View previous topic | View next topic

Libya

Page 3 of 17
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4 ... 15, 16, 17  Next

bobwilson
795858.  Sun Mar 13, 2011 9:39 pm Reply with quote

Quote:
please note that I have made no comment about the desirability or otherwise of democracy on this or any other thread


I have no reason to disbelieve you on that point. Your change (on that point) is from:

Quote:
the point being that eventually the Libyans will have the leader they ultimately deserve assuming that what results from the debacle becomes some kind of democracy.


to

Quote:
the point being that eventually the Libyans will have their own popularist leader, assuming that what results from the debacle becomes some kind of democracy.


Both appear to assume that the ultimate goal is "some kind of democracy". For my part, a popularist leader would be sufficient, at least for those who see the need for a leader.

 
Celebaelin
795877.  Mon Mar 14, 2011 4:06 am Reply with quote

I know what I wrote bob! The main point I made is that the rebels are pro-democracy so the assumption that some sort of democracy would arise from a victory on their part is not an unreasonable one. We can now put at least one name on a rebel leader incidentally.

Quote:
Hadi Shalluf, president of Justice and Democracy Party of Libya says rebels also captured dozens of pro-Gadhafi soldiers.

http://www.voanews.com/english/news/africa/Butty-Libya-Opposition-Shalluf-14march11-117919179.html

 
Neotenic
795878.  Mon Mar 14, 2011 4:07 am Reply with quote

Quote:
Quote:
The Arab League recognise this (or appear to) and the rebels have not in fact said they don't want help, they've said they don't want US or NATO help although their ejection of the British 'diplomatic' group sent into Libya seems to suggest that the help they really want is from other Arab states.


Quote:
popularist leader would be sufficient, at least for those who see the need for a leader.


I think here we're really seeing one of the primary problems with leaderless movements - it didn't matter so much in Tunisia, and even less so in Egypt, as the resistance the protestors actually faced was, relatively speaking, minimal.

Now that there is a situation where the chap at the top of the tree really doesn't want to get down from his perch, external powers of any stripe have a grave difficulty in that there is no clear group or individual to negotiate with in order to provide support (or not, whatever the case may be).

In the various reports, I've seen claims that the rebels want no help at all, that they just want arms, that they want help but not from the West and also that they want the West to come in and bomb the stuffing out of wherever Gaddafi happens to be.

Similarly, when you have a bunch of hyped up young men with significant amounts of weaponry, but no heirarchy, you just have a bunch of guys with guns. And probably, a bunch that is steadily decreasing in number, especially if faced with more organised opposition.

 
Celebaelin
796214.  Mon Mar 14, 2011 9:42 pm Reply with quote

Radio interview on Today Hague: World 'reaching a point of decision' on Libya

 
Celebaelin
796217.  Mon Mar 14, 2011 9:57 pm Reply with quote

More names are emerging.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/14/libyan-rebel-leaders-gaddafi-benghazi

Quote:
Mustafa Gheriani, spokesman for the revolutionary national council in its stronghold of Benghazi


Quote:
The rebels' military leader, Abdel Fattah Younis, Gaddafi's former interior minister, has promised a vigorous defence of Ajdarbia to block the government's advance on Benghazi, 90 miles along the coastal road.


The rebels do seem rather confused about what the Libyan people want though - presumably because not all 'Libyans' want the same thing.

Quote:
The issue is complicated by overwhelming opposition even among the insurgents to foreign forces becoming involved on the ground, in large part because of strong views about the consequences of the invasion of Iraq.
//
However, Gheriani said that if the west failed to offer practical help to the revolutionaries to free themselves from Gaddafi's rule it risked frustrated Libyans turning to religious extremists.

"The west is missing the point. The revolution was started because people were feeling despair from poverty, from oppression. Their last hope was freedom. If the west takes too long where people say it's too little, too late then people become a target for extremists who say the west doesn't care about them," he said.

 
'yorz
796218.  Mon Mar 14, 2011 10:12 pm Reply with quote

Quote:
However, Gheriani said that if the west failed to offer practical help to the revolutionaries to free themselves from Gaddafi's rule it risked frustrated Libyans turning to religious extremists

Quote:
"If the west takes too long where people say it's too little, too late then people become a target for extremists who say the west doesn't care about them"


Somebody slotted the word 'religious' into Gheriani's quote. Extremists in my view are not per definition religious extremists.

But since that's what is apparently meant, Gheriani should have said:" If the west takes too long - where people say it's too little, too late - then people become a target for extremists who say the west doesn't care about muslims".

And that sounds entirely different. And much more emotive; such a statement would awaken lots of rabid anti-muslims.
Gheriani obviously is a careful man.


Last edited by 'yorz on Tue Mar 15, 2011 7:37 am; edited 1 time in total

 
Celebaelin
796222.  Mon Mar 14, 2011 10:37 pm Reply with quote

I think he would welcome any foreign assistance but is trying to cope with the fact that the majority (or perhaps a large minority) have 'views' on Western/non-Muslim involvement.

 
Neotenic
796291.  Tue Mar 15, 2011 6:43 am Reply with quote

We have something of a window into the potential consequences of intervention.

Saudi Arabia and UAE have sent troops to help out the government in Bahrain, which has led to open criticism from - of all places - Iran.

Obviously, certain Iranians are deploying a certain amount of selective recall when it comes to how they themselves have dealt with the demands of the folks within their borders in the not too distant past.

 
bobwilson
796515.  Tue Mar 15, 2011 10:46 pm Reply with quote

Quote:
Obviously, certain Iranians are deploying a certain amount of selective recall when it comes to how they themselves have dealt with the demands of the folks within their borders in the not too distant past.


Don't mention Ulster. Or the SNP. Or Plaid Cymru.

Quote:
I think here we're really seeing one of the primary problems with leaderless movements...........external powers of any stripe have a grave difficulty in that there is no clear group or individual to negotiate with in order to provide support (or not, whatever the case may be).


Yep - it's a bugger isn't it? Have you got a flag? (copyright Eddie Izzard). No flag - no discussion.

Governments like to talk to governments (or putative governments). How about letting the market decide?

 
samivel
796567.  Wed Mar 16, 2011 5:22 am Reply with quote

bobwilson wrote:
Quote:
Obviously, certain Iranians are deploying a certain amount of selective recall when it comes to how they themselves have dealt with the demands of the folks within their borders in the not too distant past.


Don't mention Ulster. Or the SNP. Or Plaid Cymru.


I don't remember a great deal of military force being used on Plaid Cymru.

Still, it must be the same thing, or you wouldn't have mentioned it, would you?

 
suze
796698.  Wed Mar 16, 2011 12:01 pm Reply with quote

Neotenic wrote:
We have something of a window into the potential consequences of intervention.

Saudi Arabia and UAE have sent troops to help out the government in Bahrain, which has led to open criticism from - of all places - Iran.


Just one moment, though. The people of Libya who have risen up against Libya's tinpot dictator are perceived as "good" by the media in the West, and the Libyan government is "bad".

We're not hearing quite the same things about Bahrain. Hillary Clinton has expressed some unease about Saudi troops being sent to put down the rebellion in Bahrain, but Mr Cameron hasn't. Oh, and their tinpot dictator has been invited to next month's Royal wedding - as indeed has Saudi Arabia's. (Unlike Barack Obama, who hasn't been.)

Why the difference in approach?

 
CB27
796700.  Wed Mar 16, 2011 12:03 pm Reply with quote

I didn't want to get into the discussion about Libya because I felt that after the fall of Mubarak both the West and Iran should have been very cautious in how quickly they embrace revolutionary change.

Tunisia was a big surprise, Egypt less so because I felt there were plenty of peopl there in senior positions with would not need to feel threatened by a change of leadership and constitution.

Libya, and a number of other countries like Syria, Saudi Arabia and others were always going to be much more difficult for revolutions to succeed, because too many people in the most senior positions would face criminal charges, and possibly death, if a change of regime and new consitution were brought in.

I think from the beginning the UN was hampered by the rashness of certain countries to demand Gaddafi step down, which was a marked contrast with then kid gloves they initially used with Mubarak, and this was bound to threaten both him and those people who depend on him.

The reason why I'm writing now is because of mention of the situation in Bahrain. This is a completely different situation and oen that has more to do with the divide between Sunni and Shia than anything else.

Iran must be expected to support the Shia public, and Saudi Arabia and UAE must be expected to support the Sunni leadership. It's frighteningly reminiscent of the lead up to WWI, when the assassination of Arch Duke Ferdinand initially trigerred a conflict between which nations backed which state and escalated in an open war.

I don't think this will lead to an open war, nor the kind of conflict we saw a century ago, lessons have been learned and the weapons today are so destructive I don't think anyone has the appetite for a war they know will result in vast numbers of casualties either side.

At least I hope so.

 
Celebaelin
796702.  Wed Mar 16, 2011 12:09 pm Reply with quote

suze wrote:
Why the difference in approach?

suze wrote:
We're not hearing quite the same things about Bahrain. Hillary Clinton has expressed some unease about Saudi troops being sent to put down the rebellion in Bahrain, but Mr Cameron hasn't.

Geography? The US is concerned about Bahrain because that's where the 5th fleet is based. The UK is concerned about Libya because of its proximity to Europe and because of the oil.

A suggestion has been made that the proposal of a no-fly zone in Libya by Mr Cameron was prompted by HC and then put down by other members of the administration (not to mention the EU and G8). I can find no record of a Presidential stance on this from the US as yet - which is... presidential of him.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20110301/pl_afp/libyapoliticsunrestusmilitary_20110301165300
http://justinwrites.wordpress.com/2011/03/01/u-s-centcom-commander-marine-general-james-mattis-warns-no-fly-zone-could-lead-to-all-out-war-in-libya-as-british-pm-david-cameron-sounds-retreat-on-military-action/
tbh I'm unsure if the general is appointed by the administration - I figure he is since the President is CIC.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/11/libya-no-fly-zone-plan-rejected
http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/fails+agree+zone/4446996/story.html

Al-Jazeera meanwhile seems to think the US supports a no-fly zone in Libya.
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/africa/2011/03/201131362124556608.html

suze wrote:
Oh, and their tinpot dictator has been invited to next month's Royal wedding - as indeed has Saudi Arabia's. (Unlike Barack Obama, who hasn't been.)

They're Royal.

 
suze
796706.  Wed Mar 16, 2011 12:42 pm Reply with quote

Almost all of the European royal houses are "family" to some extent, so it's no great surprise that they get invited more or less ex officio - although, for instance, King Juan Carlos of Spain was pointedly not invited to Charles and Diana's wedding, so deviations from the principle are clearly allowed. (The Liechtensteiner royal family seem not to have been invited this time, perhaps because of their connexion with the Jacobite Claim.)

But the Arab world's monarchs are in no way "family", and there's no real reason for them to be there unless they happen genuinely to be friends of the Windsors. On the other hand, there are plenty of reasons why the al Khalifa and Saud kings, in particular, ought not to be there.

 
Prof Wind Up Merchant
797119.  Thu Mar 17, 2011 4:16 pm Reply with quote

Looks like Gaddafi is homing in on Benghazi tonight. If Gaddafi retakes the City then the rebels have failed.

 

Page 3 of 17
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4 ... 15, 16, 17  Next

All times are GMT - 5 Hours


Display posts from previous:   

Search Search Forums

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group