Lessons from Libya: How Not to Intervene

Conas

realweirdo wrote: »

More lies - it was voted for by the UNSC - the Iraq war wasn't before it happened.
Bush was elected twice. There was legal arguments over the first one, but all in all, its hard to dispute that he went through a democratic election process and narrowly came out the victor. In Syria on the otherhand there is no such process except rigged elections. So another lie from you.
Bush didn't only have his stooge Blair by his side - another lie - there were 40 nations in total in the coalition of the willing - the most competent of them participated directly in the invasion, the rest added troops later. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition_of_the_willing
Some members of Blair's party were against it at the time, most were in favour and didn't resign. A number of others only came out later as being against it when there was no longer the chance they'd lose their fat ministerial salaries and pensions.
114-17 General Assembly in favour of the Libyan NTC, no-one voting against on the UNSC, numerous NATO countries involved, GCC in favour, Arab League in favour, numerous African countries recognising the NTC and cutting ties with Gadaffi, also South American and virtually all the Arab states and most nations in Asia. Gaddafi had few friends in the end because they all knew he was a nutter, a nutter you seem to have a lot of time for though. So again another lie from you that it didn't have massive international support.
Keep the lies coming though, they really do amuse me. I'm all in favour of people making points on here but if they are going to back it up with lies, why bother?

The NTC isn't what I was discussing, because that's a separate issue as well you know. I was referring to UN resolution 1973, which I'm guessing from reading your comment above is the evidence that you are trying to put forward as evidence of MASSIVE International support. But what you failed to mention is the fact that two global powers Russia and China abstained. As did Germany, India, and Brazil. So on that basis your claim of massive International Support is outright false. So maybe you are the one who's distorting the truth and telling lies.

I wouldn't have a problem in changing my position if these so called interventions turn out to be a success. But the opposite happens. We are still hearing about conflict, and violence in the likes of Libya and Iraq years later. So getting rid of Saddam and Gaddafi under the slogan of spreading peace, and democracy has turned out to be an abysmal failure in my eyes.

Means Of Escape

realweirdo wrote: »

Did you complain once when Gaddafi was doing the raping and killing? Bet you didn't. The rest of your post is tiresome rehashed anti-western nonsense which has no basis in reality especially in relation to Libya. Gaddafi wasn't overthrown because he was "different". He was overthrown because he wanted to slaughter his own people en masse. Deal with that fact.

Waiting for the overthrowing of Robert Mugabe .......................

realweirdo

Means Of Escape wrote: »

Waiting for the overthrowing of Robert Mugabe .......................

That means what exactly??

Its hard to understand what point you are trying to make. Would it be some high minded idea that western corporations and consumerism are behind all the problems in the world today? And if only we all went back to a more simple life of herding sheep on mountains or something like that everything would be ok?

realweirdo

Conas wrote: »

The NTC isn't what I was discussing, because that's a separate issue as well you know. I was referring to UN resolution 1973, which I'm guessing from reading your comment above is the evidence that you are trying to put forward as evidence of MASSIVE International support. But what you failed to mention is the fact that two global powers Russia and China abstained. As did Germany, India, and Brazil. So on that basis your claim of massive International Support is outright false. So maybe you are the one who's distorting the truth and telling lies.

I wouldn't have a problem in changing my position if these so called interventions turn out to be a success. But the opposite happens. We are still hearing about conflict, and violence in the likes of Libya and Iraq years later. So getting rid of Saddam and Gaddafi under the slogan of spreading peace, and democracy has turned out to be an abysmal failure in my eyes.

Support for the NTC is not a seperate issue, its the same issue. 114 members of the UNGC stated they no longer thought gaddafi had legitimacy as leader of libya due largely to the way he treated his people which basically was like rats to be exterminated. He was a sociopath who didnt care who he killed only to stay in power. There was no redeeming feature to gaddafi and in the end he had very few friends left in his sewer pipe. Thousands of his soldiers deserted. He tried to recruit men in zintan and they told him to clear off. Not one nation opposed 1973 thats the main point. And yet in your universe when there is a 10-0 vote that should be ignored and the 0 side be given victory. Some democracy that is! Glad you aren't controlling elections! Blaming America or the west for libya is frankly stupid because 1. The rest of the world also thought gadaffi should be stopped and 2. Libya is nowhere near as bad today as it was under gadaffi where everyone lived in fear or as bad as syria where isis are fast on the way to being the biggest armed force in tbe country thanks largely in inaction from the international community. Unless you lived in libya which I doubt you did you wouldn't know.
In summary you are trying to use libya as another stick to beat america and you are frustrated that no-one is buying into it. Your hatred of america is a bit scary to be honest. I hope you are boycotting all things american especially related to american corporations and being consistant. Please tell me you are!

Conas

realweirdo wrote: »

Support for the NTC is not a seperate issue, its the same issue. 114 members of the UNGC stated they no longer thought gaddafi had legitimacy as leader of libya due largely to the way he treated his people which basically was like rats to be exterminated. He was a sociopath who didnt care who he killed only to stay in power. There was no redeeming feature to gaddafi and in the end he had very few friends left in his sewer pipe. Thousands of his soldiers deserted. He tried to recruit men in zintan and they told him to clear off. Not one nation opposed 1973 thats the main point. And yet in your universe when there is a 10-0 vote that should be ignored and the 0 side be given victory. Some democracy that is! Glad you aren't controlling elections! Blaming America or the west for libya is frankly stupid because 1. The rest of the world also thought gadaffi should be stopped and 2. Libya is nowhere near as bad today as it was under gadaffi where everyone lived in fear. Unless you lived in libya which I doubt you did you wouldn't know.
In summary you are trying to use libya as another stick to beat america and you are frustrated that no-one is buying into it. Your hatred of america is a bit scary to be honest. I hope you are boycotting all things american especially related to american corporations and being consistant.

You say not one country opposed resolution 1973, but yet again you are failing to mention that 5 (China, Russia, Brazil, Germany, India) abstained, which means it did not have massive International support.

All you are trying to do is lash out and insult people on here, because they question your pro-intervention mentality into the affairs of others countries, and the fact that the violence and chaos seems to escalate and continue long after. Yet you are in a constant state of denial, and think well everything is far better now, nothing to see here, move on mentality. Yet we hear things to the contrary, but you'll have none of it.

So much for bringing peace and stability. Most people in the world are anti-war, but you seem to be pro-intervention, and just because people aren't buying into your deliberate distortion of the facts, doesn't make us anti-American, or have a hatred of America.

People are dictators, and tyrants to the US goverment when it suits their own needs. But just as it was with Joseph Stalin, Bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, they were allies when it suited. Those are the facts, and you can't deny that. Now it's happening again with this ISIS mess. Back last year Assad was a tyrant and dictator, and he had to go, I'm guessing you were probaly on that bandwagon aswell. Now all of sudden if they bomb Syria to destroy ISIS, it will effectively make them allied with Assad. The hypocrisy is astounding. So do you want to start refuting what I say, or do you want to keep insulting me some more?

Fig of Fallacy

realweirdo wrote: »

Did you complain once when Gaddafi was doing the raping and killing? Bet you didn't. The rest of your post is tiresome rehashed anti-western nonsense which has no basis in reality especially in relation to Libya. Gaddafi wasn't overthrown because he was "different". He was overthrown because he wanted to slaughter his own people en masse. Deal with that fact.

NATO knocked him out with airpower, the rebels were not strong enough and were on the verge of losing. And they intervened because of their humanitarian conscience? My arse. They oppertunistically jumped in and backed one side in a civil war, and they did so for their own geopolitical objectives which have nothing to do with saving innocent people.

realweirdo

Conas wrote: »

You say not one country opposed resolution 1973, but yet again you are failing to mention that 5 (China, Russia, Brazil, Germany, India) abstained, which means it did not have massive International support.

All you are trying to do is lash out and insult people on here, because they question your pro-intervention mentality into the affairs of others countries, and the fact that the violence and chaos seems to escalate and continue long after. Yet you are in a constant state of denial, and think well everything is far better now, nothing to see here, move on mentality. Yet we hear things to the contrary, but you'll have none of it.

So much for bringing peace and stability. Most people in the world are anti-war, but you seem to be pro-intervention, and just because people aren't buying into your deliberate distortion of the facts, doesn't make us anti-American, or have a hatred of America.

People are dictators, and tyrants to the US goverment when it suits their own needs. But just as it was with Joseph Stalin, Bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, they were allies when it suited. Those are the facts, and you can't deny that. Now it's happening again with this ISIS mess. Back last year Assad was a tyrant and dictator, and he had to go, I'm guessing you were probaly on that bandwagon aswell. Now all of sudden if they bomb Syria to destroy ISIS, it will effectively make them allied with Assad. The hypocrisy is astounding. So do you want to start refuting what I say, or do you want to keep insulting me some more?

But they said they arent going to be allied with assad. America and britain hate assad. Everyone hates assad. And as i said many times before isis were a deliberate creation of assad so he should be left to deal with them. He created them so let him deal with them. He's probably regretting letting a load of them free now in the early days. Assad has no legitimacy in any case and is no more significant than any other armed and violent group in syria. Live by the sword die by the sword. Assad is a failed dictator in a failed state.

Conas

realweirdo wrote: »

But they said they arent going to be allied with assad. America and britain hate assad. Everyone hates assad. And as i said many times before isis were a deliberate creation of assad so he should be left to deal with them. He created them so let him deal with them. He's probably regretting letting a load of them free now in the early days. Assad has no legitimacy in any case and is no more significant than any other armed and violent group in syria. Live by the sword die by the sword. Assad is a failed dictator in a failed state.

:pac:

realweirdo

Conas wrote: »

:pac:

True I'm afraid and well documented.

http://www.newsweek.com/how-syrias-assad-helped-forge-isis-255631

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2014/08/22/why-assad-is-secretly-helping-his-isis-enemies-become-most-powerful-rebel-force-in-syria/

As recently as 2012, ISIS was a marginalized movement confined to a small area of Iraq. Then Mr. Assad emptied Sednaya jail near Damascus of some of its most dangerous jihadist prisoners. If he hoped these men would join ISIS and strengthen its leadership, that aspiration was fulfilled. Several figures in the movement’s hierarchy are believed to be former inmates of Syrian prisons, carefully released by the regime.

By last year, ISIS had captured oilfields in eastern Syria. But to profit, they needed a customer for the oil. Mr. Assad’s regime began buying the oil from the jihadists, so helping to fund the movement, say Western and Middle Eastern governments.

Having provided ISIS with talented commanders, courtesy of his prison amnesties, and filled its coffers with oil money, Mr. Assad then focused his military campaign on the non-Islamist rebels.

Every town and suburb held by the Free Syrian Army was relentlessly pounded from the air and ground. A year ago, the regime even used poison gas against insurgent strongholds in Damascus.

But ISIS enjoyed a curious degree of immunity from these onslaughts. Until the past few weeks, Syria’s air force had scarcely bothered to bomb the town of Raqqa, which serves as the unofficial capital of ISIS.

“The regime was very happy to see [ISIS] rise and it has helped their narrative that they face an extremist Al-Qaeda type enemy against which all force is justified,” said Chris Doyle, director of the Council for Arab-British Understanding.

“The evidence stacks up that they were definitely encouraging this sort of movement.”

The signs are ISIS has returned the favour. Instead of trying to bring down Mr. Assad, it has concentrated on fighting non-Islamist rebels. When the movement reached what may prove to be the apex of its military strength this year, ISIS did not try to overthrow the regime. Instead, it invaded northern Iraq — and triggered the current crisis.

Like many Middle Eastern dictators before him, Mr. Assad hopes the West will accept him as the only bulwark against the fanatics whom he has helped.

Put bluntly, he wants to be an arsonist and a firefighter at the same time. The question is whether he will get away with this time-honoured ploy.

Conas

realweirdo wrote: »

True I'm afraid and well documented.

http://www.newsweek.com/how-syrias-assad-helped-forge-isis-255631

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2014/08/22/why-assad-is-secretly-helping-his-isis-enemies-become-most-powerful-rebel-force-in-syria/

You have the audacity to accuse me of lying. Yet you lie, mislead and distort every chance you get. You are the only person in the world who must believe that Assad created ISIS. Have you not heard what the Syrian Foreign Minister has said just today, that he wants to US to help fight the ISIS 'terrorists'.

In the article that you posted above it claims

'last year, ISIS had captured oilfields in eastern Syria. But to profit, they needed a customer for the oil. Mr. Assad’s regime began buying the oil from the jihadists, so helping to fund the movement, say Western and Middle Eastern governments.

Now I can't believe you'd believe such nonsense. So Assad's Regime bought their own oil off ISIS, an organisation that they have been trying to destroy for years, because I personally believe the United States backed 'Free Syrian Army', and ISIS are the same thing. They are both part of the opposition against Assad. Thereby making ISIS an enemy of the US in Iraq, and an ally in Syria.

Means Of Escape

realweirdo wrote: »

That means what exactly??

Its hard to understand what point you are trying to make. Would it be some high minded idea that western corporations and consumerism are behind all the problems in the world today? And if only we all went back to a more simple life of herding sheep on mountains or something like that everything would be ok?

Remove dictators for the betterment of humankind ?

The Corinthian

realweirdo wrote: »

You'd choose dictatorship over death? What on earth are you talking about?

Tell me, do you think the Somalis are better off today or when they were under the regime of Siad Barre? Not free to express themselves or knowing if they will be alive tomorrow because some random militia may choose to kill them today?

Faced with a choice between lawlessness and dictatorship, you'll find that most people will pick the latter and there's good reason for that. This may not sit well with your view of democracy at any cost, but then again, you don't have to make the same choice as those who are in or descending into such scenarios.

So far the recent fighting in Libya has claimed the lives mostly of rebel groups fighting each other which all in all is probably not a bad thing. I'd like some sources from you on civilian deaths recently if possible. So ideally you'd come up with those sources and back your arguments with facts rather than your personal opinion.

Casualties overall, for the rebellion, have been estimated at 25,000. Thing is, they're not done yet and people are still dying as a result of the lack of resolution to the conflict. It's almost moot to discuss casualties that will result from what Western intervention enabled, because we could be seeing them for years to come.

Not sure why I'm bothering to even respond though; you've still not responded to my earlier point - any of my earlier points, for that matter. I showed in my last point how you failed to do so, despite your disingenuous claim that you had. So it's quite pointless to engage with you.

walshb

I'd much rather live under a dictatorship than a volatile lawlessness where you have no idea what will happen from moment to moment. I'm fed up with these countries and their savagery and lawlessness. Leave them to it.

realweirdo

The Corinthian wrote: »

Tell me, do you think the Somalis are better off today or when they were under the regime of Siad Barre? Not free to express themselves or knowing if they will be alive tomorrow because some random militia may choose to kill them today?

This Said Barre?

Human rights abuse allegations

Part of Barre's time in power was characterized by oppressive dictatorial rule, including allegations of persecution, jailing and torture of political opponents and dissidents. The United Nations Development Programme stated that "the 21-year regime of Siyad Barre had one of the worst human rights records in Africa."[25] The Africa Watch Committee wrote in a report that "both the urban population and nomads living in the countryside [were] subjected to summary killings, arbitrary arrest, detention in squalid conditions, torture, rape, crippling constraints on freedom of movement and expression and a pattern of psychological intimidation."[26] Amnesty International went on to report that torture methods committed by Barre's National Security Service (NSS) included executions and "beatings while tied in a contorted position, electric shocks, rape of woman prisoners, simulated executions and death threats." [27]

In September 1970, the government introduced the National Security Law No. 54, which granted the NSS the power to arrest and detain indefinitely those who expressed critical views of the government, without ever being brought to trial. It further gave the NSS the power to arrest without a warrant anyone suspected of a crime involving "national security". Article 1 of the law prohibited "acts against the independence, unity or security of the State", and capital punishment was mandatory for anyone convicted of such acts.[28]

From the late 1970s, and onwards Barre faced a shrinking popularity and increased domestic resistance. In response, Barre's elite unit, the Red Berets (Duub Cas), and the paramilitary unit called the Victory Pioneers carried out systematic terror against the Majeerteen, Hawiye, and Isaaq clans.[29] The Red Berets systematically smashed water reservoirs to deny water to the Majeerteen and Isaaq clans and their herds. More than 2,000 members of the Majeerteen clan died of thirst, and an estimated 5,000 Isaaq were killed by the government. Members of the Victory Pioneers also raped large numbers of Majeerteen and Isaaq women, and more than 300,000 Isaaq members fled to Ethiopia.[30][31]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siad_Barre

Ah yes, the good old days under Siad Barre.

Unfortunately you are making the same mistake as you did with Gaddafi, viewing the past through rose tinted glasses. The further back people look, the more nostalgic they view an era. There would have been no 25,000 dead of Gadaffi had not started a campaign to take back cities that wanted nothing to do with him. NATO involvement or no NATO involvement there would still have been tens of thousands of deaths, if not even more. Cities like Misrata were under a virtual siege where no food was being allowed in or out.

The Corinthian

realweirdo wrote: »

Ah yes, the good old days under Siad Barre.

Are you suggesting that he and his regime was worse than the failed state, where militias - many composed of religious or ideological extremists, others simply criminal - could randomly kill, rape or steal from you?

Is that what you are seriously suggesting? Are you going to avoid this question too?

realweirdo

The Corinthian wrote: »

Are you suggesting that he and his regime was worse than the failed state, where militias - many composed of religious or ideological extremists, others simply criminal - could randomly kill, rape or steal from you?

Is that what you are seriously suggesting? Are you going to avoid this question too?

What question? He was overthrown by internal elements and rebel groups because of his brutal dictatorship. It's not a valid point you are making. History is history, you can't change it, it's going to happen. If a dictator is brutal he's going to get overthrown. It's like crying over spilled milk. If Barre was a nice guy, he wouldn't have been overthrown. The Somalians among themselves decided to overthrow him so they would have to accept the consequences of what happened after that.

Generally in terms of history, people always act with short term interests in mind. If Barre was threathening one group or another, and as was pointed out, he threathened a lot of groups, one of those groups is going to come after him. My answer is complex like most of my answers but the answer is there if you look carefully enough which I doubt you will.

However I think you are suggesting Barre somehow brought "order" to Somalia when in fact like Gaddafi he did nothing of the sort and like Gaddafi p*ssed off so many people with his policies and threats that his overthrow was inevitable. And again to Libya, Gaddafi was a thug. If he was a nice guy he wouldn't have been killed by the Misratans the way he was. After being shelled, starved and bombarded by his forces for several months, their actions were perfectly understable.

The Corinthian

realweirdo wrote: »

What question?

It's the sentence with a question mark at the end:

Are you suggesting that he and his regime was worse than the failed state, where militias - many composed of religious or ideological extremists, others simply criminal - could randomly kill, rape or steal from you?

realweirdo

The Corinthian wrote: »

It's the sentence with a question mark at the end:

Are you suggesting that he and his regime was worse than the failed state, where militias - many composed of religious or ideological extremists, others simply criminal - could randomly kill, rape or steal from you?

You are ignoring a lot of my points as well. I will make my point again but in another way. Look at Syria. You say its better for a dictator like Assad to stay in power, that the vacuam that occurs afterwards is worse.

However Assad is slowly and surely in the process of being overthrown and there is going to be a vacuam anyways.

And all without any meaningful western intervention.

All this renders your point about interventions not helping invalid. No intervention in Syria and the country is on the verge of being a failed state. There was no meaningful intervention either in Somalia before Barre was overthrown. And in numerous other countries.

To argue interventions alone cause vacuams is a false one. Non interventions also cause vacuams, usually bigger ones.

As for Gaddafi how many times do I have to tell you he was far worse than what is happening today? The cause of 25,000 dead in 6 months. Thousands dead in his time in power. Instability all across much of africa because of him. Provided the IRA with tons of weapons so they continue their bombing campaigns. Raping of women. Forced prostitution of women in his personal guard. And on and on. I think that pretty much trumps what is happening today in Libya.

That's the last reply I am making to you - we keep repeating the same arguments, at this stage its boring and tiresome and neither of us will change our point of view.

The Corinthian

realweirdo wrote: »

You are ignoring a lot of my points as well. I will make my point again but in another way.

No, that's all you've been doing throughout this thread. Ignoring points made and just repeating yourself. How about you have to courage to respond to a single question for a change?

realweirdo wrote: »

That's the last reply I am making to you - we keep repeating the same arguments, at this stage its boring and tiresome and neither of us will change our point of view.

You are repeating the same arguments. I'm responding to them and then you repeat them, as if somehow my response did not address them or you need not defend them from those responses. Of course you're right in so far as you won't change your point of view, if after all, all you are capable of doing is repeat it. I think you've missed the point of discussion. Preaching, you've mastered though.

realweirdo

The Corinthian wrote: »

No, that's all you've been doing throughout this thread. Ignoring points made and just repeating yourself. How about you have to courage to respond to a single question for a change?

I have no interest in responding to completely invalid points and questions. Given that I believe most of your views are based on flawed logic and false premises such as the idea that non intervention always and in all cases triumphs western intervention, I certainly won't be. We have seen how that has turned out in Syria. It's been an utter humanitarian catastrophe, a thousand times worse than Libya, which ultimately renders your points completely null and void.

Means Of Escape

realweirdo wrote: »

You are ignoring a lot of my points as well. I will make my point again but in another way. Look at Syria. You say its better for a dictator like Assad to stay in power, that the vacuam that occurs afterwards is worse.

However Assad is slowly and surely in the process of being overthrown and there is going to be a vacuam anyways.

And all without any meaningful western intervention.

All this renders your point about interventions not helping invalid. No intervention in Syria and the country is on the verge of being a failed state. There was no meaningful intervention either in Somalia before Barre was overthrown. And in numerous other countries.

To argue interventions alone cause vacuams is a false one. Non interventions also cause vacuams, usually bigger ones.

As for Gaddafi how many times do I have to tell you he was far worse than what is happening today? The cause of 25,000 dead in 6 months. Thousands dead in his time in power. Instability all across much of africa because of him. Provided the IRA with tons of weapons so they continue their bombing campaigns. Raping of women. Forced prostitution of women in his personal guard. And on and on. I think that pretty much trumps what is happening today in Libya.

That's the last reply I am making to you - we keep repeating the same arguments, at this stage its boring and tiresome and neither of us will change our point of view.

Not too sure your prediction of Assad being toppled will come true
Woe be tied Isis members when he regains control over the realm.

The Corinthian

realweirdo wrote: »

I have no interest in responding to completely invalid points and questions. Given that I believe most of your views are based on flawed logic and false premises such as the idea that non intervention always and in all cases triumphs western intervention, I certainly won't be.

I've never said that non intervention always and in all cases triumphs western intervention, oddly enough.

As to what you believe, you're welcome to do so, but until you can back up what you believe in discussion, all you're peddling is personal opinion that you are unwilling to put in the path of fire.

All from someone who seemingly believes that Somalis are better off in a failed state than in one under a dictatorship.

We have seen how that has turned out in Syria. It's been an utter humanitarian catastrophe, a thousand times worse than Libya, which ultimately renders your points completely null and void.

An argument which I responded to pages ago - why are you presuming that Libya and Syria are comparable? Why are you presuming that the situation now is worse than it would be had the West intervened? All points that you conveniently decided to ignore.

Conas

realweirdo wrote: »

You are ignoring a lot of my points as well. I will make my point again but in another way. Look at Syria. You say its better for a dictator like Assad to stay in power, that the vacuam that occurs afterwards is worse.

However Assad is slowly and surely in the process of being overthrown and there is going to be a vacuam anyways.

And all without any meaningful western intervention.

All this renders your point about interventions not helping invalid. No intervention in Syria and the country is on the verge of being a failed state. There was no meaningful intervention either in Somalia before Barre was overthrown. And in numerous other countries.

Since you seem to want Assad gone so badly in Syria, I'm guessing you are on the side of ISIS then? If Assad goes, what will happen in Syria, is what happened in Iraq. They'll install in someone like Nouri al-Maliki, and we all know how well that has turned out don't we? So why should people believe Assad should be taken out? You haven't a clue who the enemy is, and who's side your on pal. Read one of Donald Trump's tweets:

We will now be helping Syria and Iran by attacking ISIS - ironic, isn't it!

realweirdo

Conas wrote: »

Since you seem to want Assad gone so badly in Syria, I'm guessing you are on the side of ISIS then? If Assad goes, what will happen in Syria, is what happened in Iraq. They'll install in someone like Nouri al-Maliki, and we all know how well that has turned out don't we? So why should people believe Assad should be taken out? You haven't a clue who the enemy is, and who's side your on pal. Read one of Donald Trump's tweets:

We will now be helping Syria and Iran by attacking ISIS - ironic, isn't it!

I wanted Assad gone in the early days of the conflict precrisely because of what we are seeing now. Instead of him organising democratic elections, respecting the result and handing over power peacefully to a democratically elected successor who would at the same time have control over a huge army, only an army that all sides were not trying to defeat, he decided to tough it out, and now as was entirely predictable the country is in ruins and ISIS are on the advance. I don't think I can be clearer than that can I. He and he alone had the power to ensure a peaceful transition to a strong new democratic government and he and he alone chose not to.

Generally when a dictator tries to tough it out and there are powerful forces against him, the country ends in ruins.

No-one is to blame for the state Syria is in today more than Assad.

There are thousands of moderate Syrians who if they weren't exiled and brought into the political process could have helped form an all inclusive government. But what did Assad do with these moderate syrians who took part in peaceful discussions on how to end the conflict? He labelled them all terrorists and banned them from standing in elections.

He is the sole architect of his own misfortune and worse the misfortune of the Syrian people.

There's nothing ironic about attacking ISIS now - as for we, the only we at fault here are the we, you included who supported Assad staying in power from the beginning. It's a policy that's ended in disaster.

Means Of Escape

Assad is going nowhere in fact his position has been strengthened in the last 6 months
40 per cent of the population are in favour of him staying in power . Odds are this percentage has increased given what would be facing the Syrians if he is removed
A New Democratic leadership would certainly be hammered by ISiS due to all transitional governments who have major instability in the changeover for all the reasons mentioned regarding Iraq and Libya
The West knows this all too well
The dictator who is in power is the only hope of the country avoiding being brought to its knees.
This threat to Syria is what Gaddafi was extolling prior to his removal.
We can't have a clue what is going on in the country but I'll bet Assad is better informed than any international intelligent agencies .
Dictatorship is never an ideal but when the citizens of a country are facing an onslaught they probably prefer to have Assad at the helm rather than an interim government who would be jostling for positions and weakened as a result .

AlekSmart

realweirdo wrote: »

.
Unfortunately you are making the same mistake as you did with Gaddafi, viewing the past through rose tinted glasses. The further back people look, the more nostalgic they view an era. There would have been no 25,000 dead of Gadaffi had not started a campaign to take back cities that wanted nothing to do with him. NATO involvement or no NATO involvement there would still have been tens of thousands of deaths, if not even more. Cities like Misrata were under a virtual siege where no food was being allowed in or out.

It is perhaps worthwhile at this juncture to refer back to the Belfer Centre Report which featured in Post#1.

For all of the mad-dog hype surrounding Gadaffi,evidence of atrocities involving non-combatant Civillians is quite thin on the ground.

It is difficult to find non-aligned accounts of the Libyan rebellion and subsequent events,however Prof Hugh Roberts with "Who said Gadaffi had to go ?" does attempt to provide a perspective less popular perhaps....

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v33/n22/hugh-roberts/who-said-gaddafi-had-to-go

It is a comprehensive work,but worth a bit of consideration for all of that.

Means Of Escape

AlekSmart wrote: »

It is perhaps worthwhile at this juncture to refer back to the Belfer Centre Report which featured in Post#1.

For all of the mad-dog hype surrounding Gadaffi,evidence of atrocities involving non-combatant Civillians is quite thin on the ground.

It is difficult to find non-aligned accounts of the Libyan rebellion and subsequent events,however Prof Hugh Roberts with "Who said Gadaffi had to go ?" does attempt to provide a perspective less popular perhaps....

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v33/n22/hugh-roberts/who-said-gaddafi-had-to-go

It is a comprehensive work,but worth a bit of consideration for all of that.

Superb post AlekSmart which should at last put this argument to bed .

Fig of Fallacy

realweirdo wrote: »

I wanted Assad gone in the early days of the conflict precrisely because of what we are seeing now. Instead of him organising democratic elections, respecting the result and handing over power peacefully to a democratically elected successor who would at the same time have control over a huge army, only an army that all sides were not trying to defeat, he decided to tough it out, and now as was entirely predictable the country is in ruins and ISIS are on the advance. I don't think I can be clearer than that can I. He and he alone had the power to ensure a peaceful transition to a strong new democratic government and he and he alone chose not to.

Generally when a dictator tries to tough it out and there are powerful forces against him, the country ends in ruins.

No-one is to blame for the state Syria is in today more than Assad.

There are thousands of moderate Syrians who if they weren't exiled and brought into the political process could have helped form an all inclusive government. But what did Assad do with these moderate syrians who took part in peaceful discussions on how to end the conflict? He labelled them all terrorists and banned them from standing in elections.

He is the sole architect of his own misfortune and worse the misfortune of the Syrian people.

There's nothing ironic about attacking ISIS now - as for we, the only we at fault here are the we, you included who supported Assad staying in power from the beginning. It's a policy that's ended in disaster.

You dont just 'have democracy' in many of those countries, it has to evolve there itself, if at all. Look at Egypt? They 'got democracy' and then it got taken off them again because they decided to put in the muslim brotherhood. No regime or government is allowed in the region to have an anti-israeli stance. Those that do get attacked, such as Syria and Iran.

Your completely deluded in your hypothesis of where Isis come from and whos fault it is. The USA with Turkey, Saudi Arabia + Gulf states and Israel form an alliance block against Syria and Iran; divided along pro or anti Israeli stances and also on sectarian divisions.

The truth is that 'the west' should have been backing(albeit tacidly) Syria and Iran all along and not the other way round. Its all ending in disaster now, and its the USA's fault as per usual.

Screw the racist colonialist state of Israel, and to hell with the Saudi royal family too. They are the ones that need isolating.

The relentless assault on Syria and the destruction of Iraq by the opposing block is what spawned Isis.

realweirdo

Fig of Fallacy wrote: »

You dont just 'have democracy' in many of those countries, it has to evolve there itself, if at all. Look at Egypt? They 'got democracy' and then it got taken off them again because they decided to put in the muslim brotherhood. No regime or government is allowed in the region to have an anti-israeli stance. Those that do get attacked, such as Syria and Iran.

Your completely deluded in your hypothesis of where Isis come from and whos fault it is. The USA with Turkey, Saudi Arabia + Gulf states and Israel form an alliance block against Syria and Iran; divided along pro or anti Israeli stances and also on sectarian divisions.

The truth is that 'the west' should have been backing(albeit tacidly) Syria and Iran all along and not the other way round. Its all ending in disaster now, and its the USA's fault as per usual.

Screw the racist colonialist state of Israel, and to hell with the Saudi royal family too. They are the ones that need isolating.

The relentless assault on Syria and the destruction of Iraq by the opposing block is what spawned Isis.

Yep, you almost bring a tear to my eye when I think just how badly your pal Assad has been treated. And him only trying to fill mass graves and the like. Hard being a dictator these days what with "the west" and Amnesty International and the like sticking their noses in. God be with the days when the likes of Assad, Saddam and Gaddafi could do their killing in peace and without the west bothering them. Clearly you'd like a return to those days.

Like most on the Irish far left, you have no moral compass. The more these dictators fill up the mass graves the more you whoop and hollar and support them. It's you who are deranged my friend, extremely and I suspect irreversibly deranged. You contribute absolutely nothing, zilch. A nihilist of the worst kind, the kind of nihilist who has far more in common with ISIS than anything else. Well done, take a bow.

realweirdo

AlekSmart wrote: »

It is perhaps worthwhile at this juncture to refer back to the Belfer Centre Report which featured in Post#1.

For all of the mad-dog hype surrounding Gadaffi,evidence of atrocities involving non-combatant Civillians is quite thin on the ground.

It is difficult to find non-aligned accounts of the Libyan rebellion and subsequent events,however Prof Hugh Roberts with "Who said Gadaffi had to go ?" does attempt to provide a perspective less popular perhaps....

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v33/n22/hugh-roberts/who-said-gaddafi-had-to-go

It is a comprehensive work,but worth a bit of consideration for all of that.

So Gaddafi forces killed no civilians? No snipers? No artillary? No random bombing of civilian areas? No attempts at sieges and starvation? All made up by "western" media?

Of course! It all makes sense now!

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

realweirdo

If there was an equivalent to Catholic Beatification for the Irish Far Left, Gaddafi, Saddam and Assad would have been made saints long ago.

The more of their people they kill, the nearer to sainthood they become for the Irish far left.

It's become a bit of a joke at this stage, although hardly something to laugh about.

The Irish far left need to take a cold hard look at themselves. They have come to identify themselves more with billionaires like the Assad and Gaddafi family than the impoverished masses these dictators oppress.

InTheTrees

realweirdo wrote: »

If there was an equivalent to Catholic Beatification for the Irish Far Left, Gaddafi, Saddam and Assad would have been made saints long ago.

The more of their people they kill, the nearer to sainthood they become for the Irish far left.

It's become a bit of a joke at this stage, although hardly something to laugh about.

The Irish far left need to take a cold hard look at themselves. They have come to identify themselves more with billionaires like the Assad and Gaddafi family than the impoverished masses these dictators oppress.

I've noticed this too. A love of dictators but only as long as they're anti-American.

I don't see anything left wing about them though.

Its not like social justice is very important to them.

AlekSmart

realweirdo wrote: »

So Gaddafi forces killed no civilians? No snipers? No artillary? No random bombing of civilian areas? No attempts at sieges and starvation? All made up by "western" media?

Of course! It all makes sense now!

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

How can that make sense ?

Who is suggesting This ?

By far and away the most interest in the Libyan affair came in the wake of the UN/NATO decision to intervene,with most of the coverage following the easier path.

Very little was "made up",however our nightly Al-Jazz,Sky,BBC or whatever clips generally tallied with the official line,with very little reportage of Government attempts to negotiate.

It was,after all, initially a rebellion with pro and anti armed factions engaging each other in the streets.

The issue is one of scale,with a major plank of the U.N/NATO action being the imminence,if not ongoing at the time,mass killing of non-combatant civillians.

Large numbers of civillian casualities were incurred,however,apart from repeatedly warning Civilians of the dire consequences of supporting the rebels,Gadaffi appears not to have actually ordered the Mass killings so necessary to underpin the U.N/NATO reaction.

With some posters continually referring to Gadaffi's Mass Murder and almost genocidal rule,the fact remains that the 1996 Abu Salim Prison Killings (c 1,200) apparently remain the only numerically verifiable atrocity.

The other incidents of harsh and/or cruel punishments over 42 years of rule all appear related to alleged plots and threats to the regime.

So just to be clear on it...Yes,of course Libya had Civillian Casualities,Yes Government Forces employed Snipers and Yes they did utilise artillery.

Perhaps there are incidences of Revolt and Rebellion which can be termed as "Bloodless" as Gadaffi's own accession to power was,but they are few and far between.

To suggest that Gadaffi,Hussein,Al Assad or other autocratic rulers are in any way desirable from our perspective is somewhat delusional,however that is NOT what this thread is suggesting.

The Corinthian

realweirdo wrote: »

Like most on the Irish far left, you have no moral compass. The more these dictators fill up the mass graves the more you whoop and hollar and support them. It's you who are deranged my friend, extremely and I suspect irreversibly deranged. You contribute absolutely nothing, zilch. A nihilist of the worst kind, the kind of nihilist who has far more in common with ISIS than anything else. Well done, take a bow.

Why should he take a bow? You're the one on the stage.

You're viewing the entire issue simplistically. Let me explain a few of the rather ridiculous, erroneous conclusions you seem to be arriving at in the course of this thread of anyone who disagrees with or opposed the Western intervention in Libya:

• They must support dictatorships. Wrong. Neither dictatorship nor lawless anarchy are supported, but when faced with a Hobs son's choice you choose the option that causes least harm.
• They must be left wing. Wrong. For example I am certainly not 'left wing'; I am simply not blind to Realpolitik. In reality the World is not composed of simply left and right - if it were would Nixon have been left-wing for opening up to communist China? Or China right wing for introducing Capitalist-style reforms? Leave the labels to students who have nothing better to do with their time.
• They must oppose all interventions. Wrong. Depends on the scenario; if an intervention can be judged to cause more good than harm in the medium to long run then it has merit, if the reverse is true, then it may be better to refrain from doing so.
• They must be anti-American. Wrong. Even in the case of Libya, it was the UK and France that championed the cause for intervention, not the USA. The Americans, on this occasion, showed restraint and were, if anything, a moderating force when intervention became inevitable.

Your arguments, ignoring for a moment the rhetorical, soapbox style you've presented them with, have to date relied on simplistic 'black and white' moralism. That's all very well if you want to preach to the choir, otherwise they're not going to be taken seriously, because you are ultimately just preaching.

realweirdo

AlekSmart wrote: »

How can that make sense ?

Who is suggesting This ?

By far and away the most interest in the Libyan affair came in the wake of the UN/NATO decision to intervene,with most of the coverage following the easier path.

Very little was "made up",however our nightly Al-Jazz,Sky,BBC or whatever clips generally tallied with the official line,with very little reportage of Government attempts to negotiate.

It was,after all, initially a rebellion with pro and anti armed factions engaging each other in the streets.

The issue is one of scale,with a major plank of the U.N/NATO action being the imminence,if not ongoing at the time,mass killing of non-combatant civillians.

Large numbers of civillian casualities were incurred,however,apart from repeatedly warning Civilians of the dire consequences of supporting the rebels,Gadaffi appears not to have actually ordered the Mass killings so necessary to underpin the U.N/NATO reaction.

With some posters continually referring to Gadaffi's Mass Murder and almost genocidal rule,the fact remains that the 1996 Abu Salim Prison Killings (c 1,200) apparently remain the only numerically verifiable atrocity.

The other incidents of harsh and/or cruel punishments over 42 years of rule all appear related to alleged plots and threats to the regime.

So just to be clear on it...Yes,of course Libya had Civillian Casualities,Yes Government Forces employed Snipers and Yes they did utilise artillery.

Perhaps there are incidences of Revolt and Rebellion which can be termed as "Bloodless" as Gadaffi's own accession to power was,but they are few and far between.

To suggest that Gadaffi,Hussein,Al Assad or other autocratic rulers are in any way desirable from our perspective is somewhat delusional,however that is NOT what this thread is suggesting.

There have been ample accounts from first hand witnesses and insiders to Gadaffi regime as well as those who suffered in prisons and under torture of the excesses of the Gadaffi regime which included murders of opponents at home and abroad, mass murder including Abu Salim, Libyan Airlines flight he ordered blown out of the the skies, invasion of Chad, backing of Charles Taylor's brutal rebel group, as well as his well know reputation as a rapist.

Then there were the 25000 killed as a direct result of his actions in the Libyan uprising.

Your attempts to rehabilitate Gaddafi's reputation are frankly pitiful. The man was a maniac, end of story. No amount of you burying your head in the sand, turning a blind eye or sweeping it under the carpet will change this.

The Corinthian

realweirdo wrote: »

Then there were the 25000 killed as a direct result of his actions in the Libyan uprising.

You mean the 25,000 killed because the uprising was prolonged by Western intervention? What about those dying now as the country falls apart, because it was never in a position to build a democracy? Are they Gadaffi's fault too?

And falling apart it is, I'm afraid:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-28963770

Ironically further intervention may be the only thing that may stop another Somalia.

AlekSmart

realweirdo wrote: »

There have been ample accounts from first hand witnesses and insiders to Gadaffi regime as well as those who suffered in prisons and under torture of the excesses of the Gadaffi regime which included murders of opponents at home and abroad, mass murder including Abu Salim, Libyan Airlines flight he ordered blown out of the the skies, invasion of Chad, backing of Charles Taylor's brutal rebel group, as well as his well know reputation as a rapist.

Then there were the 25000 killed as a direct result of his actions in the Libyan uprising.

Your attempts to rehabilitate Gaddafi's reputation are frankly pitiful. The man was a maniac, end of story. No amount of you burying your head in the sand, turning a blind eye or sweeping it under the carpet will change this.

I'm afraid you misinterpret my posts again,perhaps accidentally ?

I have no interest in "Rehabilitating" Gadaffi's reputation.

Even his most ardent admirers could not describe his rule as anything less than autocratic,harsh and singular in nature.

Gadaffi's rule is not the topic here,but rather the manner in which an outside alliance determined to effect a Regime change,by using all manner of subterfuge to justify it.

I find it notable that,even today,the Abu Salim Prison massacre of 1996 remains the most referenced atrocity attributed to Gadaffi.

Given the nature of the region,a 42 year long rule of a vast inhospitable tribally dominated desert country,during which a c 1,200 casuality Prison Riot is the greatest single allegation against you would tend to put a question mark against the level of Lunacy,Bloodthirstiness and pure evil now being made.

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2011/09/20119223521462487.html

If anything,Gadaffi appears to have had a belief in Jailing his opponents,in order to rehabilitate them,rather than staging mass-executions or waging genocidal campaigns against errant tribes.

There were certainly show-trials,followed by executions,at least some of which appear to have been loudly supported by onlookers at the time.

However,yet again in the context of the cultures of the region and it's politics,such events are,even today,quite common.

Many of the main players in Gadaffi's final denouement,had been arrested and jailed before supposedly renouncing their rebellious ways,then on release,only for them to immediately set about overthrowing him (Would a truly evil,mad,bloodthirsty/lunatic dictator have allowed so many of his avowed enemies to survive and flourish ?)

The figures for those killed during the Uprising have always been an issue for me.

Right from the start,I felt there was something wildly improbable about the numbers of Innocent Civilians apparently on the brink of annihilation by Gadaffi's forces.

This was at a time when Gadaffi was using Anti-Aircraft weapons to fire on civillian demonstrators...or at least this was what was being laid before the U.N....as it transpires,the actual proof of the event melted away,as did many of the other accisations of mass Government slaughter of non-combatant civilians.

Figures of 100,000.....

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2011/09/20119223521462487.html

Then 50,000.....

http://www.presstv.com/detail/196642.html

Then,quite early on,a reassessment of the total....

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/17/world/africa/skirmishes-flare-around-qaddafi-strongholds.html?pagewanted=all

Even the largest of the "Mass Graves",with all the connotations of Genocide and Ethnic Cleansing,contained only 134 bodies as recorded by The Red Cross (Not an agency given to rehabilitating Gadaffi's reputation either).

What is now a generally accepted TOTAL figure for deaths due to the revolt is less than 10,000.

www.nytimes.com/2011/09/17/world/africa/skirmishes-flare-around-qaddafi-strongholds.html?pagewanted=all

Libya's new government has drastically reduced its estimate of the number of people who were killed in the revolution against Muammar Gaddafi's regime, concluding that 4,700 rebel supporters died and 2,100 are missing, with unconfirmed similar casualty figures on the opposing side.

So,no I do not accept any allegations of Head Burying,Blind Eyeing or Carpet Sweeping,as I'm fully aware of the shortcomings of Gadaffi and his administrations.

However,I feel those same descriptions can be equally applied to those who unquestioningly accepted the U.N/NATO line that it was intervening to protect innocent Libyan Civilians from mass slaughter.

This was all about regime change,desired by outsiders and for reasons which remain less than clear...most of the remainder is all about plausible deniability.

Fig of Fallacy

realweirdo wrote: »

Yep, you almost bring a tear to my eye when I think just how badly your pal Assad has been treated. And him only trying to fill mass graves and the like. Hard being a dictator these days what with "the west" and Amnesty International and the like sticking their noses in. God be with the days when the likes of Assad, Saddam and Gaddafi could do their killing in peace and without the west bothering them. Clearly you'd like a return to those days.

Like most on the Irish far left, you have no moral compass. The more these dictators fill up the mass graves the more you whoop and hollar and support them. It's you who are deranged my friend, extremely and I suspect irreversibly deranged. You contribute absolutely nothing, zilch. A nihilist of the worst kind, the kind of nihilist who has far more in common with ISIS than anything else. Well done, take a bow.

Fund Isis to knock out Assad. Didnt work did it? What ya gonna do now?

Perhaps a sustained carpet bombing of the entire region until nothing but sand remains will be the next retarded plan concocted. Its bound to work surely! Dont forget to only bomb Syria and Iraq (and Iran too if needs be) while leaving Israel, Saudi and the rest alone as they are a bunch of angels.

K-9

Mod:

realweirdo wrote: »

So Gaddafi forces killed no civilians? No snipers? No artillary? No random bombing of civilian areas? No attempts at sieges and starvation? All made up by "western" media?

Of course! It all makes sense now!

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

realweirdo, I don't think anybody is suggesting anything like that. I get you are passionate about the subject, but it seems you aren't reading what users have posted, and clarified, repeatedly, on this thread. I don't think you are purposefully misrepresenting their posts, just so engrossed in your own points you aren't giving time to read what other posters are saying.

realweirdo wrote: »

If there was an equivalent to Catholic Beatification for the Irish Far Left, Gaddafi, Saddam and Assad would have been made saints long ago.

The more of their people they kill, the nearer to sainthood they become for the Irish far left.

It's become a bit of a joke at this stage, although hardly something to laugh about.

The Irish far left need to take a cold hard look at themselves. They have come to identify themselves more with billionaires like the Assad and Gaddafi family than the impoverished masses these dictators oppress.

I don't know what the far left has to do with this, I'm not aware of any left wing users posting on this thread recently.

I'd suggest taking time to reply from now on, and actually reply to each point made by other users, rather than what seem blanket statement replies. The thread is just going around in circles otherwise.

Fig of Fallacy wrote: »

Fund Isis to knock out Assad. Didnt work did it? What ya gonna do now?

Perhaps a sustained carpet bombing of the entire region until nothing but sand remains will be the next retarded plan concocted. Its bound to work surely! Dont forget to only bomb Syria and Iraq (and Iran too if needs be) while leaving Israel, Saudi and the rest alone as they are a bunch of angels.

Not singling you out, but it would be best for the thread if we stopped the dramatic and exaggerated replies, for now, anyway!

Means Of Escape

The key element in this debate is whether the removal of Gaddafi which has had a fundamental undermining of the whole region was a smart move.
Most posters will assert that regardless of his past crimes the decision to support the rebels was the wrong one.
Everyone knows the atrocities committed by Gaddafi yet under his regime this radical and dangerous threat could not rear it's ugly head as it had not the military support it needed to launch a substantial attack on the Libyan ruling body.
Yes there was a hope that the removal of Gaddafi would create a new dawn where a democratically elected group would bring Libya back with a clean slate and free to trade internationally on a better scale than under Gaddafi.
Sadly this was never going to be as the vacuum at least was going to be file with clans who would be jostling for power and the only outcome would have been the carving up of Libya into independent regions governed by these clans.a recipe for utter chaos and short lived.
The worst case scenario is what is there now . This cancer sweeping across the nation will be impossible to supress.The conquering of ISIS will never happen. Pandora's box has been opened
The recruitment level is probably way above what is estimated.

The root of the problem was removing the dictator who could keep it at bay and had kept that radical ideal from emerging at this scale, for so long.
No One on this thread pardons or condones what Gaddafi did to his fellow countrymen.
He wasn't listened to.He was seen as a crackpot yet was a very intelligent man as was his successor Saif.
If continued dialogue had taken place with his international counterparts after the embargo for trading was lifted then there would have been a better understanding of what threat was there and how damaging that threat would really be to many once it was supported.

renegademaster

Means Of Escape wrote: »

The worst case scenario is what is there now . This cancer sweeping across the nation will be impossible to supress.The conquering of ISIS will never happen. Pandora's box has been opened
The recruitment level is probably way above what is estimated.

the industrial war machine wins again!! :mad:

realweirdo

renegademaster wrote: »

the industrial war machine wins again!! :mad:

This is just a meaningless statement.

Blaming "the west" for everything is just tiresome, lazy analysis.

Long before the modern west as we know it came about there were madmen all over the place particularly in the middle east and further afield who were rampaging across regions killing all before them.

90% of the worlds problems seem to come from that region and have done since about the 7th century.

Had the west not a strong military force in times past, the Venetians, the Austrians, the Prussians and so on, we'd all be under Islam now or some similar ideologue. And your argument would be entirely academic.

In other words be careful what you wish for. If you want to live under IS good luck to you. I'd prefer if we had a strong military in the west capable of knocking these guys out of commission.

realweirdo

Means Of Escape wrote: »

The key element in this debate is whether the removal of Gaddafi which has had a fundamental undermining of the whole region was a smart move.
Most posters will assert that regardless of his past crimes the decision to support the rebels was the wrong one.
Everyone knows the atrocities committed by Gaddafi yet under his regime this radical and dangerous threat could not rear it's ugly head as it had not the military support it needed to launch a substantial attack on the Libyan ruling body.
Yes there was a hope that the removal of Gaddafi would create a new dawn where a democratically elected group would bring Libya back with a clean slate and free to trade internationally on a better scale than under Gaddafi.
Sadly this was never going to be as the vacuum at least was going to be file with clans who would be jostling for power and the only outcome would have been the carving up of Libya into independent regions governed by these clans.a recipe for utter chaos and short lived.
The worst case scenario is what is there now . This cancer sweeping across the nation will be impossible to supress.The conquering of ISIS will never happen. Pandora's box has been opened
The recruitment level is probably way above what is estimated.

The root of the problem was removing the dictator who could keep it at bay and had kept that radical ideal from emerging at this scale, for so long.
No One on this thread pardons or condones what Gaddafi did to his fellow countrymen.
He wasn't listened to.He was seen as a crackpot yet was a very intelligent man as was his successor Saif.
If continued dialogue had taken place with his international counterparts after the embargo for trading was lifted then there would have been a better understanding of what threat was there and how damaging that threat would really be to many once it was supported.

You basically just don't get it do you. In fact I don't believe you will ever get it. Gaddafi was ok once you played by his rules. Once you didn't upset him or put your head above the parapat you were by and large ok in Libya. Once you didn't discuss politics, once you didn't criticise him or his in many cases insane policies such as killing all the camels in Tripoli or other policies around education which were designed to venerate him as a demi god and other bizzare policies you were ok. Once you didn't complain about relatives who disappeared in the prison system you were ok. But as soon as you put your head above the parapat he came after you. Basically the Libyan people were tired of living in the hellhole of Gaddafi's making and rose up, partly as a consequence of the Arab Spring. Gaddafi saw a threat to his power and decided to crush it mercillessly. He had already been the cause of 25000 dead before he himself was fortunately terminated. So yes he tried to keep the state together in the way the old French Monarchy tried to keep the state together, by attacking anyone who stood up to them. Libya under Gaddafi was not the kind of modern democracy that most young people in North Africa currently aspire too. I know its hard to believe but most people in the region actually want a modern pluralistic multi party democracy. Clearly you want to impose an old style Arab Dictatorship on them when its not what they want. How about if I told you, you were no longer free to express your opinion on the internet for example? Would you like it? Well the Libyans under Gaddafi and similar Arab dictators weren't even allowed do that. They were monitored online and offline around the clock. At least these days they can say what they like, just one of the benefits of the post Gaddafi era. Again, I don't believe you will ever get it. You are ok preaching to others but there isn't a snowballs chance in hell you would ever choose to live in such a society. It's all theory from the likes of you, you have nothing practical to offer anyone.

Means Of Escape

realweirdo wrote: »

You basically just don't get it do you. In fact I don't believe you will ever get it. Gaddafi was ok once you played by his rules. Once you didn't upset him or put your head above the parapat you were by and large ok in Libya. Once you didn't discuss politics, once you didn't criticise him or his in many cases insane policies such as killing all the camels in Tripoli or other policies around education which were designed to venerate him as a demi god and other bizzare policies you were ok. Once you didn't complain about relatives who disappeared in the prison system you were ok. But as soon as you put your head above the parapat he came after you. Basically the Libyan people were tired of living in the hellhole of Gaddafi's making and rose up, partly as a consequence of the Arab Spring. Gaddafi saw a threat to his power and decided to crush it mercillessly. He had already been the cause of 25000 dead before he himself was fortunately terminated. So yes he tried to keep the state together in the way the old French Monarchy tried to keep the state together, by attacking anyone who stood up to them. Libya under Gaddafi was not the kind of modern democracy that most young people in North Africa currently aspire too. I know its hard to believe but most people in the region actually want a modern pluralistic multi party democracy. Clearly you want to impose an old style Arab Dictatorship on them when its not what they want. How about if I told you, you were no longer free to express your opinion on the internet for example? Would you like it? Well the Libyans under Gaddafi and similar Arab dictators weren't even allowed do that. They were monitored online and offline around the clock. At least these days they can say what they like, just one of the benefits of the post Gaddafi era. Again, I don't believe you will ever get it. You are ok preaching to others but there isn't a snowballs chance in hell you would ever choose to live in such a society. It's all theory from the likes of you, you have nothing practical to offer anyone.

I'm afraid it is you who does not understand the integral element of this post
You regurgitate the same facts and statement time and time again and totally ignore what has presented by others
In fact your opinion is so entrenched that there is absolutely no way that you will accept anything that is presented to you, have no solid rebuttal so therefore it is you who has nothing practical to offer anyone .

Means Of Escape

It's not anti west intervention it's anti intervention full stop given what has emerged.
The consequences of the action were either not fully understood or were considered a natural outcome following an upheaval
Regardless of this new threat the ramifications of intervention has presented a future for Libya that is worse than under his regime
Gaddafi was a spent force at that point anyway and it was a matter of time when a period of change was going to take place .
External influencing of that outcome always bodes poorly for the supporting nation as a percentage of those who were suppressed by the action will only have their resolve to seek revenge for the interference hardened.
There is no easy fix to remove a dictator. The most successful are those where the army moves to the side if the rebels.
This was not going to happen under Gaddafi and one has to question why that was the case.
The rebellion was not fully fledged without external assistance and as a product of that you are left travelling a road to perdition.

AlekSmart

realweirdo wrote: »

You basically just don't get it do you. In fact I don't believe you will ever get it. Gaddafi was ok once you played by his rules. Once you didn't upset him or put your head above the parapat you were by and large ok in Libya. Once you didn't discuss politics, once you didn't criticise him or his in many cases insane policies such as killing all the camels in Tripoli or other policies around education which were designed to venerate him as a demi god and other bizzare policies you were ok. Once you didn't complain about relatives who disappeared in the prison system you were ok. But as soon as you put your head above the parapat he came after you. Basically the Libyan people were tired of living in the hellhole of Gaddafi's making and rose up, partly as a consequence of the Arab Spring. Gaddafi saw a threat to his power and decided to crush it mercillessly. He had already been the cause of 25000 dead before he himself was fortunately terminated. So yes he tried to keep the state together in the way the old French Monarchy tried to keep the state together, by attacking anyone who stood up to them. Libya under Gaddafi was not the kind of modern democracy that most young people in North Africa currently aspire too. I know its hard to believe but most people in the region actually want a modern pluralistic multi party democracy. Clearly you want to impose an old style Arab Dictatorship on them when its not what they want. How about if I told you, you were no longer free to express your opinion on the internet for example? Would you like it? Well the Libyans under Gaddafi and similar Arab dictators weren't even allowed do that. They were monitored online and offline around the clock. At least these days they can say what they like, just one of the benefits of the post Gaddafi era. Again, I don't believe you will ever get it. You are ok preaching to others but there isn't a snowballs chance in hell you would ever choose to live in such a society. It's all theory from the likes of you, you have nothing practical to offer anyone.

At this point it's worth repeating what I and other posters have said in relation to Col.Gadaffi.

He was,without doubt a harsh ruler...there evidence for this is well documented.

How he managed to rule a large and disparate country such as Libya in this manner for 42 years may well be testimony to his Lunacy alone,OR it could well indicate a significant level of support for the state of things under his rule (Call it complacency if you wish).

Were I living my life in a country largely composed of arid desert,then a ruler who could provide me and my family with reliable,clean and free supplies of potable water would have my attention,if not passive support.

Libyan's,whether Gadaffi supporters or deniers,were not dying of starvation as a result of famine,nor were their infants dying due to lack of post natal medical care.

The main difference in Gadaffi's rule,for me,was his often OTT showmanship,which he had cultivated and honed over his tenure at the top.

Like him or not,he was a Ruler who made it impossible to ignore him,and,as a result ended up posing often difficult policy decisions for the "Westernized" world to make.....hence the safe options of "Sanctions" whilst "Westernized" world leaders tried to figure out what exactly they could do to rid themselves of this troublesome anti-cleric.

It is,I believe,somewhat self-serving to suggest that....

most people in the region actually want a modern pluralistic multi party democracy.

,particularly as it is readily apparent that throughout "the region",significant numbers of young people are prepared to die in order to prevent just such democratic societies taking root.

Personally,I would be reluctant to ascribe to any understanding of the African/Middle Eastern take on anything to do with democratic principles,as I understand them.

There is a rather interesting Blog by Ed Moloney which,although long,is well worth reading in it's entirety for some,still pertinent insights into Libya,before and during the earlier stages of his reign.

http://thebrokenelbow.com/category/libya/

Means Of Escape

realweirdo wrote: »

You basically just don't get it do you. In fact I don't believe you will ever get it. Gaddafi was ok once you played by his rules. Once you didn't upset him or put your head above the parapat you were by and large ok in Libya. Once you didn't discuss politics, once you didn't criticise him or his in many cases insane policies such as killing all the camels in Tripoli or other policies around education which were designed to venerate him as a demi god and other bizzare policies you were ok. Once you didn't complain about relatives who disappeared in the prison system you were ok. But as soon as you put your head above the parapat he came after you. Basically the Libyan people were tired of living in the hellhole of Gaddafi's making and rose up, partly as a consequence of the Arab Spring. Gaddafi saw a threat to his power and decided to crush it mercillessly. He had already been the cause of 25000 dead before he himself was fortunately terminated. So yes he tried to keep the state together in the way the old French Monarchy tried to keep the state together, by attacking anyone who stood up to them. Libya under Gaddafi was not the kind of modern democracy that most young people in North Africa currently aspire too. I know its hard to believe but most people in the region actually want a modern pluralistic multi party democracy. Clearly you want to impose an old style Arab Dictatorship on them when its not what they want. How about if I told you, you were no longer free to express your opinion on the internet for example? Would you like it? Well the Libyans under Gaddafi and similar Arab dictators weren't even allowed do that. They were monitored online and offline around the clock. At least these days they can say what they like, just one of the benefits of the post Gaddafi era. Again, I don't believe you will ever get it. You are ok preaching to others but there isn't a snowballs chance in hell you would ever choose to live in such a society. It's all theory from the likes of you, you have nothing practical to offer anyone.

Did Al Queda and ISIS emerge to topple dictators for the greater good and allow democracy to sprout or are they now a form dictatorship on a macro scale?

realweirdo

AlekSmart wrote: »

At this point it's worth repeating what I and other posters have said in relation to Col.Gadaffi.

He was,without doubt a harsh ruler...there evidence for this is well documented.

How he managed to rule a large and disparate country such as Libya in this manner for 42 years may well be testimony to his Lunacy alone,OR it could well indicate a significant level of support for the state of things under his rule (Call it complacency if you wish).

Were I living my life in a country largely composed of arid desert,then a ruler who could provide me and my family with reliable,clean and free supplies of potable water would have my attention,if not passive support.

Libyan's,whether Gadaffi supporters or deniers,were not dying of starvation as a result of famine,nor were their infants dying due to lack of post natal medical care.

The main difference in Gadaffi's rule,for me,was his often OTT showmanship,which he had cultivated and honed over his tenure at the top.

Like him or not,he was a Ruler who made it impossible to ignore him,and,as a result ended up posing often difficult policy decisions for the "Westernized" world to make.....hence the safe options of "Sanctions" whilst "Westernized" world leaders tried to figure out what exactly they could do to rid themselves of this troublesome anti-cleric.

It is,I believe,somewhat self-serving to suggest that....,particularly as it is readily apparent that throughout "the region",significant numbers of young people are prepared to die in order to prevent just such democratic societies taking root.

Personally,I would be reluctant to ascribe to any understanding of the African/Middle Eastern take on anything to do with democratic principles,as I understand them.

There is a rather interesting Blog by Ed Moloney which,although long,is well worth reading in it's entirety for some,still pertinent insights into Libya,before and during the earlier stages of his reign.

http://thebrokenelbow.com/category/libya/

Again, like means of escape you are not understanding why Gaddafi was overthrown or even trying to understand why he was overthrown. The fact he was in power so long gives him no added legitimacy. The fact the Libyan people were scared to express an opinion such as an interest in democracy also is discounted by you.

In other words, the Libyan people should have been quite content to stay quiet and live at the whim of what most people even you concede was a lunatic.

Arab people are no different to Irish people. Most of them want the same thing. A small minority, in fact a tiny minority of extremists want to take over countries and run them at the point of a gun.

The majority, 90% want a pluralistic democracy like any other country. The vast majority of Libyans certainly don't a return to an Arab strongman, nor do they want an AQ type group to take over.

So lets support the majority in their ambitions and not as you would support a small minority.

Again, you just don't get it, nor I believe will you ever. You think the vast majority of Libyans want a return to a Gaddafi type era when they couldn't budge but for being watched yet there was "stability". It's total nonsense. In fact if I understand you right, you want an Arab strongman/dictator imposed on the Libyan people, anyone who speaks of democracy rounded up and imprisoned, political parties banned and political opponents jailed or exiled. That seems to be what you want. And yet you call that progress.

Getting tired of hypocrits around here who preach the value of dictatorship to other nations yet benefit from democracy in their own country. I suppose the best thing is to ignore such people.

AlekSmart

realweirdo wrote: »

.

Again, you just don't get it, nor I believe will you ever. You think the vast majority of Libyans want a return to a Gaddafi type era when they couldn't budge but for being watched yet there was "stability".

It's total nonsense. In fact if I understand you right, you want an Arab strongman/dictator imposed on the Libyan people, anyone who speaks of democracy rounded up and imprisoned, political parties banned and political opponents jailed or exiled.That seems to be what you want. And yet you call that progress.

Getting tired of hypocrits around here who preach the value of dictatorship to other nations yet benefit from democracy in their own country. I suppose the best thing is to ignore such people.

No I'm afraid you misunderstand my view alright.

I have no idea what "The Libyan People" want right now,but I would suspect significant amounts are not exactly best-pleased with what has been delivered to them courtesy of a group of odd,mainly European bedfellows.

What they now have,may well be "progress" to some,but I beg to differ.

My suggestion is the needs of "The Libyan People" were NOT the motivating elements of the UN/NATO intervention,and that lessons DO need to be learned from that.

It's worth bearing in mind that there is a highly vocal element of radical protest here in Ireland which characterises our current government as being dictatorial,because it is implimenting new taxation measures or presides over an allehedly flawed asylum system.

Would these folk be the Hypocrits you refer to ?

realweirdo

AlekSmart wrote: »

My suggestion is the needs of "The Libyan People" were NOT the motivating elements of the UN/NATO intervention,and that lessons DO need to be learned from that.

Ah right, it was all about oil. Change the record please. :rolleyes: