|
ecureuilmatrix posted:Speaking of Libya, how about a little dose of épuration légale? (BBC, «Libya parliament bans Gaddafi-era officials») If it's only "key positions" like the article says then it seems like it'll ignore many of the mid level bureaucrats, which isn't exactly the end of the world. I'm not sure exactly how the law is worded though.
|
#
?
May 6, 2013 03:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 12, 2024 08:35 |
|
|
Golbez posted:Libya is absolutely on topic for this thread, it started as the Arab Spring thread, of which North Africa was the largest part. Internal American politicking is much less so. You know I realize we're getting the report of rebel use of Sarin like, 8th hand, but does anyone have any idea what treatment would have been enough to show Sarin gas was the culprit and not another organophosphate/nerve agent? Isn't this why we have to wait for blood tests in the first place? I think I am going to put in a place holder feeling of empathy for the people in the field because whatever was in their report, the headline seeker who put it out there is really leaving them out on a limb.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2013 03:05
|
|
|
Twee as gently caress posted:Urgh. No you see it's a reverse false flag by the regime to make it look like the rebels are the ones using the chemical weapons so they can, uh, something something
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2013 04:38
|
|
|
Didn't CPA-directed de-Baathification oust civil servants from their posts, not just bar them from office? I remember it being hilariously short-sighted.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2013 04:55
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Libya Conspiracy theories? Not so much, but that was in response to the person who said 'Libya is off topic, it's not Middle East, it's North Africa!'
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2013 05:03
|
|
|
Golbez posted:Not so much, but that was in response to the person who said 'Libya is off topic, it's not Middle East, it's North Africa!' In my defense I hate Arkane.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2013 05:19
|
|
|
Baloogan posted:In my defense I hate Arkane. Charges dropped.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2013 05:26
|
|
|
ecureuilmatrix posted:Speaking of Libya, how about a little dose of épuration légale? (BBC, «Libya parliament bans Gaddafi-era officials») I don't think De-Baathification was the major problem after the Iraq invasion (although I'm sure it didn't help. Not all Baathists were bad people and many of them were in charge of, you know, running things) dissolving the Iraqi military seems to be the real huge mistake the US made. It's been well documented. Putting something like a million? fighting age men out of work after having their country invaded by foreigners was one of the dumbest things the Bush administration did after the even more incredibly dumb decision to invade Iraq in the first place. It's quite different in Libya. From what I understand, Libya didn't never really had any functioning institutions under Ghaddafi so purging the current government of Ghaddafists probably won't make much of a difference.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2013 05:42
|
|
|
Charliegrs posted:I don't think De-Baathification was the major problem after the Iraq invasion (although I'm sure it didn't help. Not all Baathists were bad people and many of them were in charge of, you know, running things) dissolving the Iraqi military seems to be the real huge mistake the US made. It's been well documented. Putting something like a million? fighting age men out of work after having their country invaded by foreigners was one of the dumbest things the Bush administration did after the even more incredibly dumb decision to invade Iraq in the first place. Frankly at this point im wondering who was actually left as 'ghaddafists' since there was a mad rush to defect right at the end of the civil war. 
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2013 06:00
|
|
|
It's only "key positions" anyway which depending on how you define it means that the only people barred will be Momo, his sons, and maybe Ibrahim (wherever the hell he is).
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2013 06:02
|
|
|
Is there a figurative name yet for the foreign policy of the Syrian conflict? Akin to Bear trap?
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2013 08:57
|
|
|
Jacobin posted:Is there a figurative name yet for the foreign policy of the Syrian conflict? Akin to Bear trap? Clusterfuck
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2013 10:14
|
|
|
The UN will be making a statement on Del Ponte's claims about rebel sarin use later today, and I don't think they'll be saying lots of supportative things.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2013 11:50
|
|
|
Gen. Ripper posted:It's only "key positions" anyway which depending on how you define it means that the only people barred will be Momo, his sons, and maybe Ibrahim (wherever the hell he is). According to the CNN article, "The political isolation law could exclude current senior officials such as the head of the General National Congress Mohamed al-Magariaf, who served as ambassador to India in the 1970s before he joined the exiled opposition to the Gadhafi government. The General National Congress is Libya's parliament."
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2013 12:20
|
|
|
Brown Moses posted:The UN will be making a statement on Del Ponte's claims about rebel sarin use later today, and I don't think they'll be saying lots of supportative things. What makes you say that? How infuriatingly opaque!
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2013 12:49
|
|
|
Arkane posted:First of all, I'm fine to drop the topic; I didn't even bring it up. This'll probably be my last reply. Second of all, this has a bearing on the Middle East because we know that Yemenis were involved in the attack (with ties to Al Qaeda, to boot). Okay, sorry, but this was one google search and a link away, so I'm actually curious about how you're still not sure she said what she said. http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2012/11/16/where-did-the-talking-points-on-benghazi-come-from/?hpt=hp_t1 "A senior U.S. official told CNN that the talking points were drafted by the CIA and "reflected what it believed at that point in time." The memo was reviewed "CIA leadership and coordinated in the interagency at a senior level," the official said. The first draft of the CIA unclassified talking points stated there were indications the attack was linked to al Qaeda, but during the interagency process when the talking points were reviewed, al Qaeda was changed to extremists. The official said the change “was not a political decision.” "The points were not, as has been insinuated by some, edited to minimize the role of extremists, diminish terrorist affiliations, or play down that this was an attack. There were legitimate intelligence and legal issues to consider, as is almost always the case when explaining classified assessments publicly." the official explained. "First, the information about individuals linked to al-Qaeda was derived from classified sources. Second, when links were so tenuous—as they still are—it makes sense to be cautious before pointing fingers so you don’t set off a chain of circular and self-reinforcing assumptions. Third, it is important to be careful not to prejudice a criminal investigation in its early stages.”" I mean, I know it's CNN, but from what I can tell the CIA wanted to cover their role in the events and no one wanted to, oh, say, gently caress with an ongoing investigation. I'm not sure how 'not burning classified sources on tenuous intel to satisfy the 24 hour media's need to scream TERROR at full blast' "potentially damaged our relationship with Libya and delayed US investigations into the people who killed 4 Americans."
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2013 13:33
|
|
|
Isn't the news that Al-Nusra used chemical weapons a much bigger 'game-changer' than the regime using chemical weapons? I mean, I can't imagine Obama will be able to walk away from getting involved in the Syria conflict now that an Al-Qaeda affiliate has its hands on chemical weapons and is using it against civilians, if only to make sure that this doesn't spread outside of Syria's borders.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2013 15:37
|
|
|
Well the team at the UN actually investigating CW use in Syria just published a statement saying they've no conclusive evidence about either side using CW, so that doesn't make Del Ponte (who isn't even part of the team) look very good.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2013 15:42
|
|
|
Brown Moses posted:Well the team at the UN actually investigating CW use in Syria just published a statement saying they've no conclusive evidence about either side using CW, so that doesn't make Del Ponte (who isn't even part of the team) look very good. Well that's very very good news then. Al-Nusra getting chemical weapons seems like a nightmare scenario and one of the worst ways the conflict could escalate.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2013 15:47
|
|
|
Twee as gently caress posted:Well that's very very good news then. Al-Nusra getting chemical weapons seems like a nightmare scenario and one of the worst ways the conflict could escalate. And yet...if they succeed in toppling Assad, wouldn't that be exactly the endgame: the rebels having access to chemical weapons?
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2013 16:27
|
|
|
OAquinas posted:And yet...if they succeed in toppling Assad, wouldn't that be exactly the endgame: the rebels having access to chemical weapons? Hasn't Israel already declared that if Assad falls that they will move in in order to secure the chemical weapons depots if they have to?
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2013 16:30
|
|
|
I hate to suggest it but maybe the US could broker a deal with Assad to trade his chemical weapons for some ordinary munitions like some tanks, artillery, etc. More conventional weapons would be a lot more useful to him and getting the chemical weapons out is a top priority no matter who wins the conflict.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2013 16:38
|
|
|
Twee as gently caress posted:Hasn't Israel already declared that if Assad falls that they will move in in order to secure the chemical weapons depots if they have to? I think the implication is that doing so won't be easy and will require invading and occupying a country.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2013 16:39
|
|
|
Twee as gently caress posted:Hasn't Israel already declared that if Assad falls that they will move in in order to secure the chemical weapons depots if they have to? If Israel moves into Syria, that's the equivalent of a World War III scenario.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2013 17:43
|
|
|
The Scarlet Hot Dog posted:If Israel moves into Syria, that's the equivalent of a World War III scenario. With who? No one wants Syrian rebels to have access to chemical weapons.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2013 17:48
|
|
|
karthun posted:With who? No one wants Syrian rebels to have access to chemical weapons. Yes, but how concretely do we stop them?
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2013 17:49
|
|
|
computer parts posted:If it's only "key positions" like the article says then it seems like it'll ignore many of the mid level bureaucrats, which isn't exactly the end of the world. I'm not sure exactly how the law is worded though. Well I hope the law is made such as you say, but if they're going to bar people who defected decades ago... (I should have been clearer and explicitly included the Iraqi army dissolution under the umbrella of debaathification. It was numerically the biggest mistake.) On Chemtalk, I'm almost glad we're back to unconfirmed use. 
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2013 17:51
|
|
|
The Scarlet Hot Dog posted:If Israel moves into Syria, that's the equivalent of a World War III scenario. Why the hyperbole? No one is going to start World War Three over Syria. Post-Assad, Israel would be involving itself in a neighbouring country's civil war (a 1982 scenario). Bad news for Israel and for the region, but not thermonuclear winter inducing.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2013 17:53
|
|
|
Worthleast posted:Yes, but how concretely do we stop them? Stop Israel from invading to secure chemical weapons or stop chemical weapons from falling into the hands of the rebels?
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2013 18:34
|
|
|
Twee as gently caress posted:Hasn't Israel already declared that if Assad falls that they will move in in order to secure the chemical weapons depots if they have to? secure won't be exactly what they will be doing, I believe. they will probably try to eliminate as many terrorist leadership as well as the chemical depots if there are even any chance that the rebels are near victory. I won't put assassination of any Syria scientist capable of manufacturing chemical weapons past Mossad.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2013 18:51
|
|
|
Zuhzuhzombie!! posted:I think the implication is that doing so won't be easy and will require invading and occupying a country. Not when you can simply do a quick bombing campaign against them with unofficial support of the free world. I am pretty sure that Israel knows all of their major munition and chemical sites to do so. Though Israel probably will only do so if the rebels/terrorists are winning. If Assad is winning, they have less reasons to do so as Assad is more reasonable than a large infighting groups of religious fighters, regardless of the FSA as they have become irrelevant in recent events.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2013 18:59
|
|
The Onion has been reportedly hacked by Assad supporters (maybe seriously?): http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/06/onion-syrian-electronic-army_n_3223367.html?ncid=edlinkusaolp00000003 
az jan jananam fucked around with this message at 19:08 on May 6, 2013 |
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2013 19:02
|
|
|
I would not put it past the Onion pretending they were hacked.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2013 19:41
|
|
|
The Scarlet Hot Dog posted:If Israel moves into Syria, that's the equivalent of a World War III scenario. No it's not. There wouldn't be a Syrian government to go to war with Israel, and no other country would get involved either. You really think that Israel rolling into a post-Assad Syria, blowing up a few depots of weapons and then leaving would actually end up pitting America and NATO against what, Russia, China and most of the Middle-Eastern States? That doesn't make any sense. Israel entering Syria might be far from the optimal resolution, but so is Al-Nusra taking over all of Syria's missiles and chemical weapons.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2013 19:46
|
|
|
karthun posted:Stop Israel from invading to secure chemical weapons or stop chemical weapons from falling into the hands of the rebels? Stop CW from falling into the hands of the rebels. Concretely, supporting the rebels leads to this scenario, which I think is why Obama has been very cautious. What could be done to prevent CW from being used by Assad or falling into the hands of the rebels? Assad won't play Gaddafi and turn them in. Perhaps Israel taking matters into its own hands is the least of evils here.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2013 20:01
|
|
|
Worthleast posted:Perhaps Israel taking matters into its own hands is the least of evils here. Depends on how you look at it: On the one hand, yes, Israel has the need to prevent Chemical Weapons from falling into the hands of Hezbollah or other Islamic Militant groups, and is rightly justified in doing so. On the other, Israel has a tendency to do only what they think is right, not what others feel is necessary, and have a tendency to go overboard in the name of National Security. I don't trust them to pull a 'Libya' like I trust the French, British, and US forces.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2013 20:58
|
|
|
Gotta love the Onion. [edit] burn
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2013 21:04
|
|
|
Brown Moses posted:[edit] burn Ha. Goddamn. quote:The Onion
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2013 21:16
|
|
|
Sethmaster posted:Not when you can simply do a quick bombing campaign against them with unofficial support of the free world. I've read several things, and maybe even saw it mentioned in this thread, that merely bombing munitions sites is probably the worst you can do. It won't destroy all of the chemical weapons and opens them up to whoever wants them. Really securing the chemical weapons will require Israeli* boots on the ground. *Or somebody.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2013 21:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 12, 2024 08:35 |
|
|
I loved it when the Onion goes that loving dark. Sometimes they're just so brazen and hostile, like the writter is really mad and doing a passive-agressive story. I love the Onion.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2013 21:29
|
|