Libya - civil unrest & now NATO involvement

[elbows]

Obama has spoken. I missed the start of it so wont comment on detail yet, but its generally what we would expect, as usual.

 

[quimcunx]

One intervention someone suggested on AJE a little while ago would be to freeze his assets now. I missed the 2nd one...

 

[Gingerman]

One intervention someone suggested on AJE a little while ago would be to freeze his assets now. I missed the 2nd one...

Should be done with any fleeing dictator and his family,friends etc

 

[Tankus]

10.09pm GMT: Obama has just said that the US is considering "a full range of options" to take in regard to Libya. That includes unilateral action that the US could take by itself as well as multilateral action.

The clear implication here – although Obama won't say it – is that the US is including the possible use of military force against the Gaddafi regime as one of its options. But exactly what that means – enforcing a no-fly zone? – is an open question.

We'll post the full statement by Obama when we get it.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/blog/2011/feb/23/libya-gaddafi-live-blog

Libya: Tony Blair 'too close' to Gaddafi regime, David Cameron claims
Tony Blair built too close a relationship with the Libyan regime of Muammar Gaddafi, David Cameron has said.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...e-to-Gaddafi-regime-David-Cameron-claims.html

first malta ,,now lebanon

My bet ..Silvio........ although shes a bit old for his tastes ..military base out of sight

Airports around the Middle East were on Wednesday night turning away planes carrying members of Col. Muammar Gaddafi's family.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...e-East-airports-turn-away-Gaddafi-planes.html

No shortage of fuel ?

 

[quimcunx]

Should be done with any fleeing dictator and his family,friends etc

It is. But he hasn't fled. Interviewee was saying to do it now. Although I have no idea how much cash he's got under his mattress.

Something to stop mercenaries being brought in could be useful.

Someone said that some criteria have been met to justify UN blue hats going in, ie it's an occuppied country (by the mercenaries)

 

[southside]

Why does gadaffy gduck dress like a cross between Robin hood and a paint baller?

He's a bit of a nut case and a tyrant.

I feel for the Libyans.

All of this shit in the middle east makes me happy that I live here and makes a lot of the protests people cry about here pale into insignificance.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

All of this shit in the middle east makes me happy that I live here and makes a lot of the protests people cry about here pale into insignificance.

I hate this attitude.

 

[southside]

I hate this attitude.

Why?

Because its realistic and honest no bullshit opinion.

 

[dylans]

@dylans

I do agree with you about "the essentially democratic nature of these uprisings", however if an impasse is reached where protesters - unarmed or maybe with rifles - are facing tanks, artillery, shelling from gunships and bombers, then how does it undermine the 'democratic' and 'mass' nature of the revolution if someone with the required technology helps them out? Would you also object to intervention by Egyptian (ie non-western) military units? I get the impression that you are very concerned with ideological issues - you only want the right *kind* of intervention. My attitude is that putting some of Gadafi's airplanes or tanks out of action (for example) could help save a lot of human lives and wouldn't make a massive iraq-style civil war any more or less likely - it just levels things up a bit between the two sides on the ground.

I understand why people are calling for Western intervention. The images of repression are just awful and the Libyan people are suffering but this is a revolution. An act by the people of Libya not an act of intervention by Western powers and it is their task to finish the job they started. It is their revolution. When it is over, and it will be over, the Libyan people will know that it was by their hand that it was achieved. Their act. Their revolution. That act of democratic self determination is precious and everlasting and far too fragile to sacrifice by inviting the enemy (yes the enemy) to intervene.


I don't have a problem with (a hypothetical) revolutionary Egyptian military intervening if invited (not that this will happen of course) I do have a big problem to ask the very imperialist powers whose geo political meddling created these despotic regimes in the first place to come to the assistance of the revolution. They are are the mortal enemies of this process, despite their statements to the contrary and it is western governments who supported dictatorship in Egypt for 4 decades and who still routinely defend the crimes of Israel in the West Bank.

It was "made in USA on the tear gas cannisters of Cairo. It is made in USA on the shotguns in Bahrain as it is on the tanks in occupied Palestine as I am sure it will be written on the tear gas cannisters of Saudi Arabia. It was the British government who "rehabilitated Gadaffi" to take advantage of lucrative oil contracts. It is Western governments who reinstated dictatorship in Kuwait (when they could have insisted on democratic reforms) following the "liberation.

It is the USA who support the regimes of the gulf states and who for decades have actively opposed calls for democratic change across the region.


It was Britain who as the former colonial power which carved the political boundaries of these countries and it is the neo liberal policies of "western investment that has created the hopelessness of mass unemployment and rising food prices that keep the people of these regions in poverty.

It is the ideological smokescreen put forward for decades by Western powers that painted the Arab populations as incapable of democratic rule and bound them to dictatorships across the region.

Finally it was the US and Britain who committed war crimes in Iraq at the cost of 5 million lives and the destruction of an ancient society.
And we are expected to trust these same government to "intervene"? I think they have done enough damage, don't you?

 

[elbows]

The following article mostly focuses on the British evacuation cockups but contains something interesting later on:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/feb/23/libya-rescue-mission-criticised-by-britons

David Moore, a surveyor from High Wycombe working on Benghazi's new airport for SNC Lavalin, a Canadian company, is trapped with around 2,500 others in his camp which has been looted. Food is running out and he claimed a jet tried to bomb the airfield and was reportedly shot down.

"Two MiG 23s have attacked the runways (1700hrs)," he wrote in an email to his wife, Lynne. "I heard the bombs going off and one MiG was shot down and crashed south of here. The pilots ejected. Another tried at 1800hrs and the bombs went off well south of the runways … we sit here with our minders who are really just looking after their spoils of war. They have already stripped the site of everything and now they want to strip the camp. They are waiting for us to leave but I am sure they are getting fed up of waiting."

 

[quimcunx]

I hate this attitude.

You're meant to which is why it's better to ignore self-styled thread mercenaries.

 

[classicdish]

It's not a question of what is contrary to my political beliefs as you so patronisingly put it. It is a case of recognising political realities. The reality that Nato and the US are ardent supporters of Israel (and previously Mubarak) and of the very despots that are being challenged. To ask David Cameron, who was in Kuwait yesterday selling them tear gas, to come to the support of Arab revolutionaries is like inviting the wolf to dinner. They will come, and eat the guests.

What exactly has Israel got to do with this?

What are the revolutionaries going to do if faced with tanks, artillery, APCs and bombers? I really hope Libyans can get rid of Gadafi 100% by themselves, but Gadafi has got his arms from outside the country, he has recruited mercenaries from outside the country, you don't seem to have any objection to the 'right kind' of foreign assistance (international brigades), there have been reports that people on the ground are asking for international help (including military) - so I don't see anything wrong with taking out some of Gadafi's planes or tanks if this will save many innocent lives and assist the aims of the revolution.

Maybe you can explain in more detail how taking out a plane or tank is "eating the guests"?

I am not saying that the US, UK, NATO, Egypt or anyone else *is* going to intervene - I am arguing that there may be a valid case for them to do so (eg if Gadafi starts carpet bombing Benghazi).

 

[elbows]

It was Britain who as the former colonial power which carved the political boundaries of these countries and it is the neo liberal policies of "western investment that has created the hopelessness of mass unemployment and rising food prices that keep the people of these regions in poverty.

In the case of Libya it was Italy that was the colonial power, and the British & French got it as a result of world war 2.

 

[Tankus]

What exactly has Israel got to do with this?

What are the revolutionaries going to do if faced with tanks, artillery, APCs and bombers? I really hope Libyans can get rid of Gadafi 100% by themselves, but Gadafi has got his arms from outside the country, he has recruited mercenaries from outside the country, you don't seem to have any objection to the 'right kind' of foreign assistance (international brigades), there have been reports that people on the ground are asking for international help (including military) - so I don't see anything wrong with taking out some of Gadafi's planes or tanks if this will save many innocent lives and assist the aims of the revolution.

Maybe you can explain in more detail how taking out a plane or tank is "eating the guests"?

I am not saying that the US, UK, NATO, Egypt or anyone else *is* going to intervene - I am arguing that there may be a valid case for them to do so (eg if Gadafi starts carpet bombing Benghazi).

Nato should avoid this like the plague ...because it will be if they do

 

[Combustible]

I understand why people are calling for Western intervention. The images of repression are just awful and the Libyan people are suffering but this is a revolution. An act by the people of Libya not an act of intervention by Western powers and it is their task to finish the job they started. It is their revolution. When it is over, and it will be over, the Libyan people will know that it was by their hand that it was achieved. Their act. Their revolution. That act of democratic self determination is precious and everlasting and far too fragile to sacrifice by inviting the enemy (yes the enemy) to intervene.

This sort of flourish doesn't change the fact that certain forms of intervention may severely reduce the ability of the regime to crush the Libyan people. Of course intervention from the US (or any other country) would not be for altruistic reasons and any form of intervention may be used by the regime to strengthen it's to rally against outsiders. But it seems a bit rich to preach from a position of safety to people possibly facing aerial bombardment or attack from armoured divisions that the West shouldn't prevent this on the grounds that it is their revolution, their task alone and that they must preserve their act as one of democratic self determination.

 

[elbows]

Facepalms via the BBC:

2047: Col Gaddafi's son Saif al-Islam appears on state TV to declare that life is "normal" in Libya's western regions: "The ports, schools and airports are all open. The problem lies in the eastern regions."

Another son, the ex-footballer, spoke to the Financial Times, here are a few extracts:

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/bc99db2e-3f74-11e0-a1ba-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1EpArS2HQ

Muammer Gaddafi expects to be the “big father” advisor to any new regime in Libya and the country’s current bloody turmoil amounts to a “positive earthquake” that is paving the way for much-needed reform.

That is the assessment of Saadi Gaddafi, one of the Libyan autocrat’s seven sons, who in a telephone interview with the Financial Times that appeared to betray the Gaddafi clan’s increasing isolation, declared that as much as 85 per cent of the country was now “very calm and very safe”.

He also claimed that the British government had last year sent SAS forces to eastern Libya to “train our special forces because they were expecting to fight al-Qaeda in this part of the country”.

Like his father and brother earlier in the week, Mr Gaddafi insisted that many protesters had taken “very powerful” drugs, such as amphetamines or ecstasy.

“We have tonnes of the pills they were given,” he said, though he did not know where they had come from.

lol yeah I bet you have tons of drugs.

 

[dylans]

This sort of flourish doesn't change the fact that certain forms of intervention may severely reduce the ability of the regime to crush the Libyan people. Of course intervention from the US (or any other country) would not be for altruistic reasons and any form of intervention may be used by the regime to strengthen it's to rally against outsiders. But it seems a bit rich to preach from a position of safety to people possibly facing aerial bombardment or attack from armoured divisions that the West shouldn't prevent this on the grounds that it is their revolution, their task alone and that they must preserve their act as one of democratic self determination.

Did you oppose the invasion of Iraq? Saddam was very nasty. It got rid of him. It seems a bit rich to oppose the invasion from the safety of our homes and insist getting rid of Saddam should be the task of the Iraqi people.

 

[Tankus]

Originally Posted by Combustible
This sort of flourish doesn't change the fact that certain forms of intervention may severely reduce the ability of the regime to crush the Libyan people. Of course intervention from the US (or any other country) would not be for altruistic reasons and any form of intervention may be used by the regime to strengthen it's to rally against outsiders. But it seems a bit rich to preach from a position of safety to people possibly facing aerial bombardment or attack from armoured divisions that the West shouldn't prevent this on the grounds that it is their revolution, their task alone and that they must preserve their act as one of democratic self determination.

no ...its the aftermath ....every islamist nut job will claim this was all USA lead ...and the proof is, that they went in to finish the job ..!..let the Saudis and Egyptians go in ...chist knows ...they have got all the kit for it

 

[Tankus]

He also claimed that the British government had last year sent SAS forces to eastern Libya to “train our special forces

I think that bit may be true
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2004/mar/24/foreignpolicy.uk1

Blair to offer Libya military training 2004

If the family are fleeing ...its got to be near the end game ... hopefully
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...e-East-airports-turn-away-Gaddafi-planes.html

 

[classicdish]

@ dylans

So if Libyans are calling for help to take out tanks and planes your answer is 'it's your task to finish the job'?

I don't see how a NATO-enforced no-fly-zone would negate the "democratic self determination" of what has already happened. It's only impact on events would be to stop Gadafi using foreign arms, foreign military advisers and foreign mercenaries to kill his own people. Demanding protesters take on tanks with - well with what exactly? Are you saying that the only way Libyans can 'own' their revolution is for them to walk in front of a machine gun? Maybe you'd like to lead the way?

You have already decided that Obama is against the Libyan revolution and that therefore anything he does will not assist but harm the revolution. You imply that Egypt, Bahrain, Palestine and Saudi Arabia are all identical cases and are all linked together. You imply that because the US/west has made bad decisions in the past they can't make a good decision now - that any involvement, no matter what they are doing, is bad.

My view is that there would be no massive harm, but plenty of good, in a non-fly zone or other targeted intervention against Gadafi if he started a full-on military attack. His regime is already as good as finished but he may well seek to take a lot of people with him. Destroying a bunch of attack jet parked on an airfield isn't taking over the revolution and doesn't diminish the democratic nature of the revolution - it just means that more Libyans will be alive next week to enjoy it.

 

[Combustible]

Did you oppose the invasion of Iraq? Saddam was very nasty. It got rid of him. It seems a bit rich to oppose the invasion from the safety of our homes and insist getting rid of Saddam should be the task of the Iraqi people.

The invasion of Iraq caused the death of millions of civilians and made life much worse for many others destroying vital infrastructure. It led to an unpopular foreign occupation and permanent US presence in the country. Invading Iraq meant many civilians would face devastating bombardment rather than possibly preventing it. It is not a problem to say from our own safety that the West should not unleash bombardment and destruction on the people of a country. It is to say the West should not take steps to prevent it if it possible to do so without strong concrete reasons. And to preserve the purity of the revolution as being by the people's hand alone does not seem a very good reason why they should have to endure being bombed by the Libyan airforce.

 

[Crispy]

This is just a suggestion, but it's traditional for threads like these to concern themselves mainly with the events as they happen. I think there's a very good discussion/argument to be had on the nature of intervention in other countries' revolutions but it might be better suited to its own thread.

 

[elbows]

The chances of any nation intervening in such a way is even lower when they still have citizens of theirs in the country, unless they thought they could finish the regime very quickly indeed. Egypt, GB and USA all have this problem at the moment. Egypt has far too many to stand a chance of evacuating most of them, unless they are all in the east, USA and UK dont face such a big task in this regard.

Obama kept all options open in his speech but thats standard.

 

[classicdish]

Nato should avoid this like the plague ...because it will be if they do

Actually millions of people in the middle east will never forgive Europe/US/NATO if it just sits on its hands, does nothing and watches while Gadafi slaughters thousands of innocent people.

 

[classicdish]

This is just a suggestion, but it's traditional for threads like these to concern themselves mainly with the events as they happen. I think there's a very good discussion/argument to be had on the nature of intervention in other countries' revolutions but it might be better suited to its own thread.

Have you missed Obama's announcement then? This is 'events as they happen'.

 

[weltweit]

I would not have much problem with some outside force taking out the Libyan air force and tanks.

They could soften up Gaddafi's compound for my money also.

As long as that was all they did.

 

[elbows]

This is just a suggestion, but it's traditional for threads like these to concern themselves mainly with the events as they happen. I think there's a very good discussion/argument to be had on the nature of intervention in other countries' revolutions but it might be better suited to its own thread.

True, although I think a startling lack of detailed news about recent developments in locations such as Tripoli does provide some room to talk about some of this stuff here at the moment.

 

[Crispy]

That's fair enough

 

[dylans]

This is just a suggestion, but it's traditional for threads like these to concern themselves mainly with the events as they happen. I think there's a very good discussion/argument to be had on the nature of intervention in other countries' revolutions but it might be better suited to its own thread.

Fair enough. Just one final thing. The fact is, for all the calls for Western intervention, Gadaffi is on his knees. The revolutionaries control 80% of the country. This revolution is going to succeed and it is going to succeed at the hands of the Libyan people. This is what we should be celebrating, not despairing and calling for the West to help

 

[weltweit]

I have been hearing that the first uprising in Tunisia was especially sparked into life when someone publicly self immolated in protest at conditions.

I have been googling around it but cannot find out much more, does anyone know about that?