butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Odd that you didn't say this to your content free mate. "inter-personal hostility". Contribute - both of you.
What about Benghazi?
- Thread starter dylans
- Start date
Odd that you didn't say this to your content free mate. "inter-personal hostility". Contribute - both of you.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Have you quoted the wrong person?
dylans
overlord of all acorns
Fwiw. I don't think Israel enters into the equation of Libya in any significant way. Far more important are European nations particularly France and the UK who having thrown their eggs in the rebels basket have no choice but to see Gaddafi go. Not unless they want a grumpy Gaddafi throwing every poor African migrant labourer he can get his hands on onto the coasts of Europe.
Also far more important in this equation is the Gulf states who are leaping at the chance to tie the US back into the region in the light of its perceived declining regional power and the uppity Bahrainis and Yemenis threatening to upset the apple cart. Not to mention the Iranian bogeyman of Saudi bad dreams. I can just imagine the Saudi Royals grinning and rubbing their hands together at the prospects of another American led nation building exercise over the next ten years.
Anyway all off topic. Someone start a geo politics thread on this subject.
invisibleplanet
porter des cornes
Not forgetting the 45-60k (?) Bangladeshis who are also there, who have seen no help at all from their government to get the hell out of Libya.dylans said:
TruXta
tired
No. I asked you to say why you thought the OPs question was wrong, and why you thought one should inquire about Tripoli instead.
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
And kicking BP, Shell, TotalFina & BHP Billiton out of Libya.
Spion
I hear ya
Your only contribution to this thread is content-free trouble making. Contribute yourself, or do one, you fucking loon
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
That's not true at all is it?
invisibleplanet
porter des cornes
Did they kick Veba out too?
dylans
overlord of all acorns
Actually butchers, I'm interested in your take on my OP .
Idaho
blah blah blah
Well this thread has gone down the toilet. Which is a shame as dylans made such a informative and interesting opening post on a topic that has just about every moral and political angle there is. We could blame the trolls/loons, but they don't know any better. I think that the people feeding the troll/loons are more to blame.
But the deeper question is: why did they throw their eggs in that basket?
And that question is inseparable from the question in your OP.
Idaho
blah blah blah
Run along will you, the grown ups are trying to talk here.
dylans
overlord of all acorns
Yeah. Can everyone please pack it in and address the topic please.
Casually Red
tomorrow belongs to me
except thats what those nice chaps in Benghazi have been doing for the past few weeks now
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Dylans i will get back to you on this soonish.
TruXta
tired
You said you "don't agree the question needs to be asked". What am I missing?
Spion
I hear ya
Just ignore the fights/nutters. There were some points made before that
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
I'm not saying that you're missing anything.
Divisive Cotton
Now I just have my toy soldiers
Why can't we all love one another? Lets give peace a chance
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
Beause we're both heavily invested in the untroubled continuance of oil & other mineral mining in Libya, and quite clearly now we've lobbed a load of cruise missiles & JDAMs are Col. G he's not really going to be in a mood that's conducive to cheap resource extraction.
I suspect that Libyan prisons could easily be emptied & the coasts of France, Spain and Italy suddenly full of ex-prisoners of all types, a la the marielitos in Miami in the 80s.
Yes, but the question I asked is: why did "we" lob those missiles at him?
The question of the West's motive for getting involved is inseparable from the question of whether the West should get involved.
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
Panic?
In Sarko's case it's driven at least in part by national politics & his desire to win the Presidency again. Cameron I don't know - I don't suspect he does, and if he does have a plan, he should be sharing it with the army.
£75 to fill up the tank on a 1998 Golf - there's your reason for, and for many it's also a should.
In Sarko's case it's driven at least in part by national politics & his desire to win the Presidency again. Cameron I don't know - I don't suspect he does, and if he does have a plan, he should be sharing it with the army.
£75 to fill up the tank on a 1998 Golf - there's your reason for, and for many it's also a should.
invisibleplanet
porter des cornes
To have succeeded in holding Benghazi, the rebels would have needed to get the Fezzan oases & folk on their side, and hold those oases militarily & ideologically. Then onwards to Benghazi, then a push westwards either ideologically, with each town getting on board, or militarily, with rebels holding each town, although they don't seem to have the numbers needed for that, before capturing the trophy of Sirte (Khaddafi's home town) and then onwards, finally to Tripoli.dylans said:
I don't know. Sometimes there is only one chance for such an uprising as we see happen here in Libya. It would take years of planning for future rebels to succeed. Neither a continuing Khaddafi regime, nor any future post-Khaddafi regime will want the rebels to rise up again. Western intervention will both oust the Khaddafi regime and try to ensure that no future rebellions can rise up. I view the Western intervention as being both against the continuation of the Khaddafi regime, and against this and any future uprisings, although the Western powers will probably ensure the rebels are thrown a few bones to keep them nominally happy.
There are simply not enough rebels in the first place to have achieved the ousting of Khaddafi. It needed more Libyans to join that cause. That the rebels didn't sieze/hold/enjoin the folk at the Fezzan oases first makes for failure, imo. As things stand, there's no crossing from Benghazi to take Triploli without having the southern flank exposed to the Fezzan oases.
I don't think it's saveable in it's original form. I don't think those who rose up will be beaten that easily but it will take years or even a generation for them to rise up again. IMO, the Western businesses with investments in Libyan resources don't have that time and will work with whoever is next in power to prevent future uprisings.
invisibleplanet
porter des cornes
dylans
overlord of all acorns
Phil it's really not rocket science is it. Gaddafi was always the devils choice, even as Blair kissed his ass. The simple answer is that they gambled on the rebels winning and then the rebels went and spoilt it all by getting their asses kicked.
I also think there is an ideological dimension that has its own dynamics. Ever since Egypt both the US and European nations have been struggling to reformulate a new foreign policy that both accommodates the new emerging order while ensuring everything remains the same. Egypt is a classic example of this where elements of the old regime, the military, embraces the language of the democracy movement whilst ensuring their interests and most importantly from the West's point of view, their geo-political interests (yes Phil Israel) remain the same.
This has taken the form of a narrative and a set of assumptions One just as self absorbed as ever but one that presents the rolling wave of rebellions as an example of the primacy of liberal democracy. As such all national events are treated according to this narrative regardless of their particular national characteristics. They are all seen as desirous of recreating Western style liberal democratic regimes in the mould of the West. (again regardless of the reality of each case) The narrative dictates that the West must gently embrace these "democratic movements" even if it includes direct intervention as in the case of Libya.
The problem with this narrative however is obvious. It comes up against the reality of the fact that western power in region is based on the maintenance of thoroughly undemocratic regimes, particularly the Gulf states and those very gulf states are busy crushing democratic movement of their own most notably in Bahrain. This is a huge contradiction and judging by the number of comments across the world about Western hypocrisy, not one that is lost on people.
Libya is a dream for this narrative. It is a regime that the Gulf states hate. A regime that Western countries have long wished gone and a regime that really does itself no favours in terms of the Wests ability to spin it into the monster bogeyman of interventionist discourse. Gaddafi is the perfect candidate for James bondian villain. Really, you couldn't make it up. So, oblivious of the contradictions and hypocrisy, they march in regardless. Libya is the perfect world stage to demonstrate in BIG BOLD LETTERS the Wests democratic credentials. Supporting the rebellion but gently, no more Iraqs, no boots on the ground (yet) no direct regime change. Just " humanitarian intervention" to save the civilians. All aided by the genuinely heartfelt cries of "what about Benghazi"
TruXta
tired
That's what he wants. It's the only way he can feel powerful these days
Leave me out of your squabbles, please.
invisibleplanet
porter des cornes
Not my squabble, TruXta.
Similar threads
- Poll
