Lessons from Libya: How Not to Intervene

czx

walshb wrote: »

No, they are not all the same. Some dictatorships result in a lot more misery than others. A lot more fighting and killing and poverty.

And the rebellion clearly wasn't stable or strong enough to overthrow him without the intervention of war mongers!

Edit: Yes, dictatorships the same as regards choice of rulers!

Power crazed egoists ruling for decades whilst living incredibly lavish lifestyles

czx

AlekSmart wrote: »

Hmmm, 40+ years would equate to at least some level of stability in my book,but perhaps it would take 1,000 year rules to satisfy some ?

The Gadaffi regime did have several "heaves" against it over the decades,and overcame/suppressed these with varying levels of effectiveness...clearly these rebellions were never popular enough to gain wideapread support.

The problem appears to be the pre-requisite to portray Gadaffi personally as the crazed loon,and his regime as totally vicious and unpopular,all of which are certainly easily achieved when viewed through the Western 3D spectacles.

Quixotic is indeed an appropriate term to describe Gadaffi's time in power....http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-12532929

Suppressing heaves is generally indicative of inherent instability.

40 years of an entire country under the sway of 1 man is enough

AlekSmart

czx wrote: »

Power crazed egoists ruling for decades whilst living incredibly lavish lifestyles

Whilst Gadaffi lived a lavish lifestyle sure enough,it was somewhat less than incredible.

Comparable,I would sugggest,with our own CJ Haughey's in many ways.

Find me a modern "Democratic" Society where significantly important people do not live to "differing" standards than the great-unwashed they purport to represent ?

Oddly enough,I don't subscribe to any unquestioning admiration of Gadaffi,or his regime,BUT neither will I weigh in behind the U.N/NATO alternative which has been largely imposed upon whats left of Libyan society after the NATO Military accomplished their missions.

czx

AlekSmart wrote: »

Whilst Gadaffi lived a lavish lifestyle sure enough,it was somewhat less than incredible.

Comparable,I would sugggest,with our own CJ Haughey's in many ways.

Find me a modern "Democratic" Society where significantly important people do not live to "differing" standards than the great-unwashed they purport to represent ?

Oddly enough,I don't subscribe to any unquestioning admiration of Gadaffi,or his regime,BUT neither will I weigh in behind the U.N/NATO alternative which has been largely imposed upon whats left of Libyan society after the NATO Military accomplished their missions.

It was most certainly incredible.

CJ Haughey was many things but he wasn't an unelected dictator for 40 years.

Oddly enough? Why? Do you usually offer unwavering support to dictatorship? Or was Gaddafi a bit too crazy for you?

FURET

czx wrote: »

Everyone wants peace and freedom.

Whatever about peace, when you say "freedom" I bet you have the rights of the individual in mind.

Guess what. In many non-western societies, people do not value or want western-style freedom for the individual. This is because they value tradition and community more and see individualism as destructive and selfish.
They are fully aware of the western paradigm and reject it as selfish. Vast numbers of Indians and assorted Arabs (for example) feel this way. They regard the trumpeting of the rights of the individual as anti-communitarian and selfish.

Honor killings, grown Indians having to ask parental permission to do anything of consequence, religious law, FGM, the unempowerment of women, marrying cousins, intertwined family finances - these are all symptomatic of the communitarian way of perceiving society. It is a sociological paradigm that is as valid as the western paradigm of individual liberty, but it is a different paradigm, and those who hold it are psychologically different to the average westerner across a range of attitudes.

A democracy of individualists will give rise to a government system that sees individual rights as paramount. A society of communitarians won't.

The Corinthian

czx wrote: »

Yes, you are wrong.

About what? That you're a middle-class Westerner? That you have little or no knowledge of the places we're discussing? Something else?

Bit of a vague denial there. Go on; tell us you're working class - I can do with the laugh.

Everyone wants peace and freedom. You don't seem able to refute this. They are just like us.

I never said that other people don't want peace and freedom. I've not refuted it because they naturally want both. Thing is you often can't have both - so what do you choose when you can only have one?

I would choose to get rid of the dictator, everytime.

So you'd see an extra few hundred thousand innocents perish, to see another dictator eventually take over, just to remove his predecessor? Good thing the choice is not up to you then.

czx wrote: »

All dictatorships are the same though. No choice

So Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge was the same as Gadaffi's Libya? LOL.

The Corinthian

FURET wrote: »

Guess what. In many non-western societies, people do not value or want western-style freedom for the individual. This is because they value tradition and community more and see individualism as destructive and selfish.

The thing I have found bizarre in this discussion is that some cannot get their heads around that their own value systems are not the only ones in existence or with popular support.

Suggest that an Arab, or Indian, or Chinese, or sub-Saharan African, or whomever believes in or values different things and you'll get an incredulous stare as a response. You'll even get tabled racist, as I have been, for suggesting that other nations may not see things 'just like us'.

With that kind of blind arrogance, it's hardly surprising we seem to make things worse nine times out of ten when we intervene.

czx

FURET wrote: »

Guess what. In many non-western societies, people do not value or want western-style freedom for the individual. This is because they value tradition and community more and see individualism as destructive and selfish.
They are fully aware of the western paradigm and reject it as selfish. Vast numbers of Indians and assorted Arabs (for example) feel this way. They regard the trumpeting of the rights of the individual as anti-communitarian and selfish.

Honor killings, grown Indians having to ask parental permission to do anything of consequence, religious law, FGM, the unempowerment of women, marrying cousins, intertwined family finances - these are all symptomatic of the communitarian way of perceiving society. It is a sociological paradigm that is as valid as the western paradigm of individual liberty, but it is a different paradigm, and those who hold it are psychologically different to the average westerner across a range of attitudes.

They reject the western paradigm or the dictator does? Funny how they would see democracy as selfish when many dictators live incredibly lavish lifestyles at their expense.

Value tradition? A horrible excuse for some awful practises. This 'paradigm' is in no way valid. Moral relativism

czx

The Corinthian wrote: »

About what? That you're a middle-class Westerner? That you have little or no knowledge of the places we're discussing? Something else?

Bit of a vague denial there. Go on; tell us you're working class - I can do with the laugh.

I never said that other people don't want peace and freedom. I've not refuted it because they naturally want both. Thing is you often can't have both - so what do you choose when you can only have one?

So you'd see an extra few hundred thousand innocents perish, to see another dictator eventually take over, just to remove his predecessor? Good thing the choice is not up to you then.

So Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge was the same as Gadaffi's Libya? LOL.

I don't see why it matters but I'm not middle class. Maybe your view of me would change if I was?

You often can have both. Surprisingly most countries that do get to choose their leaders.

You seem very sure of the future!

czx

The Corinthian wrote: »

The thing I have found bizarre in this discussion is that some cannot get their heads around that their own value systems are not the only ones in existence or with popular support.

Suggest that an Arab, or Indian, or Chinese, or sub-Saharan African, or whomever believes in or values different things and you'll get an incredulous stare as a response. You'll even get tabled racist, as I have been, for suggesting that other nations may not see things 'just like us'.

With that kind of blind arrogance, it's hardly surprising we seem to make things worse nine times out of ten when we intervene.

I'm fully aware of other value systems. However claiming that systems based on archaic traditions that bring misery to people are valid is ridiculous.

What I can't get my head around is how dictatorships are explained away by claiming the people want to be ruled by someone they didn't get the choose.

AlekSmart

czx wrote: »

I'm fully aware of other value systems. However claiming that systems based on archaic traditions that bring misery to people are valid is ridiculous.

Crikey,this takes us mightly close to Missionaries doing the work of God in darkest Africa....

These "archaic traditions" you see as bringing misery to peoples lives also in many cases provide the bedrock upon which those societies function.

Are you suggesting that we (Western Individualists) should seek to strike at such "archaic traditions" wherever we come across them in order to "Free" people who are ignorant of our mores,and quite content with that ignorance ?

Gadaffi the elder's greatest miscalculation was to hang on to the reins for too long.....He prevaricated over the issue of succession,keeping the two sibling contenders,Mutassim and Saif-al-Islam in the wings,watching each other.

There is little doubt in my mind,but Saif-al Islam was (perhaps still is) a good bet to succeed as Libyan leader,however it also appears that Mutassim (a rather more sulphurous individual) was tending to sway the Da's thinking in the mid 2000's.

Interestingly enough,after a brief initial hoo-hah regarding Gadaffi's fantabulous personal wealth,we have had almost no further news on where it is/was,or whether it ever existed at all...?

Obviously Gadaffi did'nt draw the Libyan equivalent of our minimum wage,but suggestions of his amassing incredible wealth whilst his people starved ain't the case either

Anyway,stability in the country is restored,the petrodollar still rules,and they'll not be launching any oul communications satellites anytime soon,so all is good...yes ??

The Corinthian

czx wrote: »

They reject the western paradigm or the dictator does?

Oh, so really they want to have Western values, but it's the dictators who are forcing them otherwise... now I've heard everything.

czx wrote: »

I don't see why it matters but I'm not middle class. Maybe your view of me would change if I was?

You're middle class. Maybe your ancestors were not, but you are. Welcome to the post-WWII West.

If you prefer to see yourself as something else, that's your business.

You often can have both. Surprisingly most countries that do get to choose their leaders.

It's arguable that most countries do. According to the Economist Intelligence Unit, out of 167 countries, 51 (37.1% of the World population) are classified as operating under 'authoritarian regimes'. Include the 'hybrid regimes' where there is some freedom, but you still don't get to choose your leaders, and that number becomes 88 (51.5% of the World population) - a majority in both terms of countries and population.

In fact, only 25 countries, out of that 167, and representing only 11.3% of the World population are classified as 'fully democratic'. Most other indexes on this topic correlate that the vast majority of the world is in at best deeply flawed democracies.

Maybe you should check your facts first before making such claims in future.

You seem very sure of the future!

The future is actually very predictable much of the time if you're willing to look at the facts objectively.

czx wrote: »

I'm fully aware of other value systems. However claiming that systems based on archaic traditions that bring misery to people are valid is ridiculous.

Sure, but if you actually read what I've written, I've never said that. Please try to understand what I'm actually saying - or at least read it.

I've made no moral judgement on any value system, be it Western or otherwise. I've simply pointed out that there are other value systems and to presume that people will think and behave 'just like us' is, for lack of a better word, dumb.

This is why intervention will so often fail to make any difference in the long run; it's based upon the false premise, that once we help a people unshackle themselves from an autocrat they will naturally behave as we would, install a Western-style democracy and live happily ever after.

When instead they end up electing the Muslim Brotherhood or Hamas, presuming they get as far as even an election, we're somehow perplexed at how once given the choice they go off and don't behave like us and end up back at square one in our 'morally superior' eyes. Go figure.

What I can't get my head around is how dictatorships are explained away by claiming the people want to be ruled by someone they didn't get the choose.

No, you can't get your head around it. Have you considered that the flaw is with you?

walshb

Looks to be a very interesting documentary on Gadaffi on BBC4 tonight at 2205 hrs. Storyville: Life of Mad Dog!

AlekSmart

walshb wrote: »

Looks to be a very interesting documentary on Gadaffi on BBC4 tonight at 2205 hrs. Storyville: Life of Mad Dog!

Some of it's available online also...some long-forgotten names also emerging on it....

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1naqx9_storyville-2013-2014-mad-dog-17-gaddafi-s-secret-world-part-1_creation

czx

The Corinthian wrote: »

Oh, so really they want to have Western values, but it's the dictators who are forcing them otherwise... now I've heard everything.

You're middle class. Maybe your ancestors were not, but you are. Welcome to the post-WWII West.

If you prefer to see yourself as something else, that's your business.

It's arguable that most countries do. According to the Economist Intelligence Unit, out of 167 countries, 51 (37.1% of the World population) are classified as operating under 'authoritarian regimes'. Include the 'hybrid regimes' where there is some freedom, but you still don't get to choose your leaders, and that number becomes 88 (51.5% of the World population) - a majority in both terms of countries and population.

In fact, only 25 countries, out of that 167, and representing only 11.3% of the World population are classified as 'fully democratic'. Most other indexes on this topic correlate that the vast majority of the world is in at best deeply flawed democracies.

Maybe you should check your facts first before making such claims in future.

The future is actually very predictable much of the time if you're willing to look at the facts objectively.

Sure, but if you actually read what I've written, I've never said that. Please try to understand what I'm actually saying - or at least read it.

I've made no moral judgement on any value system, be it Western or otherwise. I've simply pointed out that there are other value systems and to presume that people will think and behave 'just like us' is, for lack of a better word, dumb.

This is why intervention will so often fail to make any difference in the long run; it's based upon the false premise, that once we help a people unshackle themselves from an autocrat they will naturally behave as we would, install a Western-style democracy and live happily ever after.

When instead they end up electing the Muslim Brotherhood or Hamas, presuming they get as far as even an election, we're somehow perplexed at how once given the choice they go off and don't behave like us and end up back at square one in our 'morally superior' eyes. Go figure.

No, you can't get your head around it. Have you considered that the flaw is with you?

I'm not middle class! You know nothing about me or my ancestors. You seem desperate to assign me to a box, just like you do for the Arab world.

Most of your ensuing rant is based on misquoting what I have said and your opinion of the future.

czx

AlekSmart wrote: »

Crikey,this takes us mightly close to Missionaries doing the work of God in darkest Africa....

These "archaic traditions" you see as bringing misery to peoples lives also in many cases provide the bedrock upon which those societies function.

Are you suggesting that we (Western Individualists) should seek to strike at such "archaic traditions" wherever we come across them in order to "Free" people who are ignorant of our mores,and quite content with that ignorance ?

I really don't know how the persecution of homosexuals or FGM can form the bedrock of anything other than stone-age thinking. There's no excuse for these acts.

The Corinthian

czx wrote: »

I'm not middle class! You know nothing about me or my ancestors. You seem desperate to assign me to a box, just like you do for the Arab world.

If the box fits... but seriously, the middle class was more about your attitude to the subject, that without knowing much about another culture you'd rather act first and consider the consequences later, especially as you don't have to suffer any of them from your comfortable Western home.

As to whether you are or not, I simply pointed out that historically the middle class has essentially swallowed up all but the tiniest fraction of our population as a result of wealth redistribution and improving economic conditions since the end of World War II. 99% of the time if someone considers them upper or working class nowadays it's little more than an affectation.

But if it upsets you so much, to be considered so, I apologise and withdraw the accusation, without prejudice, and in the interests of civil discourse.

As for assigning the Arabs to a box, you're actually the only one who's done that. For example, first you claim:

czx wrote: »

They are human just like us, therefore they desire the same things as us.

And later you change your mind and finally admit:

czx wrote: »

I'm fully aware of other value systems.

So which is it? Do they desire the same things as us or do their differing value system mean they don't? You seem rather confused on this point.

Most of your ensuing rant is based on misquoting what I have said and your opinion of the future.

Oh, that's a bit desperate. How did I misquote "surprisingly most countries that do get to choose their leaders", which turned out to be a highly questionable claim on your part, if not just simply false?

I'm afraid that only one of us is ranting at this stage and it's not the one who's actually taking the time to read and respond to points made instead of ignoring the entire post they've just block quoted.

czx wrote: »

I really don't know how the persecution of homosexuals or FGM can form the bedrock of anything other than stone-age thinking. There's no excuse for these acts.

You know, there's probably an imam somewhere asking the same question about our tolerance for sexual promiscuity, usury and individualism.

Maybe down deep, in a perverse way, you are right and we do all think alike - at least in terms of only seeing things in black and white with absolute certainty, regardless of the facts, as you and Hmmm have demonstrated.

And please don't turn round and interpret this answer as some form of support for FGM or whatever; it's not. I've had enough of your strawmen at this stage.

czx

The Corinthian wrote: »

If the box fits... but seriously, the middle class was more about your attitude to the subject, that without knowing much about another culture you'd rather act first and consider the consequences later, especially as you don't have to suffer any of them from your comfortable Western home.

As to whether you are or not, I simply pointed out that historically the middle class has essentially swallowed up all but the tiniest fraction of our population as a result of wealth redistribution and improving economic conditions since the end of World War II. 99% of the time if someone considers them upper or working class nowadays it's little more than an affectation.

But if it upsets you so much, to be considered so, I apologise and withdraw the accusation, without prejudice, and in the interests of civil discourse.

As for assigning the Arabs to a box, you're actually the only one who's done that. For example, first you claim:

And later you change your mind and finally admit:

So which is it? Do they desire the same things as us or do their differing value system mean they don't? You seem rather confused on this point.

Oh, that's a bit desperate. How did I misquote "surprisingly most countries that do get to choose their leaders", which turned out to be a highly questionable claim on your part, if not just simply false?

I'm afraid that only one of us is ranting at this stage and it's not the one who's actually taking the time to read and respond to points made instead of ignoring the entire post they've just block quoted.

You know, there's probably an imam somewhere asking the same question about our tolerance for sexual promiscuity, usury and individualism.

Maybe down deep, in a perverse way, you are right and we do all think alike - at least in terms of only seeing things in black and white with absolute certainty, regardless of the facts, as you and Hmmm have demonstrated.

And please don't turn round and interpret this answer as some form of support for FGM or whatever; it's not. I've had enough of your strawmen at this stage.

Of course you have!

The Corinthian

czx wrote: »

Of course you have!

Couldn't think of anything more constructive to say after getting home from a night on the town?

AlekSmart

With Libya's situation s remaining hughly unstable it is interesting to see the emergence of some Irish "Green Army" members at the top of the new ruling order.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/news/dublin-dad-elected-as-mayor-of-tripoli-in-libya-30492455.html

At least some of the scale of the political confusion and mayhem imposed upon Libya by the U.N.NATO intervention of 2011 can be gleaned from this single article...

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/08/08/uk-libya-security-idUKKBN0G815820140808

To me,the articles simply underline the accuracy of the Thread Title....

realweirdo

Would love to know how Gadaffi, a man with pedigree when it came to supporting and financing mass murder, particularly in west africa, was going to take back benghazi, misrata, zintan and dozens more towns and cities in revolt against him? Was he going to offer the people coffee and donuts and hope they'd surrender peacefully and fall at the feet of brother leader once more. The only liars in this situation are those who think it would have been ok for gadaffi to obliterate whole cities in an effort to take them back. Remind us again how Syria turned out where the west didn't impose a no fly zone. Libya might have problems but it isnt a fraction of that of syrias. 10 million displaced, 500,000 injured, 170,000 dead, 150,000 missing probably dead...a real model for non intervention alright.

czx

The Corinthian wrote: »

Couldn't think of anything more constructive to say after getting home from a night on the town?

#asia

czx

realweirdo wrote: »

Would love to know how Gadaffi, a man with pedigree when it came to supporting and financing mass murder, particularly in west africa, was going to take back benghazi, misrata, zintan and dozens more towns and cities in revolt against him? Was he going to offer the people coffee and donuts and hope they'd surrender peacefully and fall at the feet of brother leader once more. The only liars in this situation are those who think it would have been ok for gadaffi to obliterate whole cities in an effort to take them back. Remind us again how Syria turned out where the west didn't impose a no fly zone. Libya might have problems but it isnt a fraction of that of syrias. 10 million displaced, 500,000 injured, 170,000 dead, 150,000 missing probably dead...a real model for non intervention alright.

Arabs need FGM and dictatorships. Anything else is arrogance

nacho libre

.

jmayo

lazybones32 wrote: »

@Corinthian: That may be true in the case of Civilians and some naive, low-level politicians but it is not so for those involved in Intelligence, Military and upper echelons of Government. No military action is taken without due consideration and information from agents within the area - of which there are many.

You would think.
As I posted on another thread I recall seeing Oxbridge Iraq expert being interviewed about his meeting or presentation to high level government (politicans, officals and probably military) about Iraq prior to Gulf War II.

He was trying to get across how it's people were not some homogenous group and how fractured it really was with different ethnic groups, different religions and different religious sects within the one religion.
He was gobsmacked that all they seemed to think was saddam = evil and everything will be ok when we get rid of him.
I bet all the likes of rumsfeld thought about was how well Halliburton were going to do out of it.

Americans have an arrogance, and because they have such a powerful military apparatus they believe and actually know they can win on the battlefield.
What they have never trully figured out is how to win the hearts and minds campaign.
They failed misreably in Vietnam in actually winnng over the population.
Calling them gooks and treating them with utter disdain doesn't help of course.
And they haven't learned much all these years later as can be seen in Iraq.
The British were far more successful in Malaya countering communism.

Conas

realweirdo wrote: »

Would love to know how Gadaffi, a man with pedigree when it came to supporting and financing mass murder, particularly in west africa, was going to take back benghazi, misrata, zintan and dozens more towns and cities in revolt against him? Was he going to offer the people coffee and donuts and hope they'd surrender peacefully and fall at the feet of brother leader once more. The only liars in this situation are those who think it would have been ok for gadaffi to obliterate whole cities in an effort to take them back. Remind us again how Syria turned out where the west didn't impose a no fly zone. Libya might have problems but it isnt a fraction of that of syrias. 10 million displaced, 500,000 injured, 170,000 dead, 150,000 missing probably dead...a real model for non intervention alright.

There was nothing wrong in Libya until the US and NATO stuck their nose into it's affairs that was of none of their business. Now it's a failed state in ruins. Just like Iraq and Afghanistan. Denial is like a really bad disease, that's why there's no cure for some people. Syria is another humiliation for Obama and the rest of his good for nothing goverment. Funds ISIS in Syria to overthrow Assad, then declares them an enemy in Iraq. Most if not all of their weapons are America weapons either stolen or payed for by the Saudi's. It's an ash heap of ruins, the whole of the middle east.

It could be left to the Chinese or Russians to go in and clean up this awful mess. Obama is clueless and incapable of it.

The Corinthian

Conas wrote: »

There was nothing wrong in Libya until the US and NATO stuck their nose into it's affairs that was of none of their business.

Apart from half of the country being in open revolt, I suppose...

jmayo

Conas wrote: »

There was nothing wrong in Libya until the US and NATO stuck their nose into it's affairs that was of none of their business. Now it's a failed state in ruins. Just like Iraq and Afghanistan. Denial is like a really bad disease, that's why there's no cure for some people. Syria is another humiliation for Obama and the rest of his good for nothing goverment. Funds ISIS in Syria to overthrow Assad, then declares them an enemy in Iraq. Most if not all of their weapons are America weapons either stolen or payed for by the Saudi's. It's an ash heap of ruins, the whole of the middle east.

It could be left to the Chinese or Russians to go in and clean up this awful mess. Obama is clueless and incapable of it.

You can't just level that at Obama, although I do agree he is not a strong leader.

You could also use the Libya and Syria argument for Iraq.
saddam was keeping a rein on things and kept all the different factions under control.
Al qeada did not have base there and everything was kinda hunky dory so long as you were pro saddam and he played ball with the west.

Problem has been that these strong dictators have been replaced by a myriad of groups who do not agree on anything bar probably their hatred for the dictator.
Once they are out of the way then they can start having a go at each and resume their traditional long held animosities and go back to settling old scores.
Hell they are even already doing that in Syria before they have even gotten rid of Assad.

And the groups that always rise to the top are usually the most fundamentalist, partially I believe due to fact a fiar chunk of the population actually want them (ala Muslim brotherhood in Egypt) and also because they are the ones willing to go to any extreme to get power (ala ISIS in Syria and Iraq).
Moderates aren't willing to sacrifice themselves or slaughter wholesale to get what they want and thus lose out.

Add into the mix the influx of islamic nutjobs from other countries (often in the Western world), the backing of conflicting sides by the various local Gulf powers who are trying to exert their influence and you have a powder keg.

realweirdo

The scale of Libya's current problems are simply not in the same league as Syrias. A reminder of Syria's current problems where a no fly zone was not implemented - 10 million displaced - half the Syrian population reliant on food aid - 170,000 dead, a similar number missing presumed dead. Tens of thousands held in prisons for peacefully protesting - the rise of ISIS which now threathens the whole region, an organisation Assad helped create so he could then say to the west he is fighting terrorism - Here is an article about it. http://www.newsweek.com/how-syrias-assad-helped-forge-isis-255631?piano_t=1

And now they have come back to bite him and the whole of Syria.

And this without any meaningful intervention and with Assad still in power.

My guess is if the west hadnt intervened in Libya, we would be seeing today in Libya a situation quite similar to Syria, with millions displaced, Benghazi in ruins much like Homs is in ruins and an intractable conflict stretching on for years if not decades. This of course would suit the anti-western brigade no end. There are no easy solutions to the scenario where a mass murdering genocidal maniac like Gadaffi wants to kill everyone who opposes him - remember his quote - either I rule you or I kill you. But the intervention by the west was unquestionably the best option.

The Corinthian

realweirdo wrote: »

My guess is if the west hadnt intervened in Libya, we would be seeing today in Libya a situation quite similar to Syria, with millions displaced, Benghazi in ruins much like Homs is in ruins and an intractable conflict stretching on for years if not decades. This of course would suit the anti-western brigade no end. There are no easy solutions to the scenario where a mass murdering genocidal maniac like Gadaffi wants to kill everyone who opposes him - remember his quote - either I rule you or I kill you. But the intervention by the west was unquestionably the best option.

Actually, most analysis points to a very different scenario, if you care to look at the facts. Assad has been unable to crush the rebellion against him, Gadaffi was already at the gates of Benghazi and would have almost certainly crushed the rebellion had the West not intervened - even with the West intervening it took months for the rebels to push Gadaffi back from a position of about 30km from Benghazi.

So had the West not intervened, the rebellion would have likely failed and Gadaffi would have remained in power, and the disintegration we're witnessing now would not not have occurred. So there's nothing unquestionable about your analysis, I'm afraid.

AlekSmart

The Corinthian wrote: »

Actually, most analysis points to a very different scenario, if you care to look at the facts. Assad has been unable to crush the rebellion against him, Gadaffi was already at the gates of Benghazi and would have almost certainly crushed the rebellion had the West not intervened - even with the West intervening it took months for the rebels to push Gadaffi back from a position of about 30km from Benghazi.

So had the West not intervened, the rebellion would have likely failed and Gadaffi would have remained in power, and the disintegration we're witnessing now would not not have occurred. So there's nothing unquestionable about your analysis, I'm afraid.

With the caveat that since Gadaffi is dead,and his regime now a mere 40 year line in the regions 2000 years of troubled history,all of our opinions,pro and anti are moot for sure.

That said,as I followed the news reports on the developing Libyan crisis,I was struck by the many contradictions visible in advance of the U.N/NATO adventure.

Unrest,certainly,with serious localized rebellion in several unsurprising parts of the country,where the Gadaffi name had never been top-drawer.

Yet,Libya remained a functional entity,with it's energy centred output still flowing and earning revenue for the State.

In the absence of actual evidence of Libyan Government massacres of civilians,the "Interested Observers" could barely conceal their glee when Gadaffi himself waded in with his usual mad-cap OTT performances broadcast worldwide.

With his strident,graphically colourful descriptions of his opponents as "Rats","Cockroaches"and "Devils" etc he was a Godsend to those whose interests were best served by pumping-up the volume.

Gadaffi certainly had'nt mellowed with age,in fact,if anything he may well have gotten crankier and less amenable to wiser,saner counsel as offered by at least one of his son's,Saif.

However,the reality of those Gadaffi mad-dog soundbytes,was that they were directed specifically at those directly involved in the rebellion against the State,with dire warnings to Civillians to get themselves out of town if they wanted to stay safe.

Not a very desirable situation for non-combatants,and something which would strike fear into my heart should it ever happen here,but yet a far far cry from the deliberate indiscriminate attacks on civilian targets which the U.N./NATO used as its core justification for Intervention.

As The Corinthian points out,even with overt military assistance provided by U.N./NATO,the popularity of this rebellion against the Libyan Government was variable,with large numbers of Libyan's remaining reticent about declaring firmly for either side.

One of the Obama administrations major political successes was the manner in which it managed to stay off the centre-stage during the Libyan adventure.

However,it can be argued that the U.S.inspired and executed Financial Sanctions against Libya was the ACTUAL WMD that sealed Gadaffi's own fate and opened the gates on a new-dawn for all of those undecided Libyans.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/sanctions-in-72-hours-how-the-us-pulled-off-a-major-freeze-of-libyan-assets/2011/03/11/ABBckxJB_story.html

I should think that the success of the Financial War on Gadaffi will be helping to shape much of how the Western World majors intend to expand their indirect control over troublesome states and their rulers going forward.

Brown Bomber

jmayo wrote: »

Y
And the groups that always rise to the top are usually the most fundamentalist, partially I believe due to fact a fiar chunk of the population actually want them (ala Muslim brotherhood in Egypt)

It's a lazy generalisation to label the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt as "fundamentalist". Islamist? Yes. Conservative? Yes. Fundamentalist? No.

In fact, the majority of actual fundamentalists; the Salafists, allied with the secularists, liberals and Mubarrak loyalists to overthrow the legitimate MB government in a military coup. The various fundamentalist parties in Egypt got around 10% of the popular vote combined - meaning that in Egypt at least a vast majority did not support the fundamentalists.

Brown Bomber

realweirdo wrote: »

The only liars in this situation are those who think it would have been ok for gadaffi to obliterate whole cities in an effort to take them back.

Morally what is the difference in the then Libyan government hypothetically doing this and NATO doing this to provide air cover for their Al Qaeda affiliated boots on the ground?

Brown Bomber

AlekSmart wrote: »

With Libya's situation s remaining hughly unstable it is interesting to see the emergence of some Irish "Green Army" members at the top of the new ruling order.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/news/dublin-dad-elected-as-mayor-of-tripoli-in-libya-30492455.html

I wonder if this means if this Gulf-funded, friend of Al Qaeda and Stratfor stooge has to give back his 200,000 Euros in CIA blood money he had stolen from his home...

jmayo

Brown Bomber wrote: »

It's a lazy generalisation to label the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt as "fundamentalist". Islamist? Yes. Conservative? Yes. Fundamentalist? No.

In fact, the majority of actual fundamentalists; the Salafists, allied with the secularists, liberals and Mubarrak loyalists to overthrow the legitimate MB government in a military coup. The various fundamentalist parties in Egypt got around 10% of the popular vote combined - meaning that in Egypt at least a vast majority did not support the fundamentalists.

Interesting choice of username.

To me an organisation that will not put a picture of a female election candidate on an election poster because some clerics or other thinks it is wrong is a fundamentalist and not just bloody conservative.
Conservative would be that she wear a hijab.

Of course we could also look to their principles as stated in their website which includes the introduction of Sharia Law and uniting Islamic countries and states in a Caliphate.
Oh and the dying part for allah.

It is interesting that you mention Morsi and the legitimate government overthrown by Salafists, Mubarrak loyalists allied with liberals, secularists and military.

You of course fail to mention that during Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhoods time in charge attacks on Christians and other minorities had drastically increased, the creation of gangs linked to the Muslim Brotherhood that attacked protests and that Morsi tried to give himself the power to legislate without any judical oversight, etc.

realweirdo

The Corinthian wrote: »

Actually, most analysis points to a very different scenario, if you care to look at the facts. Assad has been unable to crush the rebellion against him, Gadaffi was already at the gates of Benghazi and would have almost certainly crushed the rebellion had the West not intervened - even with the West intervening it took months for the rebels to push Gadaffi back from a position of about 30km from Benghazi.

So had the West not intervened, the rebellion would have likely failed and Gadaffi would have remained in power, and the disintegration we're witnessing now would not not have occurred. So there's nothing unquestionable about your analysis, I'm afraid.

Well if we are on the topic of "what ifs".

There is nothing to indicate Gadaffi would have "crushed" the rebellion in anything other than a very bloody way. Retaking Benghazi would have involved street to street urban fighting. Assad had the sense not to bother with this in Homs and instead laid seige to rebellious areas, starved everyone out, barrel bombed and fired artillary. Gadaffi would have likely tried the same approach.

After that, there would be the rounding up of thousands of opponents and there is little question most would have been executed. This is the guy who executed over 1200 prisoners in one day, all because they complained about their conditions.

And Benghazi was just one city in revolt. There was also Misrata and Zintan and parts of Tripoli. Taking back all this and crushing the revolt would have cost at least 10,000 lives minimum. Even with Western assistance thousands lost their lives. And there was very few if any civilian casualties as a result of precision strikes from NATO.

So its your argument that doesn't hold water. Libya has struggled since the fall of Gadaffi but is a thousand times better than Syria where NATO didn't get involved. It doesn't take a genius to see that. Again the most likely outcome of Gadaffi winning was a destroyed Benghazi. Thankfully NATO stopped him from doing that, something his apologists still whinge about.

I personally get sick of people who portray all these dictators as nice guys. Gadaffi was a barbaric mass murdering thug who had personal torture chambers for political opponents and who kept murdered opponents in freezers to view them every so often. The guy was a delusional maniac and only the occassional equally deluded apologist on places like this think it would be better if he was left in power. It wouldn't and tens of thousands of Libyans owe their lives today to NATO, and certainly not to Gadaffi who wanted to murder them and would have.

Gadaffi was almost universally hated in Libya, and yet you have people in Ireland saying he should have been left in power, the same people who go out and vote in every democratic election in Ireland and think the 1916 rising or war of independence was a great thing since it gave irish people the right to self determination.

realweirdo

AlekSmart wrote: »

With the caveat that since Gadaffi is dead,and his regime now a mere 40 year line in the regions 2000 years of troubled history,all of our opinions,pro and anti are moot for sure.

That said,as I followed the news reports on the developing Libyan crisis,I was struck by the many contradictions visible in advance of the U.N/NATO adventure.

Unrest,certainly,with serious localized rebellion in several unsurprising parts of the country,where the Gadaffi name had never been top-drawer.

Yet,Libya remained a functional entity,with it's energy centred output still flowing and earning revenue for the State.

In the absence of actual evidence of Libyan Government massacres of civilians,the "Interested Observers" could barely conceal their glee when Gadaffi himself waded in with his usual mad-cap OTT performances broadcast worldwide.

With his strident,graphically colourful descriptions of his opponents as "Rats","Cockroaches"and "Devils" etc he was a Godsend to those whose interests were best served by pumping-up the volume.

Gadaffi certainly had'nt mellowed with age,in fact,if anything he may well have gotten crankier and less amenable to wiser,saner counsel as offered by at least one of his son's,Saif.

However,the reality of those Gadaffi mad-dog soundbytes,was that they were directed specifically at those directly involved in the rebellion against the State,with dire warnings to Civillians to get themselves out of town if they wanted to stay safe.

Not a very desirable situation for non-combatants,and something which would strike fear into my heart should it ever happen here,but yet a far far cry from the deliberate indiscriminate attacks on civilian targets which the U.N./NATO used as its core justification for Intervention.

As The Corinthian points out,even with overt military assistance provided by U.N./NATO,the popularity of this rebellion against the Libyan Government was variable,with large numbers of Libyan's remaining reticent about declaring firmly for either side.

One of the Obama administrations major political successes was the manner in which it managed to stay off the centre-stage during the Libyan adventure.

However,it can be argued that the U.S.inspired and executed Financial Sanctions against Libya was the ACTUAL WMD that sealed Gadaffi's own fate and opened the gates on a new-dawn for all of those undecided Libyans.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/sanctions-in-72-hours-how-the-us-pulled-off-a-major-freeze-of-libyan-assets/2011/03/11/ABBckxJB_story.html

I should think that the success of the Financial War on Gadaffi will be helping to shape much of how the Western World majors intend to expand their indirect control over troublesome states and their rulers going forward.

I'm sorry but you seem to know nothing about Gadaffi's past or penchant for massacres and mass murder. There are many examples of it, and much of it recorded, including the televising of the executions of university students, some for the "crime" of studying in America. Also the Abu Salim massacre.
Libyans knew not to discuss politics while Gadaffi was alive, and most celebrated his downfall.

So enough of this attempted rehabilitation of Gadaffi's image. Who next? Stalin? He wasn't all that bad was he!

Brown Bomber

jmayo wrote: »

Interesting choice of username.

Really? Why?

jmayo wrote: »

To me an organisation that will not put a picture of a female election candidate on an election poster because some clerics or other thinks it is wrong is a fundamentalist and not just bloody conservative.
Conservative would be that she wear a hijab.

:pac: You are describing the Salafis (The Nour Party) not MB. The MB has circa 50% female members and ran more women candidates in the real democratic election than anyone else. It was Al Nour who used flowers instead of women in their campaign posters and insisted on female interviewers wearing a veil.

You really need to learn the difference between fundamentalists and conservatives.

jmayo wrote: »

Of course we could also look to their principles as stated in their website which includes the introduction of Sharia Law and uniting Islamic countries and states in a Caliphate.

This is from their website and should put into context for you whatever scaremongering media you've been exposed to:http://www.ikhwanweb.com/article.php?id=29516

jmayo wrote: »

Oh and the dying part for allah.

... And they've got beards too!!! Seriously?

jmayo wrote: »

It is interesting that you mention Morsi and the legitimate government overthrown by Salafists, Mubarrak loyalists allied with liberals, secularists and military.

Well it's a fact.

jmayo wrote: »

You of course fail to mention that during Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhoods time in charge attacks on Christians and other minorities had drastically increased,

Attacks by whom? Source for this?

jmayo wrote: »

the creation of gangs linked to the Muslim Brotherhood that attacked protests

Do you know why people were protesting? Linked how? Source?

jmayo wrote: »

and that Morsi tried to give himself the power to legislate without any judical oversight, etc.

These powers were only temporary. The subsequent military putsch, theft of democracy and brutal crackdown proves extraordinary measures were required to attempt to protect Egyptian democracy from the Egyptian deep state..

Which needs to be put into it's context of a power struggle between a democratically elected President and the unelected Mubarrak loyalists in the judiciary who were determined to destablilise the fledgling Egyptian democratic governmnet. These appointees of the dictator had dissolved again a democratically elected Muslim Brotherhood majority parliament at their discretion.

It was this parliament who would have agreed upon egypt's constitution. The secularists withdrew from negotiotians on the constitution and then declared it illegitimite.

Mursi put the constitution to the people which the passed in a democratic referendum 2:1.

Conas

The Corinthian wrote: »

Apart from half of the country being in open revolt, I suppose...

So the West and their NATO allies say they have to go in and remove Gaddafi who is slaughtering his own people, when removed the country turns into a failed state, that's in an ash heap of ruins.

As is Iraq where there was no problem, till Bush turned that country into an ash heap of ruins, at a cost of over a trillion dollars, and countless innocent Iraqis.

They are all failures, they are all useless, they are all crooks, liars and thieves. Nobody cares what the US goverment has to say on foreign policy anymore. They have ruined every country they touched. They might aswell leave it to someone with a brain to clean up their mess. They failed, and that's it.

Conas

jmayo wrote: »

You can't just level that at Obama, although I do agree he is not a strong leader.

You could also use the Libya and Syria argument for Iraq.
saddam was keeping a rein on things and kept all the different factions under control.
Al qeada did not have base there and everything was kinda hunky dory so long as you were pro saddam and he played ball with the west.

Obama's election was the greatest PR stunt in American Presidential History. The only positive thing I can say is that he was the first African-American President, and that will keep the Americans happy. As Oliver Stone said 'it's a good story and Americans like that kind of story'.

But he's keeping the empire going. Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan, Ukraine, Pakistan, Yemen.

Bullying Iran, China and Russia. Why doesn't he just mind his own business, the same for his good for nothing Congress. They are all disasters.

Brown Bomber

Conas wrote: »

So the West and their NATO allies say they have to go in and remove Gaddafi who is slaughtering his own people, when removed the country turns into a failed state, that's in an ash heap of ruins.

As is Iraq where there was no problem, till Bush turned that country into an ash heap of ruins, at a cost of over a trillion dollars, and countless innocent Iraqis.

They are all failures, they are all useless, they are all crooks, liars and thieves. Nobody cares what the US goverment has to say on foreign policy anymore. They have ruined every country they touched. They might aswell leave it to someone with a brain to clean up their mess. They failed, and that's it.

I think the problem is greater than simply destroying a single state via R2P/ regime change wars. It is the ripple effect of these imperialist interventions that is equally destructive. For example, "we" recruit, finance, arm, train and let loose brigades of jihadis to fight on the front lines. Many of these take their training and rifles to fight Assad, the Syrian-Iraqi border becomes non-existent and the Al Qaeda fighters who were fighting the US in Iraq are now the allies and we have the beginnings of what is to become the ISIS Caliphate in Iraq. Another line is the Tuareg's journey, who were given a fair deal in Libya by Gadaffi but who fled into Sudan with their guns and took up a war of self-determination there, and these are just two strands of this.

Conas

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I think the problem is greater than simply destroying a single state via R2P/ regime change wars. It is the ripple effect of these imperialist interventions that is equally destructive. For example, "we" recruit, finance, arm, train and let loose brigades of jihadis to fight on the front lines. Many of these take their training and rifles to fight Assad, the Syrian-Iraqi border becomes non-existent and the Al Qaeda fighters who were fighting the US in Iraq are now the allies and we have the beginnings of what is to become the ISIS Caliphate in Iraq. Another line is the Tuareg's journey, who were given a fair deal in Libya by Gadaffi but who fled into Sudan with their guns and took up a war of self-determination there, and these are just two strands of this.

It's all smoke and mirrors as far as I'm concerned, all deception. Every leader out their that they don't like he's labelled a dictator, and the they insist he has to be removed, and everyone seems dumb enough to swallow that BS every single time. Then they install in their man, and things get worse, and the chaos never ends. Might I also add to the list of failures that I mentioned above, is the issue in Gaza which they are incapable for resolving for decades.

Now they think we should believe in all the things that they say about Assad, the situation in Ukraine, Iranian's nuclear weapons program. Nobody can trust them anymore.

I listen to Obama reading from his script, and teleprompter, and all I hear is BS coming out of his mouth.

realweirdo

Conas wrote: »

So the West and their NATO allies say they have to go in and remove Gaddafi who is slaughtering his own people, when removed the country turns into a failed state, that's in an ash heap of ruins.

As is Iraq where there was no problem, till Bush turned that country into an ash heap of ruins, at a cost of over a trillion dollars, and countless innocent Iraqis.

They are all failures, they are all useless, they are all crooks, liars and thieves. Nobody cares what the US goverment has to say on foreign policy anymore. They have ruined every country they touched. They might aswell leave it to someone with a brain to clean up their mess. They failed, and that's it.

Its not a failed state, far from it. The country functions as normally with healthcare, education, civilian infrastructure mostly working as normal. There have been democratic elections and the first post Gadaffi mayor of Tripoli was recently elected, an Irish man to boot! There is a central government and a growing military. The militias have to be disarmed, no-one doubts that and it will take time and patience. Name me one western European country which transitioned from dictatorship to democracy in peace and without some bloodshed.
The real beneficiaries of the fall of Gadaffi will be future generations of Libyans just as it was in western europe with the fall of dictators and monarchs. no-one ever said the transition to democracy would be easy in Libya and its definitely a work in progress.

realweirdo

Conas wrote: »

It's all smoke and mirrors as far as I'm concerned, all deception. Every leader out their that they don't like he's labelled a dictator, and the they insist he has to be removed, and everyone seems dumb enough to swallow that BS every single time. Then they install in their man, and things get worse, and the chaos never ends. Might I also add to the list of failures that I mentioned above, is the issue in Gaza which they are incapable for resolving for decades.

Now they think we should believe in all the things that they say about Assad, the situation in Ukraine, Iranian's nuclear weapons program. Nobody can trust them anymore.

I listen to Obama reading from his script, and teleprompter, and all I hear is BS coming out of his mouth.

Oxford English Dictionary:

dictator
noun
1A ruler with total power over a country, typically one who has obtained control by force.

1.1A person who behaves in an autocratic way.

There's really no room for misunderstanding there. Gadaffi was a dictator, as was Saddam. There is no way these guys were upholders of democracy no matter how you look at it, or whether the west hated them or not. They were dictators, full stop.

Harold Weiss

realweirdo wrote: »

Oxford English Dictionary:

dictator
noun
1A ruler with total power over a country, typically one who has obtained control by force.

1.1A person who behaves in an autocratic way.

There's really no room for misunderstanding there. Gadaffi was a dictator, as was Saddam. There is no way these guys were upholders of democracy no matter how you look at it, or whether the west hated them or not. They were dictators, full stop.

What's the House of Saud in Saudi Arabia, Museveni in Uganda or even Khalifa in Bahrain?

I'm not disputing whether Gaddafi or Hussein were dictators, just the motives you believe led NATO/US to blow up and murder people in Libya and Iraq.

Brown Bomber

realweirdo wrote: »

Its not a failed state, far from it. The country functions as normally with healthcare, education, civilian infrastructure mostly working as normal. There have been democratic elections and the first post Gadaffi mayor of Tripoli was recently elected, an Irish man to boot! There is a central government and a growing military. The militias have to be disarmed, no-one doubts that and it will take time and patience. Name me one western European country which transitioned from dictatorship to democracy in peace and without some bloodshed.
The real beneficiaries of the fall of Gadaffi will be future generations of Libyans just as it was in western europe with the fall of dictators and monarchs. no-one ever said the transition to democracy would be easy in Libya and its definitely a work in progress.

It's has been fairly easy for YOU to be fair, all you had to do was cheer on NATO's fireworks show from your armchair. You aren't the one being caged in a zoo because the colour of your (black) skin being force-fed the new Libyan cloth flag at gunpoint are you?

And here is our new Mayor embracing his "close confederate" the leader of Al Qaeda in Libya Belhaj. This is progress to you?

Conas

realweirdo wrote: »

Oxford English Dictionary:

dictator
noun
1A ruler with total power over a country, typically one who has obtained control by force.

1.1A person who behaves in an autocratic way.

There's really no room for misunderstanding there. Gadaffi was a dictator, as was Saddam. There is no way these guys were upholders of democracy no matter how you look at it, or whether the west hated them or not. They were dictators, full stop.

Deny all you want, the countries are in an ash heap of ruins AFTER they were removed from power. If the people wanted them out so bad, we wouldn't be listening to never ending bloodshed all these years later. Turns out they should have been left in power, and those countries never bombed in the first place.

Bush was responsible for the murder of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians. Tortured people, but I bet you would never think of Bush as a dictator though would you? All they wanted is control of all the oil, and resources in those countries. They never cared about the people of Libya, and Iraq. Never did, and never will.

Saddam was funded and armed by the US in the 1980s, so that makes him a dictator that was friends with the Reagan administration. Osama Bin Laden was funded and armed by America in the 1980s to fight the Soviets. They were America's boys all along. I just think it's hilarious how people forget so easily. You ought to go deeper down the rabbit hole my friend.

realweirdo

Conas wrote: »

Deny all you want, the countries are in an ash heap of ruins AFTER they were removed from power. If the people wanted them out so bad, we wouldn't be listening to never ending bloodshed all these years later. Turns out they should have been left in power, and those countries never bombed in the first place.

Bush was responsible for the murder of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians. Tortured people, but I bet you would never think of Bush as a dictator though would you? All they wanted is control of all the oil, and resources in those countries. They never cared about the people of Libya, and Iraq. Never did, and never will.

Saddam was funded and armed by the US in the 1980s, so that makes him a dictator that was friends with the Reagan administration. Osama Bin Laden was funded and armed by America in the 1980s to fight the Soviets. They were America's boys all along. I just think it's hilarious how people forget so easily. You ought to go deeper down the rabbit hole my friend.

Again, this is all like saying USSR/Russia was better under Stalin. It's exactly the same kind of mindset. But its all rose tinted glasses. These countries weren't better under Stalin/Milosevic/Saddam/Gadaffi.

They were better for a tiny elite.

99% of Libya is fine. But when there are issues with 1%, that's the 1% the usual anti western brigade harp on about.

Anyways, I would ask people like you, if you despise western values so much, why do you still live here? Rather hypocritical on your part

realweirdo

Harold Weiss wrote: »

What's the House of Saud in Saudi Arabia, Museveni in Uganda or even Khalifa in Bahrain?

I'm not disputing whether Gaddafi or Hussein were dictators, just the motives you believe led NATO/US to blow up and murder people in Libya and Iraq.

Ah yes...NATO evil, Gadaffi good.

We've heard all this before and at this stage its repetitive, false and boring.

Conas

realweirdo wrote: »

Again, this is all like saying USSR/Russia was better under Stalin. It's exactly the same kind of mindset. But its all rose tinted glasses. These countries weren't better under Stalin/Milosevic/Saddam/Gadaffi.

They were better for a tiny elite.

99% of Libya is fine. But when there are issues with 1%, that's the 1% the usual anti western brigade harp on about.

Anyways, I would ask people like you, if you despise western values so much, why do you still live here? Rather hypocritical on your part

America fought along side Stalin and the Communists to the defeat Germany in WW2, despite the fact that the likes of Roosevelt no doubt knew 'Uncle Joe' and the Bolsheviks were slaughtering 100,000's of their own people, and working others to death in the Gulags. What I'm trying to say is, these people are allies when they suit the American goverment, and then enemies when they don't suit their agenda. How can anyone not despise such hypocritical rubbish. Who will be the enemy tomorrow? who will they be going to war with next year? Iran most likely. Since they never stop warmongering against that's country over non-existent nukes. Is their any country that the American goverment do like?