While Saddam lived, there was no hope. After his removal, hope was possible. That's why I think nothing is worse than Saddam.
Libya - civil unrest & now NATO involvement
- Thread starter ernestolynch
- Start date
Anudder Oik
heinous pointless bellend/fucking gobshite muppet
Peter Tatchel's comparison of this intervention with the spirit of the international brigades in Spain in 36 is obscene. It couldn't be further from the truth.
The Brigaders were idealistic individuals who volunteered to fight fascism at great personal risk to their lives. What we have today in Lybia is intervention from various states on behalf of private interests. Same as in Iraq. Make no mistake. This has imperialism written all over it.
The revolution in Lybia far from being helped by this intervention is being curtailed. We will now see the second phase which has always been Divide and rule.
A better comparison for Mr tatchell would be Stalin's military help in Spain that came at a cost. He demanded that the revolution be drowned in blood and that created a murderous division in the republican camp that eventually undermined morale in the war against Franco. it created a civil war within a civil war.
Meanwhile Britain falsely adhered to the non intervention pact by secretly supplying Franco with 70% of his steel imports. A vital supply for his war effort.
I mention all this because it is apparent on this thread that some posters have no idea about the real life motives that are behind this intervention. They have not learned from history.
The Brigaders were idealistic individuals who volunteered to fight fascism at great personal risk to their lives. What we have today in Lybia is intervention from various states on behalf of private interests. Same as in Iraq. Make no mistake. This has imperialism written all over it.
The revolution in Lybia far from being helped by this intervention is being curtailed. We will now see the second phase which has always been Divide and rule.
A better comparison for Mr tatchell would be Stalin's military help in Spain that came at a cost. He demanded that the revolution be drowned in blood and that created a murderous division in the republican camp that eventually undermined morale in the war against Franco. it created a civil war within a civil war.
Meanwhile Britain falsely adhered to the non intervention pact by secretly supplying Franco with 70% of his steel imports. A vital supply for his war effort.
I mention all this because it is apparent on this thread that some posters have no idea about the real life motives that are behind this intervention. They have not learned from history.
free spirit
more tea vicar?
so to recap, we're all hideously naive and must bow to your undoubted wisdom.
another arrogant tosser then. Welcome, you should feel right at home here.
Anudder Oik
heinous pointless bellend/fucking gobshite muppet
Now then now then, careful with your keyboard warriorism, you might hurt your fingers...
What I am saying is that some posters have shown views that they think the intervention is going to be;
A. Clean and unmessy
B. Free of charge
C. humanitarian
D. everyone will live happily ever after in harmony.
Now find in history just one intervention like this that didn't end in shit, in divide and rule, in sectarian in fighting for decades after.
likesfish
You can't park here sir
a popular revoution vs tanks artillery and fighter jets is going one place the grave
In Egypt the Boss would'nt or could'nt turn the square into a killzone.
Use enough violence early enough you can crush a revoultion. Have the UN decide to stop you you can't crush the rebels anymore.
The libyan people still have a chance to have a better future than the COL
In Egypt the Boss would'nt or could'nt turn the square into a killzone.
Use enough violence early enough you can crush a revoultion. Have the UN decide to stop you you can't crush the rebels anymore.
The libyan people still have a chance to have a better future than the COL
Divisive Cotton
Now I just have my toy soldiers
You can have one of three views about the United Nations.
1. That the United Nations shouldn't exist
2. That the United Nations should exist but only provide humanitarian non-military assistance
3. That the United Nations should exist and provide humanitarian assistance and, under exceptional circumstances, intervene militarily.
Which of these do you subscribe to Anudder Oik?
1. That the United Nations shouldn't exist
2. That the United Nations should exist but only provide humanitarian non-military assistance
3. That the United Nations should exist and provide humanitarian assistance and, under exceptional circumstances, intervene militarily.
Which of these do you subscribe to Anudder Oik?
Combustible
Well-Known Member
Please outline specifically how the current aerial intervention curtails the revolution.
Anudder Oik
heinous pointless bellend/fucking gobshite muppet
The united nations only exists to rubber stamp selective interventions that are clearly linked to economic interests of, mainly, The USA, or rather the powerful lobbies in the USA that pull the strings, ie, Zionist lobby and Oil lobby. In effect the UN is useless as a force for good.
Now can someone, who is in favour of intervention, answer my question.
Divisive Cotton
Now I just have my toy soldiers
I gave you three options. Please pick one. Actually, no you have picked one - you believe that the UN shouldn't exist
Anudder Oik
heinous pointless bellend/fucking gobshite muppet
Surprise surprise...
Anudder Oik
heinous pointless bellend/fucking gobshite muppet
I believe that the UN as a genuine force for good doesn't exist.
dylans
overlord of all acorns
It replaces mass action with Western military intervention and destroys any chance of the Eastern uprising ever becoming a national democratic struggle above tribal and regional loyalties
It totally alienates the population of Tripoli and historically pro Gaddafi tribes in the west from breaking with Gaddafi and presents the Eastern rebellion as a foreign sponsored tribal attack by Cyrenaica onto western Libya. Do you think Tripoli is going to welcome Benghazi with open arms when their troops march in? They won't. They will be seen as traitors, collaborators with imperialism and as Senoussi tribal occupiers intent on repressing their historical tribal and regional enemies. I have no doubt that any regime that is installed by the west following this farce will be a tribal regime and will act in much the same way as Gaddafi. Tribal rule by bribery and terror albeit with different sectors of the population being tortured and killed. Western intervention is killing the Libyan revolution and extinguishing all hope of self determination for Libyans.
Anudder Oik
heinous pointless bellend/fucking gobshite muppet
Agreed. The intervention is not a humanitarian freebie. It's more about putting the brakes on these rolling revolutions and to try to shape them into something more palatable to American and Israeli interests. The Same people who have propped up Mubarak and others for decades and armed Gaddafi to the sum of 800,000,000 dollars don't want democracy in the arab world.
elbows
Well-Known Member
The UN is only going to be as good as the governments of nations that make up the world.
For it to be fair and just, you would need not only serious reform of things like the security council, but revolutions in many countries that change the face of human governance.
For it to be fair and just, you would need not only serious reform of things like the security council, but revolutions in many countries that change the face of human governance.
likesfish
You can't park here sir
bollocks a popular revoultion against somebody whos prepareed to use armour and artillery not happening.
tell you what you get a 1000 random urbanites with aks and anything else you can find in the armoury
I get sassfarnto and the other ex military urbs and you will lose and thats without getting fuchs to mix up nerve gas
tell you what you get a 1000 random urbanites with aks and anything else you can find in the armoury
I get sassfarnto and the other ex military urbs and you will lose and thats without getting fuchs to mix up nerve gas
Combustible
Well-Known Member
So the argument is that the intervention destroys the revolution by hardening support for Gaddafi in western Libya. So the west is deliberately strengthening the Gaddafi regime by bombing them. Is Gaddafi aware of this cunning plan? Is it not rather risky for the west to tear up their convenient relationship with the Gaddafi regime so that they can strengthen him by bombing him. What if they bomb him so much that he defeats the rebels? They would be left with a choice of either sending in US and European ground troops into Libya (not practical) or having to deal with a Gaddafi who they will no longer have any leverage over.
So how will the west install a particular regime by using its air power to bomb Gaddafi's forces? You were supporting the rebels until western planes started flying in. Now because they are assisted by US air power you can now deduce that they will instigate tribal rule and terrorize the population. Where as if they hadn't had western aerial support they wouldn't have? It is a ludicrous assertion. Or are you suggesting that the US will conjure up an alternative tribal leadership to replace Gaddafi and all from the use of air power.
dylans
overlord of all acorns
Yes
No I think Gaddafi is finished but it will be replaced by another tribal regime that is to the west's liking. Gaddafi is irrelevent. The loser in this is any hope for genuinely representational government and self determination. That is what western intervention has killed.
I am saying that there was never any hope of the rebels winning by purely military means. The only way the struggle against Gaddafi was ever going to be successful was for the revolution to use revolutionary methods. Appeal to national identity of all Libyans East and West over and above regional or tribal lines and that meant using language, demands and symbols that are inclusive not exclusive. Democratic not tribal. The intervention of the West has now made that impossible, totally alienated the population of Tripoli and made a purely military victory (one shepherded to power by Western bombs) of tribal factions the only outcome.
That is exactly what is happening
elbows
Well-Known Member
Oops:
Now then, is this statement sincere? A no-fly-zone is fairly well understood, it tends to imply the destruction of air defence systems. So is he really surprised by this or is he just making the right noises? Believe he may also be a candidate for Egyptian Presidential elections, let alone all the factors concerning what the real positions of the various Arab countries that make up this league are.
Now then, is this statement sincere? A no-fly-zone is fairly well understood, it tends to imply the destruction of air defence systems. So is he really surprised by this or is he just making the right noises? Believe he may also be a candidate for Egyptian Presidential elections, let alone all the factors concerning what the real positions of the various Arab countries that make up this league are.
elbows
Well-Known Member
Although this seems rather likely, I dont think its an utter certainty at this point.
Divisive Cotton
Now I just have my toy soldiers
The closest to this I can think would be the no-fly zone over Kurdish areas of northern Iraq. It's almost totally forgotten now but was relatively successful at the time
newbie
undisambiguated
You write as though the UN is somehow static. It isn't, it develops and changes year by year and crisis by crisis. What happened in 2003 isn't ever going to happen again, any more than there will ever be another war voted for by one lot while the others were out of the room and thus couldn't veto.
What makes this different from other places and other times is that Gadaffi has no allies (with SC votes) and for I think the first time in many decades none of China, Russia or France has vetoed US-led military action. Russia, China, the African Union and now the Arab League have distanced themselves, but no more than that.
The utility of the UN is developing as we type.
I'm not in favour of 'intervention', at all, but I'd question where Sierra Leone sits in your scheme of things?
Anudder Oik
heinous pointless bellend/fucking gobshite muppet
From AJ Live Blog today.
The rebels repulsed an attack on Benghazi before the air strikes started and captured some of Gaddafii's tanks in the process and according to this quote from AJ have become more structured (What in 24hours?). The media would have us believe that they were defenceless and couldn't have held out for long but now we may never know as the airstrikes will take credit for tipping the balance.
I think it would have been better to have armed the rebels rather than intervene directly but now that this has happened, what is the way forward for the rebels? With the inevitable civilian casualties from western bombs the political fallout in the region could go against them.
Can the rebels maintain the original momentum they had and still count on support in the west for the uprising?
The rebels repulsed an attack on Benghazi before the air strikes started and captured some of Gaddafii's tanks in the process and according to this quote from AJ have become more structured (What in 24hours?). The media would have us believe that they were defenceless and couldn't have held out for long but now we may never know as the airstrikes will take credit for tipping the balance.
I think it would have been better to have armed the rebels rather than intervene directly but now that this has happened, what is the way forward for the rebels? With the inevitable civilian casualties from western bombs the political fallout in the region could go against them.
Can the rebels maintain the original momentum they had and still count on support in the west for the uprising?
Divisive Cotton
Now I just have my toy soldiers
Lets hope so they do "maintain the original mementum" and overthrow Gadaffi. Don't you agree Anudder Oik?
Anudder Oik
heinous pointless bellend/fucking gobshite muppet
Of course, but the new added ingredients may not be as savory as they appear at first.
Anudder Oik
heinous pointless bellend/fucking gobshite muppet
On Al Jazeera just now.
If true, then they've been preparing this for weeks, apparently. Hardly a spontaneous reaction to protect civilians at the last minute and more like a calculated regime change operation.
If true, then they've been preparing this for weeks, apparently. Hardly a spontaneous reaction to protect civilians at the last minute and more like a calculated regime change operation.
Similar threads
- Locked
- Poll
