The Libyan uprising

Bottle_of_Smoke · 11-03-2011 1:20pm

What's with the Libyans using the previous regime's flag? Wouldn't that be somewhat akin to us overthrowing Leinster house and waving St. Patricks Saltire or the Union flag?

opinion guy · 11-03-2011 10:19pm

Seriously though - the UN security council is a joke. Russia and China can basicallly veto anything since they themselves are blatant human rights violators.

Never seen such a clear case for going in somewhere

karma_ · 11-03-2011 10:42pm

opinion guy wrote: »

Seriously though - the UN security council is a joke. Russia and China can basicallly veto anything since they themselves are blatant human rights violators.

Never seen such a clear case for going in somewhere

Rwanda? Darfur?

opinion guy · 11-03-2011 10:49pm

karma_ wrote: »

Rwanda? Darfur?

I'm not familiar with the details of those to be honest

old_aussie · 16-03-2011 11:12am

opinion guy wrote: »

Seriously though - the UN security council is a joke. Russia and China can basicallly veto anything since they themselves are blatant human rights violators.

Never seen such a clear case for going in somewhere

Who, going in where?

opinion guy · 16-03-2011 11:28am

old_aussie wrote: »

Who, going in where?

UN/Nato enforced no fly zone for starters. It is disgraceful that this hasn't happened yet. Even the Arab league are calling for it

Zubeneschamali · 16-03-2011 12:03pm

opinion guy wrote: »

Even the Arab league are calling for it

I say let the Arab league intervene, if they want to.

opinion guy · 16-03-2011 1:41pm

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I say let the Arab league intervene, if they want to.

Hmm it has occurred to me that the Egyptians could do this, but with the issues going on in their own country I don't think it would be wise for them to do so. I wouldn't have any faith in the rest of them.

Sponge Bob · 16-03-2011 2:14pm

The west made the decision to trust the devil they know who will keep pumping oil. Expect massive refugee camps inside Egypt by the middle of next week and fully expect the West to say it is an Arab League problem for not enforcing 'their own' no fly zone.

I am very sorry for the rebels, had they got a bit more momentum they might have reached Tripoli but it is too late now and the west will leave the rebels to their fate.

Zubeneschamali · 16-03-2011 2:20pm

Sponge Bob wrote: »

I am very sorry for the rebels, had they got a bit more momentum they might have reached Tripoli

And what? Set up an egalitarian democracy?

opinion guy · 16-03-2011 2:50pm

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

And what? Set up an egalitarian democracy?

For all we know yes.The egyptians seem to be doing so

caseyann · 16-03-2011 3:15pm

Sponge Bob wrote: »

The west made the decision to trust the devil they know who will keep pumping oil. Expect massive refugee camps inside Egypt by the middle of next week and fully expect the West to say it is an Arab League problem for not enforcing 'their own' no fly zone.

I am very sorry for the rebels, had they got a bit more momentum they might have reached Tripoli but it is too late now and the west will leave the rebels to their fate.

Rebels arent they terrorists?

Jonny7 · 16-03-2011 4:00pm

All media attention has been diverted to Japanese quake

No internatiional action has been taken

As was evident over a week ago, Gaddafi will absolutely crush the rebels and any protestors, in the most hideous way possible, torture, forced disappearances, etc

Dictators around the world breathe a sigh of relief

What he will do to these protestors, and innocent people will be beyond horrific .. basically the message is - if you have a dictator shut up and keep in line because you aint gonna get any help

opinion guy · 16-03-2011 4:12pm

caseyann wrote: »

Rebels arent they terrorists?

Freedom fighters I would say.

caseyann · 16-03-2011 4:13pm

opinion guy wrote: »

Freedom fighters I would say.

Oh very sneaky you remember dont you

opinion guy · 16-03-2011 4:36pm

caseyann wrote: »

Oh very sneaky you remember dont you

???

caseyann · 16-03-2011 4:43pm

opinion guy wrote: »

???

As i called the IRA Freedom fighters

opinion guy · 16-03-2011 4:52pm

caseyann wrote: »

As i called the IRA Freedom fighters

Oh right. I remember you were a republican allright but didn't remenber that detail.

BIG difference between the and these people trying to gain freedom from an insane dictator

Dave! · 16-03-2011 4:56pm

Surely the rebels could identify locations for some foreign airforce to drop a few bombs on?

It's a pretty black and white issue I would think. The dictator is about to take back power, and we (as in the international community) can help prevent that.

caseyann · 16-03-2011 4:56pm

opinion guy wrote: »

Oh right. I remember you were a republican allright but didn't remenber that detail.

BIG difference between the and these people trying to gain freedom from an insane dictator

Not even going to bother get into this with you except you are wrong and exactly the same.

Zubeneschamali · 16-03-2011 5:47pm

Dave! wrote: »

It's a pretty black and white issue I would think.

Yes, without a UN resolution, any armed intervention by foreign powers is illegal.

Sponge Bob · 16-03-2011 6:13pm

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

any armed intervention by foreign powers is illegal.

Yah, just like the Americans armed the Afghan Warlords with Stinger Missiles in the 1980s or was that Freedom Fighters I dunno. Just think of what 5 Stinger missiles would have done to Ghadaffis Air Force and the Ukrainian mercenaries flying his planes last week.

But too late now, best the rebels can hope for is that they and their families get over the Egyptian border before it is shut.

Zubeneschamali · 16-03-2011 6:27pm

So, all you pro-intervention folks, how do you feel about Bahrain? Saudi Arabia? Yemen? Zimbabwe?

How much of Africa and the Middle East would you like the UN to invade to install democracy?

Because that's been going so well in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Manic Moran · 16-03-2011 6:39pm

opinion guy wrote: »

UN/Nato enforced no fly zone for starters. It is disgraceful that this hasn't happened yet. Even the Arab league are calling for it

There is an old cartoon from the Cold War days. Two Soviet generals are attending a victory parade past the Arc de Triopmhe in Paris. One's turned to the other and asking "So, who won the air war?"

The NFZ is a feel-good symbolic measure, the participants of which will make Gadaffi's #1 tier hate list after he wins. If they're going to go that far, they'd better be prepared to do far more than that.

Frankly, since the West appears not to be prepared to do that much, their better course of action should have been from the beginning to just shut their traps and let events take their course.

So, all you pro-intervention folks, how do you feel about Bahrain? Saudi Arabia? Yemen? Zimbabwe

Ask us again when the appropriate governments start shooting protestors in job lots using major end items.

NTM

Dave! · 16-03-2011 6:52pm

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

So, all you pro-intervention folks, how do you feel about Bahrain? Saudi Arabia? Yemen? Zimbabwe?

How much of Africa and the Middle East would you like the UN to invade to install democracy?

Because that's been going so well in Iraq and Afghanistan.

If you're advocating a 'let Libyans sort it out themselves' policy, then you're effectively saying that the political fate of a country should be decided by who has the most weaponry, and in Libya, shock-horror, it's the oppressive dictator who has it. Isn't it only moral that the international community help the side that is clearly in the right here?

There may be political ramifications, but an invasion of troops is not required, some strategic airstrikes could help tip it in the rebels' favour without immersing anyone in a quagmire like Iraq or Afghanistan. It doesn't have to be all or nothing, ie. mass invasion of ground troops, vs, let the dictator slaughter his people.

Invading Saudi Arabia, etc., would be a bad move, as is evidenced by recent history in the Middle East, but if there were a similar revolution under way in SA, then yes I'd also have no moral qualms with international military aid being provided in some way to even things up, at least if the situation were as black and white as it is in Libya at the moment.

jmayo · 16-03-2011 6:58pm

karma_ wrote: »

Rwanda? Darfur?

opinion guy wrote: »

I'm not familiar with the details of those to be honest

Well maybe you should enlighten yourself a little about recent history.
You know what they say about history and learning from it ?
These two are genocides, even if the UN wee/are slow to admit it.

The goings on in Libya are childs play in comparison to what went on in Rwanda and the UN did absolutely nothing.
Darfur has been more recent and the few UN troops there have had feck all resoures or materials to mount a proper operation.
AFAIK they had one helicopter to cover an area half the size of France.

There is a very good book written by the UN commander in Rwanda and AFAIK the Belgian UN soldiers tore up their UN berets with disgust at what ws allowed to happen.
So much for having an African as secretary general, I suppose he and his family were too busy organising oil for aid with Saddam. :rolleyes:

Sponge Bob wrote: »

The west made the decision to trust the devil they know who will keep pumping oil. Expect massive refugee camps inside Egypt by the middle of next week and fully expect the West to say it is an Arab League problem for not enforcing 'their own' no fly zone.

I am very sorry for the rebels, had they got a bit more momentum they might have reached Tripoli but it is too late now and the west will leave the rebels to their fate.

Look at the Arab league FFS.
They are arab countries who are led by dictators of the same ilk as Gadhaffi.
They are hardly going to help overthrow him today, only for the same call to be made about them next year, even if some of them hate his guts.

Dave! wrote: »

Surely the rebels could identify locations for some foreign airforce to drop a few bombs on?

It's a pretty black and white issue I would think. The dictator is about to take back power, and we (as in the international community) can help prevent that.

Ahh ffs, there are no black and white issues when it comes to international relations.
What if they do help overthrow Gadhaffi, what then ?
Do they have the resources to get involved in another Iraq, where they are faced with muslim nutjobs who want to have a pop at anyone from the West.
This should be up to the Arab world to sort out, but as I said above the only thing close to a true democracy in that part of the world happens to be Israel.
The Arab League members are watching their own patch and trying to make sure they don't become the next Libya or Egypt.

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

So, all you pro-intervention folks, how do you feel about Bahrain? Saudi Arabia? Yemen? Zimbabwe?

How much of Africa and the Middle East would you like the UN to invade to install democracy?

Because that's been going so well in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Exactly

jmayo · 16-03-2011 7:11pm

Dave! wrote: »

If you're advocating a 'let Libyans sort it out themselves' policy, then you're effectively saying that the political fate of a country should be decided by who has the most weaponry, and in Libya, shock-horror, it's the oppressive dictator who has it. Isn't it only moral that the international community help the side that is clearly in the right here?

There may be political ramifications, but an invasion of troops is not required, some strategic airstrikes could help tip it in the rebels' favour without immersing anyone in a quagmire like Iraq or Afghanistan. It doesn't have to be all or nothing, ie. mass invasion of ground troops, vs, let the dictator slaughter his people.

Invading Saudi Arabia, etc., would be a bad move, as is evidenced by recent history in the Middle East, but if there were a similar revolution under way in SA, then yes I'd also have no moral qualms with international military aid being provided in some way to even things up, at least if the situation were as black and white as it is in Libya at the moment.

May I ask what age you are ?
I sense a very idealistive in your posts.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but the real world don't work that way.

The US and the West hopes Suadi Arabia continues to be a stable country.
They couldn't give two f***s if that means a despotic aristocracy of camel shaggers continue to run it.
The bigger picture is those regimes are stable and friendly to the west.
They may be inbred despots, but because they have huge chunk of the worlds oil reserves that is overlooked.

If there is major political upheavel in SA, then watch the whole world suffer economically as oil prices rocket.
That is the last thing the West wants as it tries to drag itself out of a massive recession.
Now we may all say that it is only fair all people in Saudi Arabia should get to share in the wealth and not just the inbred hosue of Saud, but how many people would be willing to suffer an oil crisis similar to 1973 or 1979 if push came to shove ?
Would people just want to see a reliable supply of crude flowing out of the gulf or would they want to see the current rulers overthrown and subsequently muslim fundamentalists backed by Iran trying to take over those countries ?

Remember this country and indeed the western world has probably got more dependent on oil since those days in the 70s.

Anyway Saudi Arabia is a police state and they have the place wrapped up so there will be no Egypt or Tunisia there. :mad:

Dave! · 16-03-2011 7:47pm

jmayo wrote: »

May I ask what age you are ?
I sense a very idealistive in your posts.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but the real world don't work that way.

The US and the West hopes Suadi Arabia continues to be a stable country.
They couldn't give two f***s if that means a despotic aristocracy of camel shaggers continue to run it.
The bigger picture is those regimes are stable and friendly to the west.
They may be inbred despots, but because they have huge chunk of the worlds oil reserves that is overlooked.

If there is major political upheavel in SA, then watch the whole world suffer economically as oil prices rocket.
That is the last thing the West wants as it tries to drag itself out of a massive recession.
Now we may all say that it is only fair all people in Saudi Arabia should get to share in the wealth and not just the inbred hosue of Saud, but how many people would be willing to suffer an oil crisis similar to 1973 or 1979 if push came to shove ?
Would people just want to see a reliable supply of crude flowing out of the gulf or would they want to see the current rulers overthrown and subsequently muslim fundamentalists backed by Iran trying to take over those countries ?

Remember this country and indeed the western world has probably got more dependent on oil since those days in the 70s.

Anyway Saudi Arabia is a police state and they have the place wrapped up so there will be no Egypt or Tunisia there. :mad:

That's all well and good, but the current situation is that the oil supply from Libya is already being disrupted because of the uprising. After it is over, Libya will either have an even more oppressive, stable dictatorship than before, or it will have whatever the rebels produce, hopefully a democracy.

Personally I don't know a single person who, when asked, would say that they'd be happy with Gaddafi staying in power if it meant petrol prices would go down. Do you? Maybe my friends and family have just been infected by my youthful idealism/naiveté. They'd probably think twice about supporting an invasion of the whole Middle East because it would lead to an oil crisis, but that's why I'm saying Libya is a more black and white issue. The oil supply is already disrupted, and the uprising is already occuring, you can't put the genie back in the bottle.

Overheal · 16-03-2011 9:26pm

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Yes, without a UN resolution, any armed intervention by foreign powers is illegal.

More accurately a UN Security Council resolution.

Jonny7 · 17-03-2011 8:24am

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

So, all you pro-intervention folks, how do you feel about Bahrain? Saudi Arabia? Yemen? Zimbabwe?

How much of Africa and the Middle East would you like the UN to invade to install democracy?

Because that's been going so well in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Here we go again

So you are comparing Bahrain, Saudi, Yemen, Zimbabwe, Iraq and Afghanistan? when they are all utterly diverse situations.

Vietnam and World War 2 - One worked, the other didn't, why was that?

Iraq 1991 and Iraq 2003, why are those situations so utterly different?

What happened in Yugoslavia? is there genocide still going on there? why did that intervention work?

Let me make it verryy simple and patronising for you..

If you have a relatively black and white situation (I say relatively without having to write a 6 page disclaimer on the complexities of int. foreign policy, etc), where there is one very bad evil thing happening (e.g. Libya, or Saddam invading Kuwait) then foreign powers (who are not after oil, strategic cold war objective, etc) CAN INTERVENE SUCCESSFULLY (a measured semblence of peace can return)

Yet, make up some lies, start the propaganda machine and preemptively invade Zimbabwe tomorrow and IT WONT WORK, full stop.

I don't get how hard this is for some people to grasp. Its like they were all pro-Bush types who are all butthurt about Iraq and don't fundamentally understand how it all works. How to make this understandable .. hmm.. go home, make up a lie about something your child did, then 'premptively' punish them, and see how that goes down.

jesus

The Libyan uprising

Comments