|
The Libyan TNC is giving a press conference in London:quote:This is Matt Wells taking over from Adam Gabbatt. The Libyan national transitional council, the Benghazi-based organisation that is putting itself forward as a potential new government of Libya, is giving a press conference in London. It is clearly putting itself forward as the legitimate voice of the revolution. Its spokesman is at pains to stress that it will "not be the final government of Libya" – there will be a new constitution, and elections.
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2011 16:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 16:58 |
|
|
Jenzar El posted:Believe it or not. ORIGINAL THOUGHT! See, opposing things just because a black/liberal/Democrat president is behind it causes all sorts of mental gymnastics. Look at that crap you posted.  Maybe if you didn't form all of you thoughts from your hate of Obama you will have more coherent thoughts. Like the French tried to keep us out of Iraq and gave us the statue of liberty and quiche.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2011 16:14
|
|
|
Vogler posted:It's wrong if he doesn't want you to help him. Except that they do?
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2011 16:18
|
|
|
Baddog posted:Hey, you do know that Saddam Hussein killed almost a million of his own people, not even counting the Iran-Iraq war which killed another million. Congratulations on completely missing the point of my post! You get an F for reading comprehension. Where did I say anything about Saddam Hussein? The point is that in Libya you have a UN sanctioned intervention backed by the majority of the international community and does not involve us basically rolling in the tanks cause we could. This isn't an American force unilaterally imposing regime change via arms, it's a world backed force basically going; "I'm going to wave my arms over here. If I hit your heavy weapons and your own people end up overthrowing your government, maybe you should have tried being less of an rear end in a top hat." There aren't American armored divisions sweeping through the desert fighting on the ground with the Libyan military, there are Libyans doing that. We are just making it so a) CQ stops blowing up his loving cities and murdering people and b) taking out his heavy equipment that he is using to do this with (which coincidentally puts his guys on more equal footing with the large number of irregular light infantry that they were blowing the gently caress up with near impunity before). Also, though Saddam was indeed a similar rear end in a top hat, that was not part of the stated reason why the US intervened. It was all WMD and fear hype and if we were going in to save the Kurds and Shiites maybe we should have done that during the uprising after Gulf War 1 before they were all slaughtered and thrown into mass graves.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2011 16:21
|
|
|
DevNull posted:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q0i9acHS_zQ& Well, there was that sketch on an Israeli comedy program that spoofed the on-again, off-again Israeli-Palestine peace accords. The end credits are great: Kim Jong-Il pig surrounded by nukes, with the Mighty Eagle going "I don't know, looks kinda scary...", as well as Chavez, Castro and Ortega pigs
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2011 16:24
|
|
|
Nuclearmonkee posted:Also, though Saddam was indeed a similar rear end in a top hat, that was not part of the stated reason why the US intervened. It was all WMD and fear hype and if we were going in to save the Kurds and Shiites maybe we should have done that during the uprising after Gulf War 1 before they were all slaughtered and thrown into mass graves. Been meaning to compare what we're doing in Libya to what we really should have happened in Iraq following GW1 when we told the populous of Iraq to rise up against Saddam, only to sit on our hands while they were summarily curb stomped by the very large military we didn't destroy during the 100 hours of the ground war. That's actually a huge reason why I'm so supportive of our very limited involvement in Libya over the past few weeks is that the good will the US gained in the ME by going to war with Iraq in 1991 was totally wiped out just as quickly by our inaction during the open revolt that we called for after the invasion. Also, to the people wondering what's different here than basically every other place where horrible humanitarian poo poo is happening is the following. We're not specifically after a regime change, but if it happens because Gaddafi was a colossal dick to this people and they are currently revolting to install a liberal democracy then so be it. We're not specifically backing the rebels, but we are taking out the heavy weapons that Libya was using to massacre it's citizens unchecked and if in the process we put the Libyan military on an even footing with the rebels and they are able to make advances then so be it. Semantics sure but important differences non the less.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2011 16:40
|
|
|
Another new thing since other interventions, is that the so-called "Responsibility to protect" has been firmly established in the UN system, based on what happened in Rwanda, Bosnia and Kosovo.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2011 17:07
|
|
|
Vincent Van Goatse posted:I almost feel sorry for him. It's not like he ever had a chance at a normal life, what with being Ron Paul's son. Not to mention being named Rand Paul. Oh like he's the only kid with a nutty dad.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2011 17:07
|
|
|
Saddam deserved to go, sure, but doing in such a way that Iraqis weren't inspired about democracy and so we just dug in our heels to generate new terrorists and kill them was a beyond horrible way to approach it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2011 17:09
|
|
|
quadratic posted:I'd take that with a grain of salt. Now Lebanon passionately hate Hezbollah and I haven't seen similar reports anywhere. Yeah, there's a limited amount of unbiased media in Lebanon (aka, zero). I'll try to find another source, but given that Hezbollah and Amal were the same groups holding rallies in favor of the Syrian occupation in 2005, I have no reason to doubt it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2011 17:10
|
|
|
Spiky Ooze posted:Saddam deserved to go, sure, but doing in such a way that Iraqis weren't inspired about democracy and so we just dug in our heels to generate new terrorists and kill them was a beyond horrible way to approach it. If we waited long enough it's very likely what is happening now would have happened there is the thing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2011 17:12
|
|
|
Times posted:If we waited long enough it's very likely what is happening now would have happened there is the thing. I don't have the link, but yesterday I saw an article saying that the revolutions would not be happening in the Middle East if we had not invaded Iraq. A few months ago I predicted that someone would say that. Sadly, there will be neo-cons that believe exactly that no matter what.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2011 17:17
|
|
|
Times posted:If we waited long enough it's very likely what is happening now would have happened there is the thing. True that. To be completely fair though nobody saw this coming. If it wasn't for the spontaneous momentum of the pro-democracy protests, these people could have had dictators indefinitely. I think Bush was right in that people *deserve* democracy, he was just wrong in rushing in before the people realized that themselves.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2011 17:19
|
|
|
Spiky Ooze posted:Saddam deserved to go, sure, but doing in such a way that Iraqis weren't inspired about democracy and so we just dug in our heels to generate new terrorists and kill them was a beyond horrible way to approach it. It also didn't help that after GW1 we said we would support the people if they rose up against Saddam, then once it happened we told them to get hosed while they were slaughtered. People tend to remember and be resentful of poo poo like that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2011 17:20
|
|
|
Well, maybe, but if the US/UK had instead waited to gather international support, these revolutions might have been happening sooner than they are now. Alternative history is fun.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2011 17:21
|
|
|
DevNull posted:I don't have the link, but yesterday I saw an article saying that the revolutions would not be happening in the Middle East if we had not invaded Iraq. A few months ago I predicted that someone would say that. Sadly, there will be neo-cons that believe exactly that no matter what. Well in a way that may be true. With the invasion of Iraq and the continuation of forceful US intervention in the region the people are finally pissed off enough at all the bullshit to finally rise up and try to gain self governance. Pissed off enough at the continued US intervention and dictator supporting in the region I mean. That isn't of course what they meant in the article. What they meant is that our noble
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2011 17:23
|
|
|
DevNull posted:I don't have the link, but yesterday I saw an article saying that the revolutions would not be happening in the Middle East if we had not invaded Iraq. A few months ago I predicted that someone would say that. Sadly, there will be neo-cons that believe exactly that no matter what. Hitches on Slate : http://www.slate.com/id/2289587/
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2011 17:57
|
|
|
Nuclearmonkee posted:Congratulations on completely missing the point of my post! You get an F for reading comprehension. Pretty much your whole post? Although to be fair, I think you might have been high as gently caress. If you are going to say that we should be in Libya because Gaddafi is a) cruel b) unstable c) has in the past and is about to again kill tens of thousands of his own people d) controls a lot of wealth Then all of those applied (much more so) to Saddam Hussein. Also I love your new bit about this is different because "I'm going to wave my arms over here. If I hit your heavy weapons and your own people end up overthrowing your government, maybe you should have tried being less of an rear end in a top hat". And your continued insistence that this isn't about "regime change". At least be intellectually honest with yourself and admit that we (including our allies) are going to do whatever it takes to get the rebels to win, up to and including putting them in the loving car, driving them directly to Gaddafi's house, and putting the rope in their hands. Already there is talk about officially arming the rebels (as opposed to all the unofficial arming that has been going on), and we're using gunships now because something is needed to take out lighter vehicles and infantry concentrations, because just taking out the armor wasn't enough. The doublethink in this thread is strong as hell.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2011 18:03
|
|
|
On the other hand there are people who can't make out the difference between necessary and sufficient. If we consider " a) cruel b) unstable c) has in the past and is about to again kill tens of thousands of his own people d) controls a lot of wealth" as necessary conditions for foreign intervention it is not the same as saying we consider them as sufficient for foreign intervention and certainly not declaring what form such intervention should take place. Instead all we see over, and over, and over, and over is claims that if you want to step in in one situation you have to step into any situation that can be considered broadly similar because, drat it, my second grade teacher took away my candy because I didn't bring enough for everyone and everyone should be forced to feel that level of helplessness in the face of enforced equality. Sorry if some of us take a slightly more nuanced view. I'd feel more comfortable with condemnations of double think from people I felt had engaged in a single think.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2011 18:14
|
|
|
Baddog posted:Pretty much your whole post? Although to be fair, I think you might have been high as gently caress. If you are going to say that we should be in Libya because Gaddafi is No you are still missing the point. None of those were the main argument for going to war, as presented by those who were in favor of it. The argument was that Hussein presented a danger to the US and thus a full on invasion was necessary, not that he was cruel or unstable or murdered his own people. No one is trying to draw connections between Gadaffi and 9/11 or claim that he's sitting on piles of yellowcake. Earwicker fucked around with this message at 18:18 on Mar 29, 2011 |
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2011 18:16
|
|
|
In 2002 2003 Bush et al made the argument that we had to invade because Saddam was a bad man who "gassed his own people". They made lots of arguments. The "humanitarian intervention" angle was definitely there. Even more so in Afghanistan.Shimrra Jamaane posted:Well in a way that may be true. With the invasion of Iraq and the continuation of forceful US intervention in the region the people are finally pissed off enough at all the bullshit to finally rise up and try to gain self governance. Pissed off enough at the continued US intervention and dictator supporting in the region I mean. When is the revolution in Iraq going to happen? If the neocon theory had any credibility you'd think we'd see revolution in Iraq eventually. Not asking you to answer for neocons. Just thinking out loud. euphronius fucked around with this message at 18:20 on Mar 29, 2011 |
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2011 18:17
|
|
|
The difference between Iraq 2002 and Libya 2011 is there's a significant rebel movement that actively is trying to get rid of Gaddafi, and appears to have wide support. In Iraq the US was trying to import democracy into Iraq, while with Libyan there's already a movement that exists that is trying to form a free democracy.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2011 18:22
|
|
|
euphronius posted:In 2002 2003 Bush et al made the argument that we had to invade because Saddam was a bad man who "gassed his own people". They made lots of arguments. The "humanitarian intervention" angle was definitely there. Even more so in Afghanistan. Those arguments were made but they were never the primary argument, which always specifically involved Saddam being a danger to the US and Israel and possessing weapons of mass destruction. These arguments were especially relevant to the US's unilateral approach. Meanwhile, no one at all is attempting to make these claims about Libya being a danger to other countries.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2011 18:22
|
|
|
Iraq had significant anti Saddam forces such as the Sadrist milita and the Kurds. IIRC Hussein was barely if at all in control of what is called Kurdistan in Iraq in 2003.
euphronius fucked around with this message at 18:26 on Mar 29, 2011 |
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2011 18:23
|
|
|
euphronius posted:Iraq had significant anti Saddam forces such as the Sadrist milita and the Kurds. First off, they were not making any type of progress at over throwing Saddam. They would not have been able to. Second, if you think the two countries are anything alike, then you are just completely ignorant on the region. Stop trying to compare them at all.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2011 18:27
|
|
|
DevNull posted:First off, they were not making any type of progress at over throwing Saddam. They would not have been able to. Second, if you think the two countries are anything alike, then you are just completely ignorant on the region. Stop trying to compare them at all. I wasn't saying they were alike. I was trying to talk about what actually happened in Iraq. But continuing on this line of thinking, what are the chances that the next government of Libya will privatise the nationalized oil company? I would say they are quite high.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2011 18:31
|
|
|
euphronius posted:Iraq had significant anti Saddam forces such as the Sadrist milita and the Kurds. IIRC Hussein was barely if at all in control of what is called Kurdistan in Iraq in 2003. The Kurds were trying to form a breakaway Kurdish nation in their own region - as they have been trying to do for a very long time, not trying to reform/replace the government of Iraq itself. It's really not at all the same kind of situation. The Libyan rebels are not trying to form a new autonomous republic in a specific area based on ethnic or religious lines - they are trying to form a new Libya, one that doesn't involve Gadaffi.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2011 18:31
|
|
|
euphronius posted:I wasn't saying they were alike. I was trying to talk about what actually happened in Iraq. I'm unsure at this point, I would not discount it but at the same time it is the most central element of the Libyan economy and any odor of tampering with it would doubtlessly go over poorly. I think you could make a pretty convincing argument it would lean in that direction, but as in Iraq the dispersal of oil revenues is probably central to what the post Khaddafi government looks like.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2011 18:35
|
|
|
farraday posted:Instead all we see over, and over, and over, and over is claims that if you want to step in in one situation you have to step into any situation that can be considered broadly similar No, I'm pretty sure western interventionist policy is pretty drat consistent, for good or bad, democratic or republican administration. You just don't want to be honest with yourself and admit it, and would rather resort to dismissive snark against anything that violates your narrative of a completely just war. I'm in favor of this intervention, hopefully it will result in some good, we will see, but I'd rather see the chief beneficiaries do the water carrying. And it hurts my head when people say that Iraq was bad and this war is good, because Gaddafi is such a bad man. Or because Bush lied vs Obama just not saying much.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2011 18:40
|
|
|
The one major difference between this war and Iraq is that there is broad and bilateral international support for it. The UNSC's resolution is clear. I personally think the reasons behind them* are similar but I am a horrible cynic. *the reasons for US involvement.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2011 18:42
|
|
|
Baddog posted:No, I'm pretty sure western interventionist policy is pretty drat consistent, for good or bad, democratic or republican administration. You just don't want to be honest with yourself and admit it, and would rather resort to dismissive snark against anything that violates your narrative of a completely just war. "It hurts my head that people say they're different when clearly they're the exact same based on a blatantly biased appraisal of the situation." Having read your posts I'm sure we all know how much you hate resorting to dismissive snark.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2011 18:43
|
|
|
Baddog posted:And it hurts my head when people say that Iraq was bad and this war is good, because Gaddafi is such a bad man. Or because Bush lied vs Obama just not saying much. You are treating them the same simply because they are both Arab countries and because they both had a dictator. They are not the same, and to compare the two is simply wrong. Even if popular media sources are doing just that right now. They are different situations.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2011 18:43
|
|
|
Mnoba posted:Hitches on Slate : Hitchens is correct that the US/UK invasion of Iraq was one of the main reasons why Gaddafi surrendered his WMD program and scaled down his support for terrorism. He's also probably right that Saddam Hussein still being in power might have made UN and Arab League support for the Libyan civilians more difficult. But it does not follow that the invasion of Iraq, at the time and the way it was done, was the right thing, which he implies. e: Actually, if Iraq hadn't been invaded, they might have gone after Libya instead, deposing Gaddafi several years earlier. If they'd threatened Gaddafi, he might have decided to call their bluff as Saddam Hussein did, and gotten himself invaded.  As we expected, Sweden got their official NATO request today, and are now sending 8 JAS Gripen down to the Med. Go Saab!
Vir fucked around with this message at 18:47 on Mar 29, 2011 |
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2011 18:44
|
|
|
Baddog posted:No, I'm pretty sure western interventionist policy is pretty drat consistent, for good or bad, democratic or republican administration. You just don't want to be honest with yourself and admit it, and would rather resort to dismissive snark against anything that violates your narrative of a completely just war. No, I'm pretty sure there's a difference between this no fly zone, and a full scale invasion and occupation justified by deceit and fear mongering, and you just don't want to be honest with yourself and admit it, and would rather resort to dismissive snark against anything that violates your narrative of being the Lone Voice of Reason.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2011 18:46
|
|
|
euphronius posted:The one major difference between this war and Iraq is that there is broad and bilateral international support for it. The UNSC's resolution is clear. I personally think the reasons behind them* are similar but I am a horrible cynic. While this is at the very least mostly true, there is still a difference in context because Gaddafi was actively pursuing the murder of many thousands of civilians and barely trained/equipped 'militants' with only the aforementioned barely trained/equipped 'militants' to stop him. It would be equivalent if: A) Saddam Hussein was actively trying to outright annihilate every single resident of Kurdistan. B) (and this is the important one) There was a significant group of Iraqi citizens demanding foreign intervention.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2011 18:48
|
|
|
Sure didn't take long to set up a new central bank in libya, as well as a new oil corporation. Thank god we went in for humanitarian reasons.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2011 18:49
|
|
|
slay0r691 posted:Sure didn't take long to set up a new central bank in libya, as well as a new oil corporation. Thank god we went in for humanitarian reasons. How exactly is the administration of a country by their own people a bad thing? The rebels setting up a new government and source of income is going to be good for the people.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2011 18:53
|
|
|
slay0r691 posted:Sure didn't take long to set up a new central bank in libya, as well as a new oil corporation. Thank god we went in for humanitarian reasons. Civil wars don't get fought with hugs and positive thinking, they need money.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2011 18:53
|
|
|
ChaosSamusX posted:While this is at the very least mostly true, there is still a difference in context because Gaddafi was actively pursuing the murder of many thousands of civilians and barely trained/equipped 'militants' with only the aforementioned barely trained/equipped 'militants' to stop him. I am not arguing with your overall point but for B are you referring to the Iraqi National Congress headed by our good friend Chalabi? Because that was more or less not authentic.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2011 18:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 16:58 |
|
|
Brown Moses posted:Civil wars don't get fought with hugs and positive thinking, they need money. That is true, but you could make an argument that the oil, in a way, is like conflict diamonds. I think that rather undersells the violence inherent in the extraction of most conflict minerals, but if we were concerned about neutrality we'd admit the uneven enforcement is problematic. It is fairly clear at this point though that we're not concerned about neutrality beyond the broadest and most facile form. Of course if oil extraction in the Rebel areas takes on the aspect of conflict mineral extraction then it is definitely a problem that should be revisited.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2011 18:59
|
|