Gadhafi troops
attack rebel city, lockdown capital
My thoughts go out to the Libyan people. I truly hope they can achieve their freedom. I wish our government would do something to help them. I do not know what. We are in the middle of a financial crisis and fighting two wars, not to mention meddling in other countries' politics. Still, I wish there were something we could do.
attack rebel city, lockdown capitalMy thoughts go out to the Libyan people. I truly hope they can achieve their freedom. I wish our government would do something to help them. I do not know what. We are in the middle of a financial crisis and fighting two wars, not to mention meddling in other countries' politics. Still, I wish there were something we could do.
+1
attack rebel city, lockdown capitalMy thoughts go out to the Libyan people. I truly hope they can achieve their freedom. I wish our government would do something to help them. I do not know what. We are in the middle of a financial crisis and fighting two wars, not to mention meddling in other countries' politics. Still, I wish there were something we could do.
That America could take Libya in a matter of days with a couple of brigades seems highly probable but I question if they should. The minute America intervenes they make Ghaddafi a martyr. In fact I'm not even sure the UN could intervene without a serious backlash.
Such a move would call into the question of any government that followed - the very real stigma of being 'puppets of the west' would hound their every action. Worse yet if things do not pan out as I claim and there is some kind of Libyan long term resistance then this becomes one more front in a series of 'invasions by West on Arab states'. In that scenario Americans die while battling Arab volunteers that are not even of Libyan but have come from other Arab nations to combat 'western imperialists'.
Continuing to back the rebels with support in the form of food and legitimacy in the form of helping them to sell their oil is probably the best the West can do under the circumstances.
If we want to do some good then a UN intervention in the Ivory Coast seems more worthwhile and less likely to blow up in our face.
Someone give me the readers digest of what IS going on in Libya? I don't have TV and the TV at work just shows people on it saying "I love Gaddaffi"
As far as getting involved? Everyone always thinks the US should get involved, and when we do, we get blamed for bullying people, sticking our nose where it doesn't belong and blah blah blah.
Thats a double edged sword to say the least.
UN usually gets involved a single premise, human rights violations. Starving civilians, dictators denying medical aid to those who need it, etc etc etc.
The French jumped in on the American Revolution, had they not, it's unlikely the Colonists would have succeeded.
I can't remember who was meddling in the Civil War (history memory fails me here) but it was either the british or the french again, aiding the Southern Successionists. So somebody was futzing around in there too.
In modern days, the 'Futzer' is the U.S.
We are busy 'Futzing' In Afghanistan, and made a giant toilet bowl out of Iraq.
Don't get me wrong with what I'm saying, Im ex military, and I think we should have kept the tanks rolling, syria, iran, blah blah blah we should have kept going. But, then again we weren't there to wipe out the islamic world, heck it's not quite clear WHY we were there, maybe we just wanted someone to bully and blame and saddam was making faces at us?
A decade later it's still not clear, but to go in, fight half a war, claim WMD is the boogie man behind every curtain and street corner, and hangout in town for a decade was quite silly.
The Afghan war is equally pointless, That's like trying to exterminate every ant the ever existed, Let's run into caves and kill anything we find.
That's another Vietnam, you will never find them all and 'get' them all.
Without any real achievable and permanently lasting goals, what are you going to achieve by kicking down someone door, and sitting on their couch?
They will just be annoyed by you, until you get bored and leave, then back to business as usual.
Let's assume The US wasn't fighting two wars (really one now) and had money. What would be accomplished by marching in there with guns?
Boss everyone around? Tell them they are living life wrong? Force them to become a mockery of democracy?
Wasn't that Hitlers plan? The world will be better if everyone just lived the German way?
Keep kicking down people's doors and one will find himself on the loosing side of a world war.
Non military solutions never work in hostile 'hot zones'. In my opinion it's like a dog fight, you can't separate them without getting bit, if you stop the fight they will start again when you are gone, and it's never a pleasant thing to watch.
Technically, we neither have the right or the power to meddle in sovereign nations issues.
Gulf War 1 was deploying to aid and ally (Kuwait asked us for help)
Gulf War 2 was, well people are still arguing that one.
Afghanistan was you bombed me, Ill bomb you back.
alot of stuff went on in the late 70s to 89 which were brief military actions which surround "the safe guarding of american citizens" kind of behavior.
I don't think I ever understood vietnam or korea, so I just chock it up to "the red scare" and trying to stop the spread of communism.
But I never understood why we were so afraid about some vietnameese or koreans becoming communist? their lives were so bad in so many other ways, why were we worried about that aspect? I dunno.
WW2 was about being asked (repeatedly again and again) for help from other friendly nations (we really didnt want to get involved)
WW1, gosh im right there at vietnam...something about an arch duke blah blah blah, still don't know why we bothered with that one.
Before that we got mad at mexico and cuba, ran all over our own continent trying really hard to exact genocide on american natives all the while trying to look like we were not, got mad at out brothers next door and decided to fight them over cotton and economy and years later trying to claim it was a moral crusade to free slaves (which it really wasnt) , was of 1812, nuff said... and our own revolution, i've come full circle.
So what really can you accomplish besides wasting lives and money, but getting into someone else's fight?
There is no doubt in my mind we could steam roll all over libya.
Heck we could take the whole middle east, whats to stop us? lets go after greece and italy, morocco they havent done anything but we could make something up. im sure someone has got something to complain about.
But for that matter, why doesn't some OTHER country do something about it?
Why does it have to be the US. We don't even have a controlling seat in the UN! One of those countries can "do" something.
As far as the whole starving babies and all that, there's red cross and a half dozen other non military type organizations.
Im sure if you asked the Libyans, they wouldn't want the US involved either.
Edit: I just googled this to learn something about why it's happening. It seems to be spontaneous uprising?
Why? what for?
Gaddaffi has been in power since 1969, there hasnt been trouble like this, that I'm aware of, before?
Are they just tired and want him to die, or are they all 'pissy' because they don't want his son to take over and go another 40 years?
What is so bad about living in Libya and their governmental situation that is causing all this now?
|
Libya, an oil-rich nation in North Africa, has been under the firm, if sometimes erratic, control of Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi since he seized power in 1969. But in February 2011, the unrest sweeping through much of the Arab world erupted in several Libyan cities. Though it began with a relatively organized core of antigovernment opponents in Benghazi, its spread to the capital of Tripoli was swift and spontaneous, outracing any efforts to coordinate the protests. Colonel Qaddafi lashed out with a level of violence unseen in either of the other uprisings, but the rebels fought back and won tribal leaders and an increasing share of the military to their side, seizing the eastern half of the country.
March 4 Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi’s government widened its counterattack on its rebel opponents, waging fierce battles to wrest control of the town of Zawiya from rebel troops, attacking an eastern oil town and firing on peaceful protesters after Friday prayers in Tripoli, witnesses said. At least 35 people were reported dead, more than 100 wounded and 65 missing in Zawiya, 25 miles west of Tripoli. Timeline: Qaddafi
March 3 A warplane renewed attacks on the eastern oil terminal town of Brega, Reuters said, a day after troops loyal to Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi launched a ground and air attack that was repulsed by rebels. The impact of the airstrikes and details of the targets remained sketchy, with some reports saying they had been aimed at an airfield close to oil installations. Arab diplomats, meanwhile, examined reports of a peace plan proposed by Venezuela’s President Hugo Chavez, an ally of Colonel Qaddafi. An estimated 180,000 people have fled Libya in the past 10 days, more than half seeking refuge in Tunisia.
March 2 In a fierce day-long battle, rebel forces in the strategic oil town of Brega successfully repelled an attack by government-aligned mercenaries backed by artillery and war planes, witnesses in the town said. At least five were confirmed dead and 16 wounded in the fighting, the witnesses said. The attack seemed to be part of a broader effort by Libya’s Col. Muammar al-Qaddafi to reassert control over strategic oil assets in the eastern part of the country, which have been seized by rebel forces in recent weeks.
March 1 Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi’s forces appeared to make little headway in a concerted assault on rebels in several cities around the country and in a sustained attack in the western city of Zawiyah. Rebels appeared to hold the city after a night of fighting, fending off tanks and artillery vehicles, special forces and regular army troops, and, rebels said, fighter jets. The Pentagon began repositioning Navy warships closer to the Libyan coast to support a possible humanitarian or military intervention.
Feb. 28 Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi’s forces struck back at his opponents on three fronts, with special forces, regular army troops and, rebels said, fighter jets. But the rebels dismissed the attacks as ineffectual, and Colonel Qaddafi faced a growing international campaign to force him from power, as the Obama administration announced it had seized $30 billion in Libyan assets and the European Union adopted an arms embargo and other sanctions. And as the Pentagon began repositioning Navy warships to support a possible humanitarian or military intervention, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton bluntly told the Libyan leader to surrender power “now, without further violence or delay.” The increasingly tense standoff has prompted a huge exodus of poorly-paid contract workers streaming to Libya’s borders with Tunisia and Egypt.
Feb. 27 The ring of rebel control around Tripoli appeared to be tightening, but in a sign that the fight was far from over, armed government forces were seen massing around the city. In Benghazi, protesters nominated the country’s former justice minister to lead a provisional government, moving to avoid the chaos that some analysts warned would overtake a Libya not ruled by Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi. The United Nations Security Council voted unanimously to impose sanctions on Col. Qaddafi and his inner circle of advisers, and called for an international war crimes investigation into “widespread and systemic attacks” against Libyan citizens.
Feb. 26 A bold play by Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi to prove that he was firmly in control of Libya appeared to backfire as foreign journalists he invited to the capital discovered blocks of the city in open defiance. Witnesses described snipers and antiaircraft guns firing at unarmed civilians, and security forces were removing the dead and wounded from streets and hospitals, apparently in an effort to hide the mounting toll. One day after the United States closed its embassy and imposed unilateral sanctions against Libya, the United Nations Security Council met in New York to consider imposing international sanctions, including an arms embargo and an asset freeze and travel ban against Col. Qaddafi, his relatives and key members of his government. Timeline: Qaddafi
Feb. 25 In Tripoli, Security forces loyal to Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi used gunfire to try to disperse thousands of protesters who streamed out of mosques after prayers to mount their first major challenge to the government’s crackdown in the capital. Rebel leaders said they were sending forces from nearby cities and other parts of the country to join the fight. International efforts to stem the bloodshed appeared to gain momentum, with the United Nations Security Council scheduled to meet to discuss a draft proposal for sanctions against Libyan leaders and NATO convening an emergency session in Brussels.
Feb. 24 Forces loyal to Col. Qaddafi were reported to be striking back in several cites surrounding Tripoli, as rebellion crept closer to the capital and defections of military officers multiplied. He has called on thousands of mercenaries and irregular security forces, a ruthless and loyal force he has quietly built up over the years, distrustful even of his generals. Clashes were also reported 130 miles east of the capital near Misurata, a city where opposition forces had claimed control. 
Feb. 23 The week-old uprising that has swept Libya appeared headed for a decisive stage, with Col. Qaddafi fortifying his bastion in Tripoli and opponents in the capital saying they were making plans for their first coordinated protest after midday prayers on Feb. 25. The looming signs of a new confrontation came as a growing number of Libyan military officers and officials said that they had broken with Colonel Qaddafi over his intentions bomb and kill Libyan civilians challenging his four decades of rule. The foreign minister of Italy — the former colonial power with longstanding ties — said that nationwide more than 1,000 people were probably dead in the strife. 
Feb. 22 Trying to demonstrate that he was still in control, Colonel Qaddafi appeared on state television. In a long rambling address, he blamed the unrest on “foreign hands,” a small group of people distributing pills, brainwashing, and the naïve desire of young people to imitate the uprisings in Egypt and Tunisia. Yet the country appeared to slip further into chaos. Opposition forces in eastern Libya, where the rebellion began, moved to consolidate their control.
Feb. 21 The faltering government of Colonel Qaddafi struck back at the mounting protests as helicopters and warplanes besieged parts of Tripoli - the Libyan capital. The escalation of the conflict came after Colonel Qaddafi’s security forces had earlier in the day retreated to a few buildings in Tripoli, fires burned unchecked, and senior government officials and diplomats announced defections. The country’s second-largest city, Benghazi, remained under the control of rebels. News agencies reported that several foreign oil and gas companies were moving to evacuate some workers from the country.
Feb. 20 Libyan security forces again fired on a funeral procession through the city of Benghazi, as residents buried dozens of dead from a crackdown the day before and as a five-day-old uprising against the dictatorship of Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi appeared to spread to other cities along the Mediterranean coast. The advocacy group Human Rights Watch said it had proof that at least 173 had been killed since the uprising’s start. But several people in Benghazi hospitals, reached by telephone, said they believed as many as 200 had been killed and more than 800 wounded there on Feb. 19 alone. The Libyan government, meanwhile, has attempted to impose a near total blackout on the country. Foreign journalists cannot enter, and internet access has been almost totally cut off.
Feb. 19 Protests continued as the government moved to shut down the Internet. Human rights observers put the death toll in Libya after three days of government crackdowns against protesters at 84.
Feb. 18 The severity of the government's crackdown began to emerge when Human Rights Watch said 24 people had been killed by gunfire and news reports said further clashes with security were feared at the funerals for the dead.
Feb. 17 Protests broke out in several parts of Libya on a so-called Day of Rage to challenge Colonel Qaddafi's 41-year-old iron rule — the region’s longest. Thousands turned out in the restive city of Benghazi; in Tripoli; and at three other locations, according to Human Rights Watch. The state media, though, showed Libyans waving green flags and shouting in support of Colonel Qaddafi.
Feb. 16 A crowd armed with gasoline bombs and rocks protested outside a government office in Benghazi, Libya's second-largest city, to demand the release of a human rights advocate in Tripoli, the capital. Protesters using social networking sites like Twitter and Facebook then called for nationwide demonstrations to demand Colonel Qaddafi’s ouster. The demonstrators, estimated at several hundred to several thousand, marched to the city’s central square, where they clashed with riot police officers. In the city of Zentan, hundreds marched through the streets and set fire to security headquarters and a police station.
|
|
BACKGROUND
Colonel Qaddafi took power in a bloodless coup in September 1969 and has ruled with an iron fist, seeking to spread Libya’s influence in Africa. He has built his rule on a cult of personality and a network of family and tribal alliances supported by largess from Libya’s oil revenues.
The United States withdrew its ambassador from Libya in 1972 after Colonel Qaddafi renounced agreements with the West and repeatedly inveighed against the United States in speeches and public statements.
After a mob sacked and burned the American Embassy in 1979, the United States cut off relations. But the relationship did not reach its nadir until 1986, when the Reagan administration accused Libya of ordering the bombing of a German discothèque that killed three people. In response, the United States bombed targets in Tripoli and Benghazi.
The most notorious of Libya's actions was the bombing in 1988 of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, which killed 270 people. Libya later accepted responsibility, turned over suspects and paid families of victims more than $2 billion.
After a surprise decision to renounce terrorism in 2003, Colonel Qaddafi re-established diplomatic and economic ties throughout Europe. He had also changed with regard to Israel. The man who once called for pushing the ''Zionists'' into the sea advocated the forming of one nation where Jews and Palestinians would live together in peace.
Rather than trying to destabilize his Arab neighbors, he founded a pan-African confederation modeled along the lines of the European Union. On Feb. 2, 2009, Colonel Qaddafi was named chairman of the African Union. His election, however, caused some unease among some of the group's 53-member nations as well as among diplomats and analysts. The colonel, who has ruled Libya with an iron hand, was a stark change from the succession of recent leaders from democratic countries like Tanzania, Ghana and Nigeria.
The most significant changes had been the overtures Colonel Qaddafi has made toward the United States. He was among the first Arab leaders to denounce the Sept. 11 attacks, and he lent tacit approval to the American-led invasion of Afghanistan. To the astonishment of other Arab leaders, he reportedly shared his intelligence files on Al Qaeda with the United States to aid in the hunt for its international operatives. He had also cooperated with the United States and Europe on nuclear weapons, terrorism and immigration issues.
In August 2009, Colonel Qaddafi embarrassed the British government and drew criticism from President Obama with his triumphant reaction to the release from prison of Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi, the only person convicted in the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103. Mr. Megrahi was given a hero's welcome when he arrived in Libya, and Colonel Qaddafi thanked British and Scottish officials for releasing Mr. Megrahi at a time that they were trying to distance themselves from the action.
Colonel Qaddafi, born in 1942, is the father of many sons who are now jockeying to succeed him. Experts say his eldest, Seif al-Islam el-Qaddafi, is the current leader. Educated in Britain, well-dressed and fluent in English, he has been a bridge between the Libya power centers and the West.
Prior to the 2011 unrest, the only hint of potential change in Libya came from Seif al-Islam el-Qaddafi, a son and possible successor to Colonel Qaddafi, who spoke of dismantling a legacy of Socialism and authoritarianism introduced by his father 40 years ago. Seif Qaddafi proposed far-reaching ideas: tax-free investment zones, a tax haven for foreigners, the abolition of visa requirements and the development of luxury hotels.
Seif Qaddafi liked to boast that his country could be “the Dubai of North Africa,” he said, citing Libya’s proximity to Europe (the flight from London to Tripoli is under three hours), its abundant energy reserves and 1,200 miles of mostly unspoiled Mediterranean coastline. Libya is wealthier than debt-ridden, oil-poor Dubai. Its $15,000 gross domestic product per person ranks it above Poland, Mexico and Chile, according to the World Bank. The government’s sovereign fund, a reserve of oil revenues, boasts $65 billion. And the government has announced plans to invest $130 billion over the next three years to improve infrastructure.
But the reality of daily life in Tripoli remained far removed from those lofty notions. The streets are strewn with garbage, there are gaping holes in the sidewalks, tourist-friendly hotels and restaurants are few and far between. And while a number of seaside hotels are being built, the city largely ignores its most spectacular asset, the Mediterranean.
Unemployment is estimated as high as 30 percent and much of the potential work force is insufficiently trained.
|
|
Uprising in Libya
In February 2010, protests broke out in several parts of Libya on a so-called Day of Rage to challenge Colonel Qaddafi's 41-year-old iron rule — the region’s longest. Thousands turned out in the restive city of Benghazi; in Tripoli; and at three other locations, according to Human Rights Watch. The state media, though, showed Libyans waving green flags and shouting in support of Colonel Qaddafi.
Trying to demonstrate that he was still in control, Colonel Qaddafi appeared on television on Feb. 22, 2011, speaking from his residence on the grounds of an army barracks in Tripoli that still showed scars from when the United States bombed it in 1986.
In the long, rambling address, he blamed the unrest on “foreign hands,” a small group of people distributing pills, brainwashing, and the naïve desire of young people to imitate the uprisings in Egypt and Tunisia. Without acknowledging the gravity of the crisis in the streets of the capital, he described himself in sweeping, megalomaniacal terms. “Muammar Qaddafi is history, resistance, liberty, glory, revolution,” he declared.
International condemnation of the violent crackdown continued to build. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton protested the violence in a statement. Ban Ki-moon, the United Nations secretary general, said on Feb. 21 that he had spoken to Colonel Qaddafi and urged him to halt attacks on protesters immediately. The Security Council held an emergency meeting the following day to discuss the bloodshed.
The Colonel's Security Forces
Colonel Qaddafi, who took power in a military coup, has always kept the Libyan military too weak and divided to rebel against him. About half of Libya's relatively small 50,000-member army is made up of poorly trained and unreliable conscripts, according to the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
Many of its battalions are organized along tribal lines, ensuring their loyalty to their own clan rather than to top military commanders — a pattern evident in the defection of portions of the army to help protesters take the eastern city of Benghazi.
His own clan dominates the air force and the upper level of army officers, and they are believed to have remained loyal to him, in part because his clan has the most to lose from his ouster.
Distrustful of his own generals, he built up an elaborate paramilitary force — accompanied by special segments of the regular army that report primarily to his family. It is designed to check the army and in part to subdue his own population. At the top of that structure is his roughly 3,000-member revolutionary guard corps, which mainly guards him personally.
But perhaps the most significant force that Colonel Qaddafi has deployed against the current insurrection is one believed to consist of about 2,500 ruthless mercenaries from countries like Chad, Sudan and Niger that he calls his Islamic Pan African Brigade.
The Last Stronghold
On Feb. 25, security forces loyal to Colonel Qaddafi used gunfire to try to disperse thousands of protesters who streamed out of mosques after prayers to mount their first major challenge to the government’s crackdown in Tripoli. Rebel leaders said they were sending forces from nearby cities and other parts of the country to join the fight. International efforts to stem the bloodshed appeared to gain momentum, with the United Nations Security Council meeting to discuss a draft proposal for sanctions against Libyan leaders and NATO convening an emergency session in Brussels.
A bold play by Colonel Qaddafi to prove that he was firmly in control of Libya appeared to backfire as foreign journalists he invited to the capital discovered blocks of the city in open defiance. Witnesses described snipers and antiaircraft guns firing at unarmed civilians, and security forces were removing the dead and wounded from streets and hospitals, apparently in an effort to hide the mounting toll.
The ring of rebel control around Tripoli appeared to be tightening, but in a sign that the fight was far from over, armed government forces were massing around the city. The United Nations Security Council voted unanimously to impose sanctions on Colonel Qaddafi and his inner circle of advisers, and called for an international war crimes investigation into “widespread and systemic attacks” against Libyan citizens.
On March 2, rebels in the strategic oil city of Brega repelled an attack by hundreds of Colonel Qaddafi’s fighters. The daylong battle was the first major incursion by the colonel’s forces in the rebel-held east of the country since the Libyan uprising began.
Though the regime of Colonel Qaddafi has clearly been badly undermined, it still retains significant strength, and enough support among critical tribes and institutions, including parts of the army and the air force, to retain power in Tripoli for some time to come.
I read exactly that on some page i googled. That doesnt help. Blah blah blah, what is really the problem.. "uprising"...WHY? TRue to the NY Times, it doesn't say what the motivations and problems are.
Anyone know? it's got to be more than, I dont like his face, it's been the same face since 69. If they havent rebelled before, why now?
|
I read exactly that on some page i googled. That doesnt help. Blah blah blah, what is really the problem.. "uprising"...WHY? TRue to the NY Times, it doesn't say what the motivations and problems are.
Anyone know? it's got to be more than, I dont like his face, it's been the same face since 69. If they havent rebelled before, why now?
The general feeling is that the area as a whole has a growing youth. They're reasonably well connected with cell phones and Internet access. Once things get rolling they spread very quickly, as does news of any attacks by pro governement forces. This is how Tunisia and Egypt occured, plus the demonstrations in other middle east countries.
In Lybia specifically the demonstrations have combined with the fact that the eastern area of the country around Bengzhali has always had some level of socio- economic separation from the western area around Tripoli. This has meant that the movement in the east has been able to become reasonably secure with a lot of the army in the region feeling more loyalty to the local authorities and people than to Gaddaffi.
I read exactly that on some page i googled. That doesnt help. Blah blah blah, what is really the problem.. "uprising"...WHY? TRue to the NY Times, it doesn't say what the motivations and problems are.
Anyone know? it's got to be more than, I dont like his face, it's been the same face since 69. If they havent rebelled before, why now?
The general feeling is that the area as a whole has a growing youth. They're reasonably well connected with cell phones and Internet access. Once things get rolling they spread very quickly, as does news of any attacks by pro governement forces. This is how Tunisia and Egypt occured, plus the demonstrations in other middle east countries.
In Lybia specifically the demonstrations have combined with the fact that the eastern area of the country around Bengzhali has always had some level of socio- economic separation from the western area around Tripoli. This has meant that the movement in the east has been able to become reasonably secure with a lot of the army in the region feeling more loyalty to the local authorities and people than to Gaddaffi.
So we have a younger generation, essentially, who wants change and upheaval for change sake?
They have nothing to gripe about, because their lives are so good, that they have enough time to organize each other on facebook and twitter, and it's essentially about nothing?What happened to the days of starving masses, unrighteous dictators eating cake while 1 can of soup feeds the masses, and people taxing our tea!!
Now we shot just snot faced kids who want to cause trouble? That's it?
They have jobs? Food? and they are causing all this? Wow I guess beachfront on the Mediterranean isn't all it's cracked up to be.
|
|
The general feeling is that the area as a whole has a growing youth. They're reasonably well connected with cell phones and Internet access. Once things get rolling they spread very quickly, as does news of any attacks by pro governement forces. This is how Tunisia and Egypt occured, plus the demonstrations in other middle east countries.In Lybia specifically the demonstrations have combined with the fact that the eastern area of the country around Bengzhali has always had some level of socio- economic separation from the western area around Tripoli. This has meant that the movement in the east has been able to become reasonably secure with a lot of the army in the region feeling more loyalty to the local authorities and people than to Gaddaffi.
So we have a younger generation, essentially, who wants change and upheaval for change sake?
They have nothing to gripe about, because their lives are so good, that they have enough time to organize each other on facebook and twitter, and it's essentially about nothing?What happened to the days of starving masses, unrighteous dictators eating cake while 1 can of soup feeds the masses, and people taxing our tea!!
Now we shot just snot faced kids who want to cause trouble? That's it?
They have jobs? Food? and they are causing all this? Wow I guess beachfront on the Mediterranean isn't all it's cracked up to be.
Although on the face of it Libya's economics are good, with a high GDP split between relatively few people. However, a quarter of GDP and all exports are oil,which tends not to translate to the poulace that well- most of the work is done with relatively few (often foreign) contractors. Unemployment is running about 20% Overall, 50% under 20
Also look at the change in per capita income compared to the US in the chart on the wiki page linked below. Compartivly incomes have dropped a lot.Also the way that this has developed is a few protests that didn't look like they were going anywhere, that Gaddaffi decided that brutally suppressing was the best solution to (some reports say even with helicopters) there was a slight chance of that stopping it all, yes, but it looks like it onlyfanned the flames.
Ok, but didn't the protesters initiate the violence and I don't mean just throwing bottles and such?
You would have to put this in context in another country.
Example Falkland Islands, property of the UK (so basically the same thing as UK) they tried to declare independence and initiated hostilities against British troops. The Brits brought in their harrier jets, were they supposed to smile at them and bat eye lashes?
What about if something like that happened here in the US. If folks in say Georgia convinced their friends at Ft. Benning to join them in violent protests and attacked people, the Government wouldn't answer with helicopters or worse?
20% unemployment under 20? heck we probably have worse than that here in the US. Alot of 'teens' aren't employed for various reasons.
All these unemployed youths but they still have access to twitter and face book and texting? Life can't be that bad, hungry? Pawn the cell phone champ.
I'm all for overthrowing unrighteous dictators and all, I'm just really reaching for a mitigating reason to put these protesters in "the right".
Being upset about the economy just isn't enough, the entire world would be killing each other right now if it were.
This looks like it's boiling down to a civil war. There has to be a legitimate reason to take something this far, especially since this guys has been in power since 1969, there has to be some change, increase of oppression, new unjust laws, something (even if it's imaginary) I guess I feel the media is leaving 'something' out of our information.
But I'm glad Obamma is staying out of it. It's not our business, both sides have legitimate points ('i want to stay in control vs. we don't want you in control') they should work it out however they see fit.
I mean he's a 'bad guy', but what has he done bad lately?? There is something...
Its actually 50% unemployment of the youth. Thing is rebellions don't usually get sparked just because everyone but the dictator and his immediate relatives are poor. If everyone is in the same boat, even if the boat sucks, then revolution is rare. The real danger is when there is a significant but small wealthy class and a very large class of people that are not able to get in on that wealth.
Libya is a prime example of that. Its actually a pretty rich oil state that has a per capital GDP that is quite impressive but all the wealth of the state funnels into the hands of maybe 20% of the population who do extremely well for themselves while Another 20% or so do OK as a barely existent middle class (small merchants and such - its their kids that have the cell phones with twitter accounts) and 60% of the population live at poverty levels that are actually worse then many much poorer states in the area.
This disparity is essentially a ticking time bomb since the poor have every reason to believe that if they can effect change their lot in life will improve. Once the Tunisian and Egyptian revolts appeared to succeed they where emboldened enough to take a stab at effecting change.
The French jumped in on the American Revolution, had they not, it's unlikely the Colonists would have succeeded.
Possibly - its hard to say. The French did not poke their nose into the issue until after Saratoga, so the American Revolution already had their big victory and the war had been going on for some years by this point. The British problem was victory required that the rebels admit defeat and lay down their weapons. Otherwise the British could not win. There was no central point in America they could capture to make the rebels surrender and when they tried spreading out to garrison areas they captured they tended to suffer defeat in detail to American counter attacks.
So the British can't spread out to capture real estate and there is no place that they can conquer to win the war - all that is left is some how convincing the rebel colonials that they have lost - no easy feat when the colonials are resigned to the fact that they will actually lose most of the battles against professional British soldiers but seem to recognize that the British can't be everywhere.
I can't remember who was meddling in the Civil War (history memory fails me here) but it was either the british or the french again, aiding the Southern Successionists. So somebody was futzing around in there too.
The meddling was never one sided. Britain, in particular, wanted southern cotton...but they also really needed northern wheat. Britain and France would not have minded if the US split in two - makes their geo-political ambitions in North America easier to fulfill, but British Puritans where adamantly anti-slavery and the British government was not keen to piss such a large and influential group off. There was futzing but only on a small scale and more a case of being willing to work for both sides so long as there was money to be made.
so essentially what your saying is, 1) it's a copy cat syndrome and 2) it's a french revolution situation and the Libyans are trying to storm the bastille?
That economic situation existed in the US during the great depression, however mass communication of modern day could be playing a big part in the difference between revolt and just plain despair.
At least it makes a little more sense, however, although Gadaffi is a bad guy, I still think the revolters are in the wrong, and I think it's likely, without outside interference that Gadaffi will crush them, given time and lots and lots of civilian deaths.
Long term, wiping out a nations youth is never going to be good for the nations/cultures future.
It's kinda hard/unrealistic to spread oil wealth, it's not particularly labor intensive, like farming or manufacturing, and the middle men are always out of country.
That economic situation existed in the US during the great depression, however mass communication of modern day could be playing a big part in the difference between revolt and just plain despair.
The population began to significantly radicalize during the Great Depression. More importantly, the government was actively doing everything it could think of to ameliorate the situation.
At least it makes a little more sense, however, although Gadaffi is a bad guy, I still think the revolters are in the wrong, and I think it's likely, without outside interference that Gadaffi will crush them, given time and lots and lots of civilian deaths.
Long term, wiping out a nations youth is never going to be good for the nations/cultures future.
I find it difficult not to sympathize with any population that is living under a dictator that is taking the wealth of a nation and rewarding to himself and his cronies. Its literally the most exploitative form of government possible. Even a communist dictator like Castro spends most of the nations GDP providing the population with free education and health care.
Furthermore when we talk about Libyan youth its worth noting that due to nearly non-existant health care infrastructure they die young (obviously the in group is excepted - they get they get access to the best medicine money can buy in Europe). Thus 'the youth' represents a disproportionate amount of the population. The median age in Libya is 24 years old (half the population is younger then this, half older). Compare to the United States with a median age of 37.
Its possible that Ghaddafi can hold on but he has some major issues. The army of Libya was small and badly equipped. Ghaddafi rose to power in a military coup and he feared that the same thing could happen to him. Hence he went with the unusual method of bringing in foreign mercenaries since they would be unlikely to attempt to seize power and where loyal to their paycheck. All fine and good so far but he has lost access to the oil producing regions of the country which are now in rebel hands. All his foreign accounts have been frozen. Meaning he is down to paying them out of whatever cash he has stockpiled in Tripoli. Generally mercenaries start demanding a big increase in pay when people start shooting back at them. Thus there is a real danger of his liquid cash running out. If the rebels hold on for long enough Ghaddafi's army may more or less evaporate.
It's kinda hard/unrealistic to spread oil wealth, it's not particularly labor intensive, like farming or manufacturing, and the middle men are always out of country.
Many states have done a very good job of spreading the wealth.
The Norwegians went with an investment model and have become the richest per capita people on the planet for a country of any size. Their government pretty much funds education day care health care, all these sorts of things for the population. Stuff that usually comes with high taxes...except that in Norway not so much. Some of the Gulf States have done similar things.
In Saudi Arabian the monarchy is straight out buying off the population by issuing cheques to pretty much every citizen of the country. Alberta did the same thing at one point - sending out a cheque to all the citizens of the province.
Venezuela uses the money to subsidize things like food and medicine etc. etc.
Pretty much any state with lots of oil is pretty soon sitting on a mountain of cash. The question becomes what does the government do with all the money. They can invest it for the long term, ala Norway, they can simply distribute it to the people, they can use it to fund social programs...or in the case of Libya they can send it too private personal bank accounts of a small number of the countries elite and use the rest to pay for foreign mercenaries to shoot any citizen that does not understand that it is only right and proper for the wealth of Libya to be placed for safe keeping in Mr. Ghaddaffi's personal Swiss account.
Looks like the momentuim is switching to Ghaddafi.
link.
Looks like the momentuim is switching to Ghaddafi.
link.
Which was to be expected: amateurs rarely defeat professionals.
Ghaddafi consolidated his base (tripoli, sirte) and will now take town after town, exterminating the rebels, who are sorely underequipped. Even a no-fly zone will not help the rebels => tanks beat infantery.
And by exterminate the rebels, I really mean kill everyone in the eastern part of Libiya.
Definitely looking that way - rebel forces continue to reel backward and its increasingly looking like that will not be able to stop Ghaddafi's forces from seizing all the major towns in the east.
In fact the whole 'Arab Spring' seems to be moving into its final phases with just Tunisia and Egypt really changing anything. Yemen's government increasingly looks set to quell resistance. Saudi Arabia recently ordered elements of their army into Bahrain to crush pro-Shi'ite demonstrations there. For a while it looked like the whole area would undergo a fundamental shift but that seems increasingly unlikely with each passing day.
The new no-fly zone with its broad authorization will probably end in a stalemate for Khadaffi and the rebels. Slowly the tide might swing back to the rebels if they are given more weapons. Khadaffi will have to make due with what he now has => won't be resupplied anytime soon.
Question: who are these rebels anyway? We are backing them, but who are they exactly, does anyone know?
Predictions:
No-fly: Khadaffi wins; tanks beat infantery
No-fly + no-drive: stalemate; rebels might be able to win after a few years.
It also appears that some of them are members of the Muslim Brotherhood.
The enemy of your enemy is not necessarily your friend........
Do we actually need a new Afghanistan in Europe's backyard?
Yes, I am not convinced that these popular uprisings are all for the better. I don't begrudge them their right to freedom, I am just unsure if they are not replacing their shackles with a new set.
|
It also appears that some of them are members of the Muslim Brotherhood.The enemy of your enemy is not necessarily your friend........
Do we actually need a new Afghanistan in Europe's backyard?
Yes, I am not convinced that these popular uprisings are all for the better. I don't begrudge them their right to freedom, I am just unsure if they are not replacing their shackles with a new set.
From what I've read, that's the basis for some people arguing that we shouldn't participate in any kind of action against Libya's current regime. Do we really know who these rebels are? What if we help them throw off Gaddafi, and they turn out to be violently anti-American? Etc, etc....
I can see the point.
However, I can also see one of the primary point's that those supporting involvement make: that other Arab countries have asked for involvement.
It also appears that some of them are members of the Muslim Brotherhood.The enemy of your enemy is not necessarily your friend........
Do we actually need a new Afghanistan in Europe's backyard?
Yes, I am not convinced that these popular uprisings are all for the better. I don't begrudge them their right to freedom, I am just unsure if they are not replacing their shackles with a new set.
From what I've read, that's the basis for some people arguing that we shouldn't participate in any kind of action against Libya's current regime. Do we really know who these rebels are? What if we help them throw off Gaddafi, and they turn out to be violently anti-American? Etc, etc....
I can see the point.
However, I can also see one of the primary point's that those supporting involvement make: that other Arab countries have asked for involvement.
My question is why. Most of these places do not care for America beyond cash- not that there is anything wrong with the almighty dollar, mind.
My belief is that if they truly become free societies, they will tend toward moderation, which, I further believe, in the long run will benefit the US and the West.
It also appears that some of them are members of the Muslim Brotherhood.The enemy of your enemy is not necessarily your friend........
Do we actually need a new Afghanistan in Europe's backyard?
Yes, I am not convinced that these popular uprisings are all for the better. I don't begrudge them their right to freedom, I am just unsure if they are not replacing their shackles with a new set.
From what I've read, that's the basis for some people arguing that we shouldn't participate in any kind of action against Libya's current regime. Do we really know who these rebels are? What if we help them throw off Gaddafi, and they turn out to be violently anti-American? Etc, etc....
I can see the point.
However, I can also see one of the primary point's that those supporting involvement make: that other Arab countries have asked for involvement.
OK, just lost a post.
Anyway, I was ranting but my thoughts went something like this:
Don't care if they are anti-american, just worried that they are anti-West ;>
What is the end goal, the resolution is very openended and I am worried that this will drag on and on.
Also, worried about the lack of a unified European approach: France and Britain are all for it, Germany doesn't want it. Even my government is chomping at the bit to get into the action, which to me is somewhat strange given that we just had a huge snafu when one of our copters was captured....
I would really like to see more than token Arab involvement, they want it, then they can shoulder it as well.
End thoughts: why are we (the world) getting involved? And being a cynic I need better reasons than just to help the rebels.
|
|
Don't care if they are anti-american, just worried that they are anti-West ;>
True, but sadly, these two sentiments often seem to go hand-in-hand.
What is the end goal, the resolution is very openended and I am worried that this will drag on and on.
That is another excellent point and a concern of many who don't want to get involved.
I would really like to see more than token Arab involvement, they want it, then they can shoulder it as well.
+ a lot. Since they are the ones most heavily advocating involvement, and they aren't exactly hurting for money, a heavy commitment in resources and personnel should be a requirement.
End thoughts: why are we (the world) getting involved? And being a cynic I need better reasons than just to help the rebels.
That, is the ultimate question. Sadly, I think it is one that is not really being heavily considered.
I would really like to see more than token Arab involvement, they want it, then they can shoulder it as well.+ a lot. Since they are the ones most heavily advocating involvement, and they aren't exactly hurting for money, a heavy commitment in resources and personnel should be a requirement.
A thousand times this. Start by moving up the production of oil to force the speculators' hands to decrease the price of oil per barrel. Saudis aren't hurting.
Since my last post things have heated up somewhat, according to the arab league things have gotten too hot! LOL!
It seems Qatar is on board with the coalition, so we have our token arab nation, but in truth it still 'the West' doing the intervention....
And even the mass-media is now starting to ask questions like: why are we doing this?
Regime change all over again..........IMHO
I'll add another point of criticism; the airstrikes and no-fly zone are blatant acts of war against a sovereign power, undertaken without a declaration of war by Congress. Gaddafi's actions are horrible- but they are not directed against us. We have just intervened in someone else's civil war.When are we going to hear from all those Obama supporters who love to call George Bush a warmonger? I'd be very interested to see how they react to this. Will they hold their man to the same standards, or was all that 'anti-war' talk nothing but talk?
#1 Well the UN resolution sort of covers your point. Legally it probably won't be considered a war because the UN resolution requires the intervention (binding resolution and all).
#2 Obama is bringing peace to Libiya, don't you see ;>
But seriously, don't bring US politics into this discussion / thread.
Not a lawyer, but from what I gathered: the security council's resolution is a binding resolution and from that authority each and all states must comply with the resolution.
So because it is supranational US congress doesn't have to be involved, also because it is not a declaration of war. (it is war, but because we don't call it that your congress does not need to be consulted)
The above is the legal umbrella.....but I am not a lawyer so maybe we should raise our voices and call Sebastian.....
|
That is entirely incorrect. Only Congress may declare war on behalf of the United States. That's made very, very clear in our Constitution. The UN can only ASK us to go to war, it cannot COMMAND us.Not a lawyer, but from what I gathered: the security council's resolution is a binding resolution and from that authority each and all states must comply with the resolution.
So because it is supranational US congress doesn't have to be involved, also because it is not a declaration of war. (it is war, but because we don't call it that your congress does not need to be consulted)
And, as Darkjoy said, this, technically and legally, is not a war in the same way Vietnam was not technically a war. So no Congressional authorisation is required.
That is entirely incorrect. Only Congress may declare war on behalf of the United States. That's made very, very clear in our Constitution. The UN can only ASK us to go to war, it cannot COMMAND us.also because it is not a declaration of war. (it is war, but because we don't call it that your congress does not need to be consulted)
Well two points:
#1 it's not a war because we don't call it that ;>
#2 your congress should step up to preserve its power, but from what I gather Iraq and Afghanistan are not WAR's either. Yes, you are killing people and getting killed but it not a formally declared war, welcome to the 21st century where nation states war with non-nation states and all goes to hell.
That is entirely incorrect. Only Congress may declare war on behalf of the United States. That's made very, very clear in our Constitution. The UN can only ASK us to go to war, it cannot COMMAND us.also because it is not a declaration of war. (it is war, but because we don't call it that your congress does not need to be consulted)
Well two points:
#1 it's not a war because we don't call it that ;>
#2 your congress should step up to preserve its power, but from what I gather Iraq and Afghanistan are not WAR's either. Yes, you are killing people and getting killed but it not a formally declared war, welcome to the 21st century where nation states war with non-nation states and all goes to hell.
1- It is a war, and it is being called a war in the press.
2- Iraq and Afghanistan are indeed of dubious legality. In both cases, Congress made a grave error by not formally declaring war, as they ought to have done. At least Bush had approval for 'the use of force'- although that was still a failure to do the right thing.
Libya is a soveriegn state, so I don't see any relevance in your point about fighting non-state forces.
Congress is home to many cowards and traitors.
It is a war, but legally it is not. Not that hard a concept.
My remark regarding non-nation states is one part snark and applies to Al-Qaida, you know the WAR on terror. Another example of conflict that could be named a war but legally is not a war.
It is my experience that representatives of the people are a good representation of the people ;>
A thousand times this. Start by moving up the production of oil to force the speculators' hands to decrease the price of oil per barrel. Saudis aren't hurting.I would really like to see more than token Arab involvement, they want it, then they can shoulder it as well.+ a lot. Since they are the ones most heavily advocating involvement, and they aren't exactly hurting for money, a heavy commitment in resources and personnel should be a requirement.
Man do the winds of change hit this conflict fast - seems every time I post something it turns out to be both wrong and out of date. A well.
The problem with looking for Arab involvement is that most of the people in power just want this all to end. People power, whatever its form, is hardly a good thing for the Arab elite.
Thus the west - which seems to have adopted this cause - must get them on board with threats and bribery 'cause they sure are not coming willingly.
The UN, procrastinated by French nationalism, delayed in intervening until the rebel forces in Libya were no longer a credible threat to Qadaffi. The intervening militaries now are involved in another hopeless war, simply because there is no plan, no target, no objective.
This is going to f~+& up every single way it possibly can.
There WILL be foreign ground forces deployed in Libya. Civilians WILL die, from bombings and being shot by foreign soldiers. If Qadaffi couldn't rally people before, he will have no problems after this.
The rebels have been slaughtered. The secret police know their names. As in Iran, there will be very little remaining opposition pretty soon, because the rebels and their family members will be in secure prisons or dead.
Eventually, Qadaffi will sign a promise that the oil will keep flowing. The West will go home, stop reporting about Libya in the news, and everyone will go back to watching America's Funniest Home Videos.
In the end, it is a failure of the highest order, resting squarely on the shoulders of the UN. Let's not forget: The League of Nations was dissolved because it chose to do nothing during a crisis.
Oh, and: America has done nothing in Burma. Since 1948.
Edited for clarity: That last line refers to earlier wishes in the thread that the US would act against Libya.
My belief is that if they truly become free societies, they will tend toward moderation, which, I further believe, in the long run will benefit the US and the West.
This, I think, is a good argument for a country like Egypt but Libya is heavily tribally based and Democracy almost never works in that sort of environment.
Democracy is a really tough system to get to work since most of the time most of the people are unhappy (usually there are more then 2 players competing meaning that its rare for the winner to have the support of even 50% of the people). Its one thing to pull this off in a western style society but much more difficult when the winner is basically tribe X and when they win they immediately put their people into all the lucrative positions of the state while telling everyone from the loosing tribes to take a hike.
Ewan,
You are absolutely correct that this is WAR. Everybody knows it, but we just don't call it that because we are helping the rebels. Not that we know who the rebels are, but we feel good helping the rebels while bombing the shit out of Khadaffi who we really don't care for and have bombed before.
Do I support this WAR? I actually don't care for it, as I said earlier, why are we doing this? Luckily my country is not yet involved, still waiting to be asked to join in (dumbasses). I don't have a problem with the perceived illegality of it (that is just your constitution).
I really think Sissyl is hitting the nail on the head, this is going to be a giant clusterf$+@ and boots on the ground will eventually happen. Mad dog Khadaffi might even strike back asymmetrically and who is right next door? Italy, France, Great Britain, Spain and heaven forbid my own country.
I would strike back asymmetrically if I was under attack, it is not that hard.
Well, democracy is not a good solution for massive countries with huge populations. Somewhere below a hundred million people is probably necessary, below 50 million or so very good. It is a good idea to question why countries need to get bigger all the time.
Democracy is only one part of the deal. The other, perhaps the most significant part, is rule of law. Given this, most people can see the advantages of another society, but they need to see it in practice. This, in turn, requires transparency, accountability, and a host of checks and balances.
Why doesn't the West work for this anymore?
Dutch, Darkjoy?
I'm coming to visit the Netherlands this summer. ;)
Well, someone finally clicked on the profile ;>
Good for you! Hope you find better places than Amsterdam to hang out.