Lessons from Libya: How Not to Intervene

Harold Weiss

realweirdo wrote: »

Ah yes...NATO evil, Gadaffi good.

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

I've also grown tired trying to understand your flawed beliefs.

Anytime you're confronted with the fact US and EU support dictators all over the world, your entirely flawed argument of "Gaddafi was a dictator" falls apart.

Can't you see? Obviously not.

The Corinthian

realweirdo wrote: »

There is nothing to indicate Gadaffi would have "crushed" the rebellion in anything other than a very bloody way.

I don't dispute that and already suggested this earlier in the thread.

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.

Except he wasn't, he was advancing on Benghazi with no sign of stopping at the gates. Wishful thinking on your part, I'm afraid.

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.

Alternatively, the rebellion that followed saw 25,000 killed and more continue to die as a result of the anarchy that has followed. Do the math.

So its your argument that doesn't hold water.

Actually yours doesn't and it didn't take much to demolish it - just some facts. Even by your own estimates, it's a question of 10,000+ casualties versus 25,000+. As I said, do the math.

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.

It also shouldn't take a genius to see that you cannot assume that they are the same, and what works in one will work in the other, but seemingly this is too complicated a concept too. Apparently, you've decided that they are the same though, that Gadaffi and Assad faced identical rebellions, with exactly the same chance of crushing them. Unfortunately, if you actually look at the Libyan rebellion, you'll see that this was never the case.

I personally get sick of people who portray all these dictators as nice guys.

This is something I don't understand; no one has suggested he was a nice guy. All I've done is point out that given two imperfect choices you go for the least worst. Basic minimax game theory.

The inability to see things outside of simplistic terms of black and white, as you and some others have displayed, is nothing to be proud of, I'm afraid. We live in a World of Realpolitik even if it tends to upset those who wish the World was as black and white as their convictions.

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.

I don't disagree with you on this - except that it is not yet a failed state, just likely to become one. My comment was to correct you on your claim that "there was nothing wrong in Libya until the US and NATO stuck their nose into it's affairs", which was factually incorrect.

There was plenty wrong, but that in itself does not justify intervention. Unfortunately in these situations, one is faced with a Hob's son choice - not so much the best one, just the least worst one.

jmayo

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Really? Why?

Do I need to draw you a diagram or maybe even a cartoon

Brown Bomber wrote: »

: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.

ehh from recollection wathcing a documentary on BBC (??) it centred on western educated young girl and young member of muslim brotherhood who were protesting against Mubarak.
It went as far as covering elections and oyung man showed election poster with blacked out profile which he said was woman.
Of course maybe my memory is totally failing.

BTW fundamentalist organisations also have female members and in fact female terrorists have often been considered mroe dangerous and committed.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

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

Ever consider one man's conservative maybe another man's fundamentalist.
What is your definition btw ?

Brown Bomber wrote: »

These powers were only temporary.

Of coruse they were only temporary. :rolleyes:

Brown Bomber wrote: »

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..

I didn't ever say the military take over was a great thing now did I ?

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.

Ehh Spain post Franco and the Carnation Revolution in Portugal would be two that come to mind.

realweirdo

Harold Weiss wrote: »

I've also grown tired trying to understand your flawed beliefs.

Anytime you're confronted with the fact US and EU support dictators all over the world, your entirely flawed argument of "Gaddafi was a dictator" falls apart.

Can't you see? Obviously not.

Ok i think you are deliberately over looking some saliant points on the question of libya.

The main one being that the Arab League supported the overthrow of gadaffi, the unsc voted 13-0 for a no fly zone, and the no fly zone was implemented mostly by france, uk, italy and a number of normally peace loving scandanavian countries. It also had support from germany. These facts easily get forgotten by some american haters who desperately try to blame america for everything.

Before you know it they will be saying afghanistan was better under the taliban and they should have been left in power! I dont know whether to laugh or cry at their logical fallacies.

realweirdo

AlekSmart wrote: »

In the case of Libya,that's exactly what I'm suggesting.

And non intervention worked out great in syria right?
At least there are democratic elections in libya and an attempt at nation building.
Syria on the other hand is in ruins with a dictator fighting only to save his own neck and an islamic state that recruits 1000 new fighters a month all recruited to fight Assad and later the west. All as predictable as night following day. Yep the non interventionists really got that one right.

AlekSmart

realweirdo wrote: »

And non intervention worked out great in syria right?
At least there are democratic elections in libya and an attempt at nation building.
Syria on the other hand is in ruins with a dictator fighting only to save his own neck and an islamic state that recruits 1000 new fighters a month all recruited to fight Assad and later the west. All as predictable as night following day. Yep the non interventionists really got that one right.

I think the Libyan/Syrian comparisons are a bit weird TBH.

Very little to compare except for death and destruction really ?

Although it may not be attractive to our finely developed tastes,the Gadaffi's,Hussein's and Al Assad's of the "Other" World were far more effective at recognising and controlling the various phsychotic individuals and groups than any of our Governments ever will be.

Indeed,in Gadaffi's case,the decision to release hard-line opponents from prison on the strength of their written undertakings to renounce their former beliefs,lergely sealed the Colonels fate.

I'm at a bit of a loss to explain how Syria,as a country,is still functioning,how is Al Assad's regime still capable of putting an army in the field ?
Are there still enough supporters to keep the regime in power ?
1000,new recruits a week should surely be seeing the Government forces having to admit defeat...or are we reluctant to admit that,perhaps,a significant number of Syrians DO support the existing Government ?

Sometimes we in the West really do need to pause for thought in advance of acting upon our firm beliefs that we KNOW whats best for them.

The Corinthian

realweirdo wrote: »

And non intervention worked out great in syria right?

It would be nice if you'd actually explain how this is relevant. It's already been pointed out that you're presuming that both Syria and Libya were pretty much the same. Except that you've not given any evidence why this is so and if you look at the two rebellions they were progressing quite differently when the question of intervention was being considered.

Of course, you can continue making this claim and pretend that it's true, ignoring what's been said, but then no one's going to take you very seriously now, are they?

realweirdo

The Corinthian wrote: »

It would be nice if you'd actually explain how this is relevant. It's already been pointed out that you're presuming that both Syria and Libya were pretty much the same. Except that you've not given any evidence why this is so and if you look at the two rebellions they were progressing quite differently when the question of intervention was being considered.

Of course, you can continue making this claim and pretend that it's true, ignoring what's been said, but then no one's going to take you very seriously now, are they?

Ok sticking to Libya so. The point has been made that Libya is essentially a failed state. It is far from a failed state. A number of militias fighting off and on over territory is not the definition of a failed state. These militias are mostly killing each other by the way which is hardly a bad thing. A failed state is where there is no central government, no proper or sustained civilian infrastructure, no electricity, no water, no sanitation, no oil production, no government employees receiving weekly pay packets, not just some not receiving them but ALL not receiving them. Again Libya has problems, no-one doubts that, but it is very far from a failed state. Currently the country produces 500,000 barrels of oil a day, with much of the revenue going into government finances (as opposed to the good old days when it went into Gadaffi family finances, great socialist and all that he was). Most infrastructure works ok although there are problems with some. Libya still remains a fairly modern state in comparision to genuinely failed states such as Somalia and Afghanistan during the Taliban era and other states. 3 years since the fall of Gadaffi and so far Libya is in ok shape and nowhere near a failed state, so lets knock the failed state myth on the head. No-one questions that the militias have to give up their weapons, and it will mean some form of power sharing before that is done.

The second point is that people who try to lay the blame at America for Libya's problems expose themselves once more as having an anti American bias. They spout anti American propaganda at every opportunity and that what's it is, propaganda, especially when it is not based in fact. Obama was very loath to intervene in Libya as he has been everywhere else. Yes America fired cruise missiles at the start which were nessecary to take out anti aircraft weapons and also some navy ships but apart from that, the Europeans including Scandanavians took the lead. Added to that was the fact the intervention had widespread international support and passed by a margin of 13-0 with two abstentions at the UNSC and its clear, the overthrow of Gadaffi was a multi national operation. No-one seriously can doubt that. That however won't stop the usual people trying in some way to blame America. I think such people imagine the world would be somehow better if America didn't intervene anywhere. It wouldn't. In all likelihood, you'd have an IS type organisation completely over-running the Middle East with their misguided 7th century ideology and no-one but no-one would put a stop to them.

realweirdo

AlekSmart wrote: »

I think the Libyan/Syrian comparisons are a bit weird TBH.

Very little to compare except for death and destruction really ?

Although it may not be attractive to our finely developed tastes,the Gadaffi's,Hussein's and Al Assad's of the "Other" World were far more effective at recognising and controlling the various phsychotic individuals and groups than any of our Governments ever will be.

Indeed,in Gadaffi's case,the decision to release hard-line opponents from prison on the strength of their written undertakings to renounce their former beliefs,lergely sealed the Colonels fate.

I'm at a bit of a loss to explain how Syria,as a country,is still functioning,how is Al Assad's regime still capable of putting an army in the field ?
Are there still enough supporters to keep the regime in power ?
1000,new recruits a week should surely be seeing the Government forces having to admit defeat...or are we reluctant to admit that,perhaps,a significant number of Syrians DO support the existing Government ?

Sometimes we in the West really do need to pause for thought in advance of acting upon our firm beliefs that we KNOW whats best for them.

Except that it has been well documented by numerous sources and eye witnesses that Assad did a great deal to create ISIS. Killing unarmed protesters which is what Assad was doing in the early days of the uprising made for very bad press. Assad needed an enemy, an armed enemy. He said he would never step down while he was fighting "terrorists". So what does he do? He releases some hardcore jihadists back into the wild. He mercillessly bombs regular FSA troops most of which are Syrians, and allows ISIS grow and get a foothold, recruiting thousands including many from Chechnya and elsewhere. And hey presto he has a ready made terrorist organisation which he can claim to be fighting. Only it looks like he misjudged it and now with ISIS recruiting 6000 new fighters in the last month alone according to some sources, they have the potential to take over much of Syria and become impossible to dislodge. In short, no one is more responsible for the rise of ISIS in Syria than Assad. Just one more gift to the people of Syria from this self serving thug.

For anyone interested in this, some articles on how Assad has been helping ISIS

http://www.slate.com/blogs/business_insider/2014/08/20/how_james_foley_fell_into_the_hands_of_isis_a_group_bashar_al_assad_helped.html

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2014/03/al-assad-fatal-strategic-mistak-201432910353132476.html

The Corinthian

realweirdo wrote: »

Ok sticking to Libya so.

Let's not throw the toys out off the pram now...

The point has been made that Libya is essentially a failed state. It is far from a failed state. A number of militias fighting off and on over territory is not the definition of a failed state.

Libya is not a failed state - but it is a failing state and it is looking increasingly likely that it will either slide completely into anarchy or be embroiled in conflict with a nominal central government (like Somalia) for years to come. You're also making light of the situation there - whether out of ignorance or because it does not suit you to acknowledge it - it's not simply a few militias, but a central government with little or no control outside of the capital, which it also doesn't fully control. And it's not getting better...

The second point is that people who try to lay the blame at America for Libya's problems expose themselves once more as having an anti American bias.

I agree, which is why I've never mentioned America (AFAIK) and instead pointed the finger at the West. In the case of Libya, I'd probably point the finger more at the UK or France than the US.

Without Western military intervention Gadaffi would almost certainly have held onto power (please see the state of his and rebel forces at the time for evidence of this). And as a result many more died that would have realistically died in reprisals (according to the estimates you gave of the latter). And all this might be worthwhile, except things are not getting better, but worse (feel free to dispute this) and likely to lead to another autocratic ruler, once the dust settles.

Now faced with these facts, you'd have to admit that intervention turned out to make things worse. Yes, Gadaffi was a monster, yadda-yadda - but consider the situation objectively rather than from pointless, bloodstained principle.

realweirdo

The Corinthian wrote: »

Let's not throw the toys out off the pram now...

Libya is not a failed state - but it is a failing state and it is looking increasingly likely that it will either slide completely into anarchy or be embroiled in conflict with a nominal central government (like Somalia) for years to come. You're also making light of the situation there - whether out of ignorance or because it does not suit you to acknowledge it - it's not simply a few militias, but a central government with little or no control outside of the capital, which it also doesn't fully control. And it's not getting better...

I agree, which is why I've never mentioned America (AFAIK) and instead pointed the finger at the West. In the case of Libya, I'd probably point the finger more at the UK or France than the US.

Without Western military intervention Gadaffi would almost certainly have held onto power (please see the state of his and rebel forces at the time for evidence of this). And as a result many more died that would have realistically died in reprisals (according to the estimates you gave of the latter). And all this might be worthwhile, except things are not getting better, but worse (feel free to dispute this) and likely to lead to another autocratic ruler, once the dust settles.

Now faced with these facts, you'd have to admit that intervention turned out to make things worse. Yes, Gadaffi was a monster, yadda-yadda - but consider the situation objectively rather than from pointless, bloodstained principle.

It would take a while to list off all the crimes Gadaffi committed during his 40 year rule and the hundreds of thousands of deaths he was responsible for...how long have you got? Maybe I will just summarise some of them.

I thought of another one just now. His weapons shipments to the IRA probably extended the Nothern Ireland conflict for another 10 years.

He was a noted rapist and child abuser
http://www.iol.co.za/news/africa/the-terrible-truth-about-gaddafi-s-harem-1.1596885
http://metro.co.uk/2013/10/17/annick-cojean-reveals-the-dark-secrets-of-gaddafis-harem-4148687/

He was responsible for the Abu Salim massacre.

He financed and armed countless terrorist organisations across the world who in turn massacred thousands.

For this alone the world is a better place without him, and Libya certainly is.

The Corinthian

realweirdo wrote: »

It would take a while to list off all the crimes Gadaffi committed during his 40 year rule and the hundreds of thousands of deaths he was responsible for...how long have you got?

About as long as you bothered to spend addressing what I wrote.

AlekSmart

realweirdo wrote: »

Ok sticking to Libya so. The point has been made that Libya is essentially a failed state. It is far from a failed state. A number of militias fighting off and on over territory is not the definition of a failed state. These militias are mostly killing each other by the way which is hardly a bad thing. A failed state is where there is no central government, no proper or sustained civilian infrastructure, no electricity, no water, no sanitation, no oil production, no government employees receiving weekly pay packets, not just some not receiving them but ALL not receiving them. Again Libya has problems, no-one doubts that, but it is very far from a failed state. Currently the country produces 500,000 barrels of oil a day, with much of the revenue going into government finances (as opposed to the good old days when it went into Gadaffi family finances, great socialist and all that he was). Most infrastructure works ok although there are problems with some. Libya still remains a fairly modern state in comparision to genuinely failed states such as Somalia and Afghanistan during the Taliban era and other states. 3 years since the fall of Gadaffi and so far Libya is in ok shape and nowhere near a failed state, so lets knock the failed state myth on the head. No-one questions that the militias have to give up their weapons, and it will mean some form of power sharing before that is done.

The second point is that people who try to lay the blame at America for Libya's problems expose themselves once more as having an anti American bias. They spout anti American propaganda at every opportunity and that what's it is, propaganda, especially when it is not based in fact. Obama was very loath to intervene in Libya as he has been everywhere else. Yes America fired cruise missiles at the start which were nessecary to take out anti aircraft weapons and also some navy ships but apart from that, the Europeans including Scandanavians took the lead. Added to that was the fact the intervention had widespread international support and passed by a margin of 13-0 with two abstentions at the UNSC and its clear, the overthrow of Gadaffi was a multi national operation. No-one seriously can doubt that. That however won't stop the usual people trying in some way to blame America. I think such people imagine the world would be somehow better if America didn't intervene anywhere. It wouldn't. In all likelihood, you'd have an IS type organisation completely over-running the Middle East with their misguided 7th century ideology and no-one but no-one would put a stop to them.

I may appear odd,but I don't actually rate the U.S involvement in the Libyan adventure all that important at all.

The odd collection of European movers n'shakers who led the charge into the desert and the pursuit of Gadaffi has'nt been seen too often in Worldwide peacekeeping.

Describing Libya today as a "Failed State" is open to debate for sure,however it can equally be argued that neither was Gadaffi's Libya "failed",at least up until the U.S.orchestrated Financial Offensive on the ability to fund it's own existence.

As realweirdo alludes,any State capable of paying it's Butchers,Bakers and Candlestick makers is by definition "Functioning" and seizing control of Libyan Government assets and finance worldwide was the final piece in that Jigsaw.

Gadaffi's dead and gone,and good riddance too say the populist moodwatchers,however,one will have to wait quite some time to completely re-write Libyan history and satisfy a need to prove his rule had no popular support...ever !

I found this article to be a good read.....http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/28/world/africa/fighting-for-control-of-airport-in-tripoli-post-revolt-libya-is-coming-undone-us-embassy-evacuating-staff.html?_r=0

Colonel Qaddafi’s dictatorship had left a country bereft of institutions, or consensus political figures, that might ease the transition. The NATO intervention left its own troubling legacy, stirring fights over resources provided by foreign patrons. Libyans seemed focused on creating the institutions that “the West was interested in seeing them create,” said Professor Vandewalle, including elections and a political system. “It was hollow,” he said.

In the absence of a strong government, a monstrous shadow state was emerging, centered on the power of militias made up of men who fought Colonel Qaddafi and never put down their arms.

They became security units, paid by the government and aligned with political factions or local tribal interests. “There were parallel chains of command,” Ms. Gazzini said. “Parallel security units became a problem from Day 1. Maybe the international community didn’t see the consequences of this.”

It appears quite likely the "International Community",as defined in the Libyan adventure,fully expected the Libyan people to rush to embrace the ideals of civilized Western Democracy,so those "consequences" were never an issue ?

realweirdo

The Corinthian wrote: »

About as long as you bothered to spend addressing what I wrote.

I have addressed it - failed state or failing state, again far from it. Oil production is being ramped up, most people go about their daily lives, there's been democratic elections, things are improving for most people. Yes there are low level conflicts which inevitably make the news. I would equate it to Northern Ireland during the Troubles. Wall to wall coverage here and abroad of shootings, bombings, and so on and very little about the rest of Northern Ireland and how things generally went on as normal with some inconvience. It's on that level in my view - whether you accept my opinion or not as valid, that's up to you. Now having said all that, would it be right to have characterised Northern Ireland as a failing state in the 1970s and 80s? Some people might have argued yes. It all depends how you define a failing state and people will disagree on this.

In my own view, as long as you can go to a hospital, go to school, buy a burger in the local McDonalds or equivalent, then its not a failed or failing state and nowhere near to being one.

Having McDonalds restaurants in your country is actually a sign of progress, believe it or not, although it is hard to believe! For others it would be better if we were all herding sheep on a mountain - for them that would be far preferable to being able to eat in the restaurant of an evil corporation.

Having IS run you, or living in a world where you can walk into a McDonalds, I know which I'd prefer!

realweirdo

Harold Weiss wrote: »

I've also grown tired trying to understand your flawed beliefs.

Anytime you're confronted with the fact US and EU support dictators all over the world, your entirely flawed argument of "Gaddafi was a dictator" falls apart.

Can't you see? Obviously not.

Ah I get it - When the west support dictators, they are condemned. When the west overthrows same dictators they are condemned. When the west doesn't support democracy in these countries they are condemned. When they try to support democracy in these countries they are condemened. When they support religious dictatorships in these countries they are condemned. When they don't they are also condemned.

When countries like Iraq are handed a chance to run their own affairs, given a strong army and still make a hash of it, the west is condemned.

When a 7th century ideology takes hold in a region, the west is condemned. If the west try to stop its spread with drone and airstrikes, the west is condemned and not a word said against the proponents of the 7th century ideology.

When the west intervenes somewhere it is condemned. When it doesn't intervene elsewhere it is also condemned, often by the same people!

I see alright. The west is a convienent whipping boy for everything, even when a lot of the time the west is blameless. Easier to blame the west than confront violent jihadists who want to cut your head off after all.

The Corinthian

realweirdo wrote: »

I have addressed it - failed state or failing state, again far from it.

No, you've just regurgitated your previous post and have not even touched on a single point I made. It's clear you're just here to soapbox.

realweirdo

The Corinthian wrote: »

No, you've just regurgitated your previous post and have not even touched on a single point I made. It's clear you're just here to soapbox.

I believe I have made my views clear on Libya, go back and read my posts. The only reason you think I am regurgitating my posts is that I am merely repeating my view on Libya. I have laid it out in great detail. Please reread my posts, its all there and I don't think I can add to anything in further replies to you. My main point and I am a big fan of giving people one main point they actually remember is that Libya for reasons I outlined, Africa, and the world is a far far better place with Gadaffi gone. I can try to say it in different ways if you like but the main point will be the same.

Harold Weiss

realweirdo wrote: »

I have addressed it - failed state or failing state, again far from it. Oil production is being ramped up, most people go about their daily lives, there's been democratic elections, things are improving for most people. Yes there are low level conflicts which inevitably make the news. I would equate it to Northern Ireland during the Troubles. Wall to wall coverage here and abroad of shootings, bombings, and so on and very little about the rest of Northern Ireland and how things generally went on as normal with some inconvience. It's on that level in my view - whether you accept my opinion or not as valid, that's up to you. Now having said all that, would it be right to have characterised Northern Ireland as a failing state in the 1970s and 80s? Some people might have argued yes. It all depends how you define a failing state and people will disagree on this.

In my own view, as long as you can go to a hospital, go to school, buy a burger in the local McDonalds or equivalent, then its not a failed or failing state and nowhere near to being one.

Having McDonalds restaurants in your country is actually a sign of progress, believe it or not, although it is hard to believe! For others it would be better if we were all herding sheep on a mountain - for them that would be far preferable to being able to eat in the restaurant of an evil corporation.

Having IS run you, or living in a world where you can walk into a McDonalds, I know which I'd prefer!

I don't think you're really serious. Your post made me laugh, specially in bold.

realweirdo

Harold Weiss wrote: »

I don't think you're really serious. Your post made me laugh, specially in bold.

I'm very serious!!

realweirdo

The Corinthian wrote: »

Libya is not a failed state - but it is a failing state and it is looking increasingly likely that it will either slide completely into anarchy or be embroiled in conflict with a nominal central government (like Somalia) for years to come. You're also making light of the situation there - whether out of ignorance or because it does not suit you to acknowledge it - it's not simply a few militias, but a central government with little or no control outside of the capital, which it also doesn't fully control. And it's not getting better...

I think you might agree your decription of what you believe a failing state to be almost exactly mirrors what is happening in Syria today. The reason I use the Syria example is to compare and contrast which you have to do. In otherwords, the west didn't intervene in Syria and yet today it is a failing/failed state. So non interventionism is no guarantee of a successful outcome.

In any case, its a moot point - Libya is better off without Gadaffi - its far too easy for people in their comfortable surrounds to say Libya was better off under Gadaffi. Unless you have first hand experience of Gadaffis regime its pointless saying it was ok to live under him. Most Libyans lived in a constant state of terror. And its known 20% of Libyans were paid informers of the state. There are animals who have better existances than that.

Harold Weiss

realweirdo wrote: »

I'm very serious!!

I don't think so

realweirdo

Harold Weiss wrote: »

I don't think so

Nice to see the humour police are out in force.

I was trying to make a point in a humourous way which is allowed is it not? Do we all have to be thumping the table angry all the time?? :rolleyes:

Harold Weiss

realweirdo wrote: »

Nice to see the humour police are out in force.

I was trying to make a point in a humourous way which is allowed is it not? Do we all have to be thumping the table angry all the time?? :rolleyes:

China having 2000+ McDonalds opened means progress to you, does it?

The pinnacle of freedom for you seems to buying a happy meal and drinking coca cola.

realweirdo

Harold Weiss wrote: »

China having 2000+ McDonalds opened means progress to you, does it?

The pinnacle of freedom for you seems to buying a happy meal and drinking coca cola.

This the China that has enjoyed 10% growth every year for the last 15 years - the same China that has lifted millions out of poverty largely by opening up its economy and adopting western style economic policies. I call that pretty good progress alright. Certainly better than the peasant subsistance agriculture that used to be the norm. Most Chinese know now that if they work hard enough they can enjoy the fruits of their labour - one of the classic reasons why communism failed - no matter how hard you worked, you never really bettered yourself or were allowed to by your government.

Harold Weiss

realweirdo wrote: »

no matter how hard you worked, you never really bettered yourself or were allowed to by your government.

Sounds like Ireland?
We have McDonalds too...

There are a number of misconceptions you have but the main one is believing NATO bombed Gaddafi to help Libyans. They didn't.

NATO also didn't have any intention of helping Syrians by ousting Assad.

I'm not interested in arguing with you any further about it because there's no point.

If you want to believe NATO have some altruistic / righteous motives when blowing up countries, that's up to you. I don't care.

The Corinthian

realweirdo wrote: »

The only reason you think I am regurgitating my posts is that I am merely repeating my view on Libya.

Yes, that's called soapboxing - to wax philosophical to promote your own agenda. These fora are for discussion, where posters exchange views and debate topics to arrive at views based upon argument and counter-argument. If you ignore the arguments of others, soapbox, it doesn't matter how much you repeat yourself, you'll just end up being dismissed as a fanatic who has little interest in any views other than his own, largely discredited, ones.

A blog may serve your style of rhetoric better.

realweirdo wrote: »

In any case, its a moot point - Libya is better off without Gadaffi - its far too easy for people in their comfortable surrounds to say Libya was better off under Gadaffi.

Ironically it is just as easy for for people in their comfortable surrounds to say Libya is better off without Gadaffi. Not that you're interested.

Brown Bomber

Harold Weiss wrote: »

I don't think you're really serious. Your post made me laugh, specially in bold.

Yeah, me too. The state formerly known as Libya is worse than Mad Max but as long as the jihadi overlords have their big macs it's all good.

Brown Bomber

realweirdo wrote: »

This the China that has enjoyed 10% growth every year for the last 15 years - the same China that has lifted millions out of poverty largely by opening up its economy and adopting western style economic policies. I call that pretty good progress alright. Certainly better than the peasant subsistance agriculture that used to be the norm. Most Chinese know now that if they work hard enough they can enjoy the fruits of their labour - one of the classic reasons why communism failed - no matter how hard you worked, you never really bettered yourself or were allowed to by your government.

It's also the China that seen protestors killed by the government yesterday. On the same day we also read that Chinese officials are being punished for practicing their faith. Two days ago their military were advancing into Indian territory. All that is missing is the asinine claims of "Gadaffi-sponsored viagra-fueled rape mobs". It looks like the only thing standing in the way of "altruistic" intervention is the 2,000 McDonalds's.

Brown Bomber

jmayo wrote: »

Do I need to draw you a diagram or maybe even a cartoon

No. Words will be fine

jmayo wrote: »

ehh from recollection wathcing a documentary on BBC (??) it centred on western educated young girl and young member of muslim brotherhood who were protesting against Mubarak.
It went as far as covering elections and oyung man showed election poster with blacked out profile which he said was woman.
Of course maybe my memory is totally failing.

I'm going to disregard this documentary that you think you might have seen something something about something on and restate -- and I say this as someone who has lived in Cairo and keep in touch with friends there -- that it is the Al Nour party (the actual fundamentalists in Egypt and the friends of the secularists and military) who used images of women in the election posters.

jmayo wrote: »

BTW fundamentalist organisations also have female members and in fact female terrorists have often been considered mroe dangerous and committed.

You can't justify one false conflation with another. A fundamentalist and a terrorist are two entirely different things.

jmayo wrote: »

Ever consider one man's conservative maybe another man's fundamentalist.
What is your definition btw ?

Fundamentalist and Conservative are not open to personal definitions. They are clearly defined terms.

jmayo wrote: »

Of coruse they were only temporary. :rolleyes:

We have no way of knowing. Besides, you are ignoring the point. It has been proven that extraordinary, albeit anti-democratic measures were required to protect the now stolen democracy in Egypt. Do you think Mursi didn't know this? It could be argued with hindsight that the end justified the means.

realweirdo

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Yeah, me too. The state formerly known as Libya is worse than Mad Max but as long as the jihadi overlords have their big macs it's all good.

I could explain my use of the McDonalds example to you but unfortunately it would fly way way over your head, so I won't bother. The explanation for it is actually quite complex.

realweirdo

Brown Bomber wrote: »

It's also the China that seen protestors killed by the government yesterday. On the same day we also read that Chinese officials are being punished for practicing their faith. Two days ago their military were advancing into Indian territory. All that is missing is the asinine claims of "Gadaffi-sponsored viagra-fueled rape mobs". It looks like the only thing standing in the way of "altruistic" intervention is the 2,000 McDonalds's.

And protestors were shot in America the other day too. What's your point? Shooting of protestors has little to do with how advanced a nation is. Syria and Libya were considered fairly advanced by people like you when they were under dictators and they too shot protestors. Its ok to shoot protestors in Syria but not in China, is that what you are saying?

Means Of Escape

realweirdo wrote: »

I have addressed it - failed state or failing state, again far from it. Oil production is being ramped up, most people go about their daily lives, there's been democratic elections, things are improving for most people. Yes there are low level conflicts which inevitably make the news.

That's not quite true
Oil production has plummeted from 1.4 million barrels to just over 230k
Some of the key ports are governed by the rebels who are trading oil for their own gains
The 'new' government is suffocating under the pressures bearing down on them from insurgents and localised strife
The rebels are heavily armed compliments of gaddaffi looted arsenal and are becoming more entrenched by the month.
Clans are forging alliances in attempts to snuff out others

Libya post gaddaffi is a failed state not a failing one
The country 3 years after his removal has gone 20 years backward
He was a spent force internationally.
No longer this mad dog threat
Nuclear programme dismantled
Reparations for Pan Am paid to the victims eventhough there is now a belief that it was the Iranians.
There was an anticipation that his learned son Saif would have taken over the reigns 2 years ago as gaddaffi ,as previously mentioned in another post ,had turned to the unification of Africa and fair distribution if wealth
He looked to ensure that the countries with bountiful precious natural resources were no longer exploited by the west .
It can't be played both ways .
His removal was well planned and orchestrated by vested interests
His escape stopped and his execution swift as he had too many tales to tell that would have had many EU countries soul searching .

The Corinthian

realweirdo wrote: »

I could explain my use of the McDonalds example to you but unfortunately it would fly way way over your head, so I won't bother. The explanation for it is actually quite complex.

That's unlikely as pretty much all of your arguments to date have been quite simplistic.

If you start a blog, you never have to justify your views to others, btw. Just a thought.

czx

Conas wrote: »

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 wish for China/Russia to intervene says all you need to know about this thread

czx

The Corinthian wrote: »

That's unlikely as pretty much all of your arguments to date have been quite simplistic.

Such as lets remain under a dictatorship?

The Corinthian

czx wrote: »

Such as lets remain under a dictatorship?

Had someone other than yourself actually made that argument, sure.

czx

The Corinthian wrote: »

Had someone other than yourself actually made that argument, sure.

Libya is better off under dictatorship, according to you.

The Corinthian

czx wrote: »

Libya is better off under dictatorship, according to you.

That's not actually the same thing as your simplistic statement such as "lets remain under a dictatorship" though. Are you trying to misrepresent what's said or just don't understand it?

czx

The Corinthian wrote: »

That's not actually the same thing as your simplistic statement such as "lets remain under a dictatorship" though. Are you trying to misrepresent what's said or just don't understand it?

Impossible to misrepresent. You said Libya should have remained under dictatorship. From your comfortable, all-seeing middle-class democracy

flutered

at the time nato were like kids at a sweet shop window, except they were looking at cheap oil, they would already have agents in place, so know the keg was about to blow, the same with tunisia, they failed in the rich arab nations as they had the power to deal wit surbersives, fast foeward to syria, nato were in a hury to get rid of their top honcho, this would have worked only for the intervention of putin, he told them a few home truths, they accused him of lying, no the chickens are coming home to roost, yup putin had a better crystal ball that billy hague and obama, anyways hague was always looking for fight.

The Corinthian

czx wrote: »

Impossible to misrepresent. You said Libya should have remained under dictatorship.

I said that on balance it was better off remaining under the dictatorship. Not the same thing as you've just accused me of in your first statement - which you've now decided to change.

I even argued why and instead of addressing those arguments you turned to a mantra of 'democracy good, dictators bad' as if it was an article of religious faith. So feel free to attack what I've actually said as opposed to skipping over everything and reading just the last line.

From your comfortable, all-seeing middle-class democracy

LOL. I presume the irony that this statement applies equally to you is completely lost?

czx

The Corinthian wrote: »

I said that on balance it was better off remaining under the dictatorship.

There we go. Better off under dictatorship. Everything else is superfluous.

The Corinthian

czx wrote: »

There we go. Better off under dictatorship. Everything else is superfluous.

I'm afraid not and you've simply not shown why it should be. From what I can see all you're doing is cherry picking things that are said, out of context, and ignoring everything else that is inconvenient to your position.

czx

The Corinthian wrote: »

I'm afraid not and you've simply not shown why it should be. From what I can see all you're doing is cherry picking things that are said, out of context, and ignoring everything else that is inconvenient to your position.

Cherry picking? You just said Libya is better off under a dictatorship. I find nothing inconvenient about opposing dictatorships

The Corinthian

czx wrote: »

Cherry picking? You just said Libya is better off under a dictatorship. I find nothing inconvenient about opposing dictatorships

When did I say you found opposing dictatorships inconvenient? I said you are finding the arguments against your position inconvenient and thus are ignoring them.

TBH, unless you're doing this intentionally, I'd have to ask if you have literacy problems as you don't seem to be able to comprehend anything that's written down and are repeatedly claiming things that are not said.

czx

The Corinthian wrote: »

When did I say you found opposing dictatorships inconvenient? I said you are finding the arguments against your position inconvenient and thus are ignoring them.

TBH, unless you're doing this intentionally, I'd have to ask if you have literacy problems as you don't seem to be able to comprehend anything that's written down and are repeatedly claiming things that are not said.

Sorry, I'm so working class I can barely read good.

You still think Libya is better off under a dictatorship

Means Of Escape

czx wrote: »

Sorry, I'm so working class I can barely read good.

You still think Libya is better off under a dictatorship

To the oppressed he was a dictator yet there were people who were prosperous under his rule . There was a level if stability and security during his leadership
Those who disagree with Putins ethics are also under a dictatorship ?
It was gafaffi who stated that he was holding back the threat to his country.
He was moving to restore order when he was stopped .
Now he is gone the country has gone to pot with little chance of emerging without serious intervention by the West.

czx

Means Of Escape wrote: »

To the oppressed he was a dictator yet there were people who were prosperous under his rule . There was a level if stability and security during his leadership
Those who disagree with Putins ethics are also under a dictatorship ?
It was gafaffi who stated that he was holding back the threat to his country.
He was moving to restore order when he was stopped .
Now he is gone the country has gone to pot with little chance of emerging without serious intervention by the West.

40 years of restoring order.

Means Of Escape

czx wrote: »

40 years of restoring order.[/

There was order under Gadaffi
There isn't now and I expect Libya will be carved up before it vapourises.

K-9

Mod:

Cut out the sniping please, it's getting way too personal.