of the East concieved as against oppression from the West, with isolated pockets of support in a few western towns.
Lol
Combustible
Well-Known Member
I agree to a certain extent, the West has probably done such a calculation and it probably believes the latter is a better option than allowing Gaddafi a free hand against the rebels and the uncertainty that would likely follow. This would be based on an assessment of the rebels and their intentions. But that doesn't mean that Western aerial intervention should be opposed on that basis alone and that we should be arguing to allow Gaddafi to attempt to crush them.
krtek a houby
Merry Xmas!
Lol at the newly castrated ern
dylans
overlord of all acorns
This is exactly what will not happen. Shepherding the rebels into power will impose a tribal victory onto the country and result in a tribally loyal regime, not a regime with national identity. As such we can expect a recreation of the repressive regime albeit with repression aimed at different population sectors. The East oppressing the West. A Cyrenaica and Senoussi led regime, inevitably acting against other regional and tribal interests such as the Qadhadhfa and Sirte and like Gaddafi using force brutality and repressive means to bully the country's other tribes and regions into loyalty. In this context dreams of parliamentary democracy or even nationally focussed regime is merely wishful thinking and betrays a fatal misunderstanding of Libyan society. There are sociological reasons why Libya is a dictatorship and those sociological conditions won't disappear because we wish them to.
Why do you think the rebels are waving the flag of king Idris? They are not necessarily monarchists. The flag is a symbol of Senoussi loyalty, a tribal loyalty. A Western enforced victory for the Benghazi opposition will result in a victory for Gaddafi's historical tribal enemies .
Divisive Cotton
Now I just have my toy soldiers
This total and utter speculation delivered as fact
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
I don't think anyone is - and if anyone is concerned about gadaffi being in a postion to crush the rebels they should consider whether these attacks are going to leave him in a stronger position to act when 'western' interest and eyes have moved elsewhere. Gadaffi was praying for this intervention - he's been massively shored up by them and is no the de facto rallying point for those non-rebels who were either previously a bit ambivalent or waiting to see how things play out, any chance of them moving into the rebel camp are probably now definitively gone.
All the beans trying to outclog one and other...lol.
teqniq
DisMembered
It has to be said, I was thinking something along exactly the same lines.
Bean confusion .
dylans
overlord of all acorns
It's an analysis based on the concrete reality of Libyan society. I wish for this rebellion to be a genuinely popular democratic struggle too but just because we wish it doesn't make it so. There is no doubt that the uprising in Benghazi was genuinely popular and inspired by the regional movement across North Africa but for it to succeed and become a genuinely national popular democratic struggle it had to transcend regionalism and tribalism. Egypt offered a way for this to happen. Unfortunately this hasn't happened and was doomed the moment the movement rallied around divisive and tribal symbols such as the flag of King Idris. A symbol guaranteed to alienate large sections of Libyan society. Now Western intervention is being celebrated in Benghazi and Western governments have offered their support, this regionalism and tribalism is further cemented. Nothing is more guaranteed to cause the population to rally around Gaddafi more than the spectre of foreign intervention. Western intervention will not save this revolution it is going to kill it.
Similar threads
- Locked
- Poll
