General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsFor all the cheerleaders who thought overthrowing Qaddafi was such a great idea
Just like in Iraq, the recipe seems to be overthrow a nasty dictator--reap chaos and total social breakdown.
http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21638122-another-font-global-mayhem-emergingnot-helped-regional-meddling-and-western?fsrc=nlw|hig|9-01-2015|NA
Nowadays Libya is barely a country at all (see article). The factions that came together to fell Muammar Qaddafi have given up trying to settle their differences by negotiation. The east is under the control of a more or less secular alliance, based in Tobruk; in the west, a hotch-potch of groups in Tripoli and Misrata, once the symbol of heroic resistance to Qaddafi, hold sway, backed by hardline Islamist militias. Libya has two rival governments, two parliaments, two sets of competing claims to run the central bank and the national oil company, no functioning national police or army, and an array of militias that terrorise the countrys 6m citizens, plunder what remains of the countrys wealth, ruin what little is left of its infrastructure, and torture and kill wherever they are in the ascendancy.
The West has tried to keep out of Libya. America, France and Britain reluctantly intervened to oust Qaddafi in order to prevent him massacring his fellow Libyans, but in the wake of Western failures in Iraq and Afghanistan, the trio was determined not to get sucked into overseeing Libyas hoped-for transition to democracy, let alone put boots on the ground. Instead, it was left to the UNand to the Libyans themselves, who insisted that they could mend the place on their own.
kelliekat44
(7,759 posts)and the rest of the countries on the PNAC hit list. But what has actually happened is that our enemies have multiplied by being divided. Nice work!
AngryAmish
(25,704 posts)She is the nitwit whi thought arming ISIS was the ticket.
We are lead by morons.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)The Libyan and Syrian debacles were both pushed within the Administration by a cabal led by Madam Secretary and then CIA Director Petraeus.
As warned at the time, the world is beginning to reap the whirlwind.
We all face a difficult set of career choices about her - it is undeniable that Hillary Clinton largely bears responsibility for destabilizing the region and escalating the Sunni-Shi'ia holy wars. No reason to think she's going to take a different path in higher office.
Sometimes, I hate it when proven right.
Jesus Malverde
(10,274 posts)leveymg
(36,418 posts)for the principal non-Arab sponsors of regime change. That means us, France and UK, and our continued military engagement in the region. Exactly what PNAC called for.
This will only escalate and spread over time.
True Blue Door
(2,969 posts)There was no choice about removing him, and it wasn't us anyway - all we did was stop him from using the air.
You save people from being massacred, then you worry about what comes next.
Your bullshit is roughly equivalent to "You saved the kid from being strangled by his drunken father, and now look at him turning into a drunken jerk himself - aren't you stupid!" Do you honestly believe what you've written? Any actual thought go into it?
Are you against taking responsibility, or just against anything Americans do? If we had done nothing, would you now be faux-solemnly marking the anniversary of the date we failed to stop Gaddafi's genocide of his own people?
malaise
(267,784 posts)The West is in no position to speak about massacres.
True Blue Door
(2,969 posts)Which matters to anyone whose priority is human rights rather than anti-Western ideology.
Your schtick is just right-wing propaganda from another country.
malaise
(267,784 posts)slaughtered in Bush and Cheney's illegal war.
Whatever! The West is in no position to discuss human rights.
Response to malaise (Reply #9)
Post removed
malaise
(267,784 posts)Troll away
True Blue Door
(2,969 posts)Desert805
(392 posts)With too many here.
karynnj
(59,474 posts)As to the Republicans being against intervention in Libya - they were split just as they now are on any action. You can count on McCain, Graham, and Ayote to be for it (almost sight unseen) and Rand Paul to be against it.
The Republican resistance - in part - is whether Syria or elsewhere - they would like a commitment to do more.
malaise
(267,784 posts)so is Colbert (according to most ReTHUGs until that WHCD). I do love their inversion of reality.
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)NewDeal_Dem
(1,049 posts)karynnj
(59,474 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)would have cheered the destruction of Libya had Bush been the one doing it. Just as Democrats, who opposed Iraq, were either silent on Libya, or openly supported it.
The illusion of a democracy while the War Machine and Wall St benefit and the 'little people' pick up the tab.
tblue
(16,350 posts)I'm glad somebody sees the big picture. We are all being played.
malaise
(267,784 posts)It's the same in most places - as long as the capitalists benefit (and they get some crumbs) our so called democratic leaders jump on the bus
NewDeal_Dem
(1,049 posts)JI7
(89,172 posts)True Blue Door
(2,969 posts)NewDeal_Dem
(1,049 posts)propaganda, used to justify overthrow and murder.
karynnj
(59,474 posts)He said he would and had the means to do so.
Would you have objected if the only thing the US coalition had done was a no fly zone?
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)Are the French in a position to speak about massacres or the current state of Libya?
http://www.economist.com/blogs/newsbook/2011/03/frances_role_libya
MattSh
(3,714 posts)Thanks in advance.
True Blue Door
(2,969 posts)I know I'm getting old, but I can't be so old that the events of THAT short ago are controversial.
karynnj
(59,474 posts)It was possible to stop at that. In retrospect, I think that those of us who did buy the idea that we would stop the massacre that was already imminent and then stop were surprised when it morphed into regime change.
The problem was that the "massacre" was actually a response to threatened revolution -- and having prevented Libyan planes from the Benghazi air space -- we then essentially became involved everywhere in tilting the balance of power for the rebels.
Everyone spoke in terms of preventing the genocide, the question is when did regime change REALLY become the goal. If it was from the beginning, it could be said that we were lied to.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Gaddafi was able to hold on to power due to his air force and other advanced weaponry. That let him slaughter dissidents and otherwise oppress.
We denied him those tools because of the slaughter. Then the dissidents overthrew him because he could not slaughter.
The chaos in the region is caused by interventions decades ago, where Europeans created utterly artificial countries for their purposes. These countries are only stable through massive oppression because they were drawn to satisfy European politics instead of local identities.
There's no reason Libya needs to remain one nation. If the East and West massively disagree, then they should form two countries. They are currently in the process of doing that.
karynnj
(59,474 posts)Initially, we did what you said - denied him the use of air power against the people in cities like Benghazi. We genuinely DID prevent a massacre that otherwise was going to happen.
We then gradually shifted to taking an offensive position against Gaddafi everywhere -- and there was no effort that I know of to then try to use diplomacy to have a power sharing government - with or without Gaddafi. The actions went way beyond the actions that were spoken about before we got in. This is why the tape of Hillary Clinton about his death was discordant - at least to me.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)We kept him from using his advanced weaponry by bombing his advanced weaponry. That's pretty damn offensive. And it's the first thing "we" did.....though it wasn't US planes doing the bombing.
Gaddafi was a brutal asshole who slaughtered and tortured swaths of his people to hold on to power, and to forcibly keep his artificial country together. We should be pleased at his end, though I would have preferred his end to be a cell in the Hague.
karynnj
(59,474 posts)However, the tone of that Clinton clip was unseemly to me -- and it would have been had it been a similarly gleeful Obama or Kerry. I would love to know ANY extenuating circumstances - ie maybe she had not heard of the viciousness of the attack.
As to offensive, what I was speaking of was that the US ended up weakening the Qaddafi forces even in areas where they were not threatening the rebels - like the outskirts of Tripoli. As an observer, via DU, the US position morphed from stopping a massacre to a very big thumb on the scale helping the rebels win. All very fast and subtle.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)The moment we took away his tanks and aircraft, we put our thumb on the scale. Because slaughter via advanced weaponry was all Gaddafi had.
There really is not difference between bombing the ones that looked like slaughter was imminent and ones that were further from the fighting. Because the ones further from the fighting would shortly have moved to where the fighting was - slaughter was Gaddafi's only available move.
He had done far too much harm over the decades for some sort of "power sharing" to work. And he had the resources to flee long before his capture, but he was apparently not interested in a life in exile.
karynnj
(59,474 posts)Where I was thinking that doing this could lead to BOTH sides taking a step back - neither side had any intention of doing so. Given that, the civil war would continue.
I still see a difference between killing civilians in rebel held cities and attacking Quaddafi forces everywhere. I also think some diplomatic effort would have been a good idea - even if like with Syria - we stated that Quaddafi himself could not retain any power.
NewDeal_Dem
(1,049 posts)The goal was regime change long before the public heard anything about Libya.
karynnj
(59,474 posts)I agree that it was very much in response to the actions and goals of the rebels.
The question is whether a government can threaten to bomb one of its own cities. This is where the comparisons to Rwanda come in. It is a very tricky area. Had the US coalition just taken away air power from Qaddafi - preventing him from taking that action - and done nothing else, would you have had a problem?
Then (as others mention), there were other heavy weapons - like tanks. What if the US coalition both used its no fly control -- AND demanded there be no tank movements. As they would then be the sole air power, they could make movement of tanks very costly in terms of lives and material by saying that they would bomb any moving tank. Would you then have a problem?
This is what I meant by the slow/subtle shift between preventing a massacre and changing the balance of power. Yet looking at the two questions - where I would have had no problem being for both - it does show the very slippery issues of entering a civil war. ( I strongly suspect that this has influenced Obama's position on Syria - where like Quaddafi, Assad has done awful things.)
NewDeal_Dem
(1,049 posts)anything they can sell, and the US government has killed strikers and other labor activists for much less than was going on in Libya.
Desert805
(392 posts)Noted.
NewDeal_Dem
(1,049 posts)NewDeal_Dem
(1,049 posts)NewDeal_Dem
(1,049 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)The 'concern' for Libyan civilians, completely disappeared after control of the oil was accomplished. NATO disappeared as the massacres of innocents, especially sub-Saharan Africans, began. Torture, hangings, murders of those we supposedly were there to protect, went un-noticed by those who claimed that was the reason for being there, and they never stopped.
The invasion of Libya had zero to do with humanitarianism.
Calls for help to protect civilians from roving, armed gangs who helped NATO 'on the ground' went unanswered..
Libya is in a state of utter collapse, its government has fled unable to control anything.
And worst of all, the so-called 'rebels' we armed are now part of ISIS.
However we did the same thing in Iraq, which took a little longer to control, causing people to wonder if failure where the unfortunate people of the countries we invade is the goal.
I keep remembering the sociopath, Michael Ledeen's pathological mutterings about how we were going to flatten the entire Middle East and turn it into a glass parking lot' or words to that effect.
What is most remarkable is how the 'left' who so vehemently opposed the predictable humanitarian disaster in Iraq, cheered for what is now possibly a worse disaster (for the people they claimed to care so much about) in Libya.
Journalists, if you can call them that, who did THEIR part for the war machine, Kris Kristoff eg, lauding the 'success' of Libya, have not been heard from since afaik.
Another reason why I will never support Hillary for president. Even Bishop Tutu and Mandella expressed shock and sadness at her remarks after the horrific gang murder of Gadaffi.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)...Arab Spring Uprisings to enter an ongoing Civil War in Libya.
The IMF, Global Oil Corps, and World Banks have lusted after the riches of North Africa for decades, but Gaddafi kept them out.
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/MD27Ak01.html
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)oberliner
(58,724 posts)Seems to be an oddly common sentiment around here.
AngryAmish
(25,704 posts)Can we all agree that Quafaffy and Assad are bad? Guess what - there are others that are worse. We picked a side because some folks told us what we wanted to hear. Guess what? They lied. There is no interest in that part of the world by and large in Western forms of government. By and large they just want their people in charge. If you got the votes you want democracy. If not they want a dictatorship by some in your tribe.
Western institutions are not universal. Something like a civil service system is alien.
Yet at the highest levels of goverment and academia they believe this fantasy that all peoples think like we do. This willful (and it is ideological and thus an article of faith - they will not change) ignorance has been causing problems for generations.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)Our response should be - sorry, we don't mess around in that part of the world?
MattSh
(3,714 posts)malaise
(267,784 posts)I think it was the PNAC!
oberliner
(58,724 posts)I'm asking this question: if people living under oppressive regimes ask for help/support from western democracies such as the US, do you think we at least ought to consider providing some or just stay out of it in all circumstances?
zipplewrath
(16,646 posts)When people ask for help, you choose what kind of help to give. You don't have to choose to give the kind for which they ask.
We seem to believe that the most effective help we can give comes at the point of a gun. The UN has a whole commission that offers to help people in countries like Libya, but they are universally ignored. There was plenty of help we could, and did, offer Libya but the accepted none of it. And that was predictable up front. They had been under the regime for years. Suddenly we are suppose to use our guns to "free" them. But it was predictable that what we would free them to do was kill each other on their own. All regrettable, but all also predictable and implies that we should choose more carefully before we start shooting.
What do we do for people living under oppressive regimes? I'd suggest we use the State Department, not the Defense Department. And we should start WELL before their people start choosing violent revolution. We have tried for decades to help Haiti, it hasn't gone well. Maybe we should perfect that before we start shooting half way around the world.
pampango
(24,692 posts)If we do not have the power to help, we can express our sympathy and just say there's nothing we can do. When the Soviet tanks rolled into Czechoslovakia and Hungary and put down 'revolutions', there was nothing we could do about it. My elderly neighbor has cancer. I don't have the power to cure it so I bring over meals and talk.
If we have the power and decide not to use it that is a decision, not an absence of decision. Sometimes it will be the right decision and sometimes not. The US had the power to enter the war against Germany prior to Germany's declaration war on us after Pearl Harbor and chose not to do so. The USSR could have declared war on Germany when it invaded Poland and decided not to do so. You can argue that those were wise or unwise decisions, but they were decisions one way or the other.
We had the power to respond to the North Korean invasion of the South. We could have said it was none of our affair. Perhaps all of Korea would be united now under Kim Jong Un for better or worse. We used our power - through the UN since the USSR was boycotting it at the wrong time.
In the modern world, the UN sometimes authorizes international intervention in countries were civilians are at risk and sometimes it does not. This aspect of international law is a modern consideration that does not apply to helping your neighbor or what happened back in the 1930's and 40's.
I don't think liberals can say that the answer is to ALWAYS help people in need or to NEVER help them. There are practical and legal considerations that make each situation different.
HERVEPA
(6,107 posts)pampango
(24,692 posts)LordGlenconner
(1,348 posts)That nuance actually exists and we must strive to understand that nuance?
I couldn't agree more. It would be so much easier to see the world in black and white, like the OP and Malaise, but alas, it doesn't exist that way.
NewDeal_Dem
(1,049 posts)pampango
(24,692 posts)which does not mean to ALWAYS do something or to NEVER do something but to consider the suffering and decide if and how any help can be given.
The only decision we make individually when we see suffering if we as individuals want to help ourselves by volunteering or donating. I suppose in the Spanish Civil war in the 1930's some liberals here actually went to fight against Franco but that is a rare exception to what individuals usually are able to do.
NewDeal_Dem
(1,049 posts)reasons 'we' want in situations like this. it does what it and its (wealthy/powerful/connected) constituents want, or for strategic reasons. Morality doesn't have a goddamn thing to do with any of it, it's just the excuse given to the general public so the criminals can get away with their crimes.
pampango
(24,692 posts)Liberals should want morality to play a major role in our foreign policy.
It should play a major role in domestic policy too for that matter, e.g. action on income inequality, poverty, discrimination, etc. Past government policy has in too many cases not been 'moral'. That does not mean that liberals should give that up as a goal.
reddread
(6,896 posts)hypocrisy and destabilzed chaos are no substitute for the real compassion
mocked and feigned over bullshit stories about burqas, incubators and WMD.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)Our foreign policy is certainly not based on human rights, no doubt about that.
However, if there is a chance for the US to intervene on the side of those living under an oppressive regime - who are specifically asking for our help - is it not a potentially admirable response to do so?
I am thinking, for example, of the Rwandan genocide that some say could have been prevented with earlier Western involvement.
reddread
(6,896 posts)who ever made bank on indigenous mouths without an expanding slave trade?
TheKentuckian
(24,934 posts)You think this increased regional stability, has it made Americans more secure or increased our broad prosperity or or given our people as environment that fosters more self determination, that it was probable that the lives of the population involved has improved in the ways we'd set out for ourselves?
Have our intercessions generally been fruitful or is the trend making bad worse? What is your point of wringing your hands about dictators when we leave even worse conditions dictated by theocratic radicals and/or brutal authoritarians while the existing civilization is destroyed along with infrastructure?
karynnj
(59,474 posts)To my embarrassment, I realized I had forgotten, if I ever knew, the context that the genocide grew out it. As it is being set out often as a poster child for what happens if we don't act, the question I had is what affect could the world have had here if internationally, we responded quickly.
Though Wikipedia can have its problems, it does have a short history. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rwandan_Genocide (More detail on the long history of the two groups - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rwandan_Genocide#Pre-colonial_kingdoms_and_origins_of_Hutu.2C_Tutsi_and_Twa )
Here, it seems the world did work to end the civil war that had started 1990 though the struggle had flamed up periodically since colonial days- getting a ceasefire in 1993 and setting a goal for power sharing. There were UN peacekeepers there already. Yet, their presence did not deter the genocide.
The second link is fascinating in showing how in the period after the ceasefire, some Hutu extremists became ever more powerful and more extreme - even accusing their President of treason and labeling Hutus who married Tutsis as traitors. It is fascinating to consider that while this shift occurred the UN was there and they were trying to keep the peace.
The genocide was triggered after the President's plane was shot down killing all aboard and evidence later pointed to Hutu extremist, not the rebels -- and lasted 100 days. (Interesting that moderate Hutu leaders (Hutus ran the country) were killed in the very early days as well as the Tutsi.)
The question is when could the UN,US etc have changed the course they were on? When the country - which was supposed to be moving to power sharing - instead became ever more racist, could international diplomatic pressure discouraged that or would it have actually caused some of the moderates to join the extremists if there was pressure from the outside?
Given the swiftness with the actual genocide blew up and the fact that it happened WITH THE UN PEACEKEEPERS there, I wonder how quickly and effectively the world could have reacted - even if this contingency had been foreseen and a strategy worked out in advance. What is the quickest time that the UN and other countries have gone through their processes to respond - including deciding to respond, working out how to respond and then working out the logistics to do so. I suspect many of those 100 days would have passed before a major response could have occurred.
(I have read of Susan Rice speaking of it in terms of American politics - bad optics, but were there concrete proposals to respond (and when were they pushed)? )
oberliner
(58,724 posts)Presumably, he felt that was something positive that the US could have done to help prevent the genocide.
karynnj
(59,474 posts)However, I wonder if that reflects the American virtue of always believing that we can fix what is wrong - whether foreign policy or in our personal lives.
NewDeal_Dem
(1,049 posts)AngryAmish
(25,704 posts)We tried to help in Lybia and Syria and Iraq and Vietnam and Somalia etc.
We did not help. Yet we are incapable of recognizing that. New rule - we don't do civil wars. And if a country is causing trouble, then they will suffer a punitive raid, then we leave.
Fuddnik
(8,846 posts)bemildred
(90,061 posts)1.) Is it plausible that we can help?
2.) Is it feasible for us to help?
3.) Is it likely that our help will actually help?
4.) Will the consequences of failure not make it worse?
If you can say all of those things are true, then you should consider taking action, prudently. The warnings about Libya were out there, and they were ignored.
And you can always send humanitarian aid.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)It would have been tough, for example, to get aid to those living under Qadafi without him intercepting.
bemildred
(90,061 posts)And politically it's very effective when you make sure it gets where it's needed. You win friends, and they will remember. And compared to military operations it is cheap. It was already the case that Qadafi was not in a position to tell us what to do, not in control, so no real need to give it to him by then anyway.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)instead of it always being us. They save their money and resources while we cut help for our own people.
treestar
(82,383 posts)Then when the dictator falls, it the US' fault the dictator's country is disorganized.
Jesus Malverde
(10,274 posts)The nut jobs in Uganda.
It a huge list of whom we give a pass.
We love dictatorial governments that rule by decree as long as they don't promote socialism or support the Palestinians. Then we embrace them.
But you knew that.
Screw the neocons who have hijacked the state department and use our military to do the dirty work for other countries. Their cynical ways always reap dividends for others and a loss of blood and treasure for us.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)But are you OK with our supporting those regimes? Would you not be more in favor of supporting those who wish to get out from under the oppression there - especially if they specifically ask for our assistance in doing so?
NewDeal_Dem
(1,049 posts)Reter
(2,188 posts)They keep the crime down. If a Christian was killed in Iraq 20 years ago, Saddam would not tolerate it.
pampango
(24,692 posts)It is easy for people in the West to tell Libyans that they have to live under a dictator because :
1) You don't know how to run a democracy;
I know. The French, the Russians and many others did not get democracies after their revolutions.
2) The way the West drew national borders means that groups who don't particularly like each other are in the same country.
Therefore, you need a strong dictator to keep the country together to keep you from fighting with each other;
If the required dictator has to use a little domestic terrorism (midnight arrests, torture and summary execution) to preserve his power, you just have to live with that.
3) Do not for a second think that Americans will accept what we urge you to accept. We try to fight for our rights and a more functional democracy. We urge you not to do the same.
CJCRANE
(18,184 posts)If a popular uprising needs massive foreign intervention then maybe it isn't that popular.
The same goes for what's happening in Syria.
joshcryer
(62,265 posts)Which I'm sure is the preferred outcome.
CJCRANE
(18,184 posts)Most of the "Syrian rebels" are foreigners now, thanks to the open door policy and support of neighboring countries and their allies.
joshcryer
(62,265 posts)To say that they are comparable is a joke.
Libya would look very much like Syria had Gaddafi done what Assad did in Homs.
The Saudis and UAE and Qatar would still be helping out whatever sides that they support.
CJCRANE
(18,184 posts)to keep it going.
joshcryer
(62,265 posts)CJCRANE
(18,184 posts)or what is a regional insurrection or what is a terrorist outbreak?
Without factual measurements, it depends on your point of view. You clearly supported the uprising against Gadaffi. I did at the time of the siege of Benghazi but now I think we were mislead.
I was teaching Libyan students at the time and they said that what we heard in the western media was all propaganda (even the ones who were nominally Anti-Gadaffi).
joshcryer
(62,265 posts)There are studies about this. Basically you are claiming that only successful uprisings (without any outside intervention) can be popular uprisings. That's arbitrary.
The Libyan people are hard on themselves because of all the undue criticism they receive. It is a similar situation in Urkraine.
Basically because the US potentially supports an uprising, it must invariably be a bad uprising.
CJCRANE
(18,184 posts)If it only takes 2% to form an uprising that means that uprisings are often not "popular uprisings".
NewDeal_Dem
(1,049 posts)JI7
(89,172 posts)Independence ?
CJCRANE
(18,184 posts)as I said above.
JI7
(89,172 posts)Independent
CJCRANE
(18,184 posts)I've taught Libyan students, AFAIK many of them get a year's education abroad paid for by the state.
JEB
(4,748 posts)to French Fries.
mythology
(9,527 posts)Which means apparently that wasn't a popular uprising either.
NewDeal_Dem
(1,049 posts)pampango
(24,692 posts)I want to use. Particularly if they are willing to use tanks and planes against civilians.
CJCRANE
(18,184 posts)pampango
(24,692 posts)I doubt you can find a liberal politicians or other leader who professes that 'consent of the governed' can be fulfilled simply by a dictator's military and security forces remain loyal to him.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)There's a reason dictators provide their militaries with lots of money and other privileges. It makes the military want to keep the status quo.
There's no reason for Libya to be one country if the people have wildly divergent philosophies. They are in the process of splitting. Let them either finish the job, or realize they have more in common.
But it's silly to insist it was better when a brutal dictator held an utterly artificial country together.
joshcryer
(62,265 posts)First, it was a popular uprising:
Second, the problems that they are working out now are certainly troublesome, but they are exaggerated by the MSM and by Libyan haters as a whole. When the Latin American dictators were overthrown their countries followed very violent phases.
Third, the idea that Libyan people, Egyptian people, Iraqi people, or any peoples in the Muslim world need dictators to keep them under control is inherently racist and bigoted at its core.
Fourth, Libyan borders may be redrawn, because the British imperial borders were not culturally acceptable. Of course, this would also be seen as meddling, with no regard to the initial colonial borders to begin with.
The fact remains that those bashing Libyans don't want to see them succeed. But time will out and they will succeed. The militias and factions fighting amongst one another are literally in the hundreds, not thousands, hundreds of jerks with guns and cars. Libya is not Somalia nor will it become so.
Despite the eager hopes of those who have nothing to contribute but to bash Libyan people.
Jesus Malverde
(10,274 posts)The outrage at human rights violations Is so selective it's a joke.
Just a thread ago you were claiming Libya was doing great. Here were back to the growing pains of democracy meme. You guys play all the angles to suit your objectives.
NewDeal_Dem
(1,049 posts)joshcryer
(62,265 posts)I expect all of those countries will overthrow their kings and warlords in due time.
And it won't be pretty.
And the aftermath won't be sweet.
That's the reality of authoritarian governments. They cannot last.
NewDeal_Dem
(1,049 posts)historically last a while.
and historically, even when overthrown, transition to more authoritarianism.
joshcryer
(62,265 posts)Yet no one is cheering the stability in most Latin American countries. When the US props up dictatorships, it ends badly. When those dictatorships fall, and the US supports it, it will still end badly.
That's the nature of dictatorships falling.
NewDeal_Dem
(1,049 posts)present situation didn't come about for the most part via US-opposed revolutions. Rather the opposite.
For example, r-wing dictator Pinochet came to power, with US support, after violently overthrowing and murdering the elected Allende. Pinochet stayed in power from 1974 to 1990, 16 years, until he got old. And was still nominally "Senator for life" until 2002.
Then he "stepped down" via legal and non-violent means, and though he had a little trouble (house arrest and legal troubles), died 16 years later, still in possession of wealth and some power, having never served a day in jail or gone to court.
Your feel-good theory needs work.
joshcryer
(62,265 posts)Picking the most "feel good scenario" of your own choosing. Might I add, it leaves a filthy taste in my mouth to say this, but I know, without a doubt, you chose the least worst Latin American dictator. For a reason, you want to box me in.
I won't fall for it. Latin American dictatorships supported by the United States are reprehensible and undefendable. Most if not all of those dictatorships were followed by very violent aftermaths. In some cases, such as, say, Venezuela, the violence is on-going, to the point of even being more violent, today, than Libya, a country supposedly in turmoil. That's how ridiculous this premise is.
NewDeal_Dem
(1,049 posts)Pinochet was the "least worst" Latin American dictator? Oh really?
jamzrockz
(1,333 posts)came out against this intervention but the people who originally called for a No fly zone knew better than the 1.7 million people and decided to go for a regime change instead.
I am guessing we are still listening to the same sort of people in Syria now. Bullshit, Wesley Clarke said it before any of this started. These countries were targeted for war and the few voices we listened to are the ones that were saying what we wanted to hear so they went to war.
pampango
(24,692 posts)in his favor. Things become more problematic when a dictator uses tanks and planes to kill civilians who are protesting against him.
NewDeal_Dem
(1,049 posts)reddread
(6,896 posts)nilesobek
(1,423 posts)when Quaddafi took a bayonet up the case. Disgusting the smiles and laughter from her. Quaddafi was building a nice society in Libya and they had found trillions of gallons of freshwater in the desert. Eventually Libya could have fed all Africa. The people themselves lived with many nice subsidies such as free gasoline and real cheap rent.
Well those days are now over, all the people of Libya have to look forward to is IMF loans and more oil companies. So when you vote for Hillary this is what you get.
And please let nobody forget this come election time. The west hears the outcry of a small minority of hardcore Islamic fundamentalist who cried out that Gaddafi was coming after them for violently opposing the government. And ofc one of their first actions was to attempt genocide of black Libyans, institute sharia law and so on.
Biggest foreign policy failure in my lifetime. Also spare me with the "Bengazhiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii" posts cos it was truly a disaster. People died and people are still dying from that mistake. But Americans don't really care since only 4 white Americans died in the whole affair. So victory for the supporters of the war while millions of libyans are suffering, thousands are dead and black Libyans are running for their lives in their own country.
nilesobek
(1,423 posts)sent tens of thousands of black soldiers to Libya via Israeli diplomacy to help prop up Quaddafi. Now after the horror show of Quaddafi being murdered on live tv to the overwhelming elation of joy from Hillary, these African men were rounded up and slaughtered because they were black. With Quaddafi gone, the racists took over. God help Libya because I can't.
Thanks for this reminder.
jamzrockz
(1,333 posts)That foreign black troops were sent to Libya to prop up the Libyan people? cos if anything Libya did not need propping up. They had all the fire power they needed. It was the Islamic extremist that needed our airforce and weapons to topple the legitimate govt. Even Amnesty international who at one that believed that story have now backed away from it
nilesobek
(1,423 posts)but I will try and get back to you.
What a lot of people fail to see is that the "civil war," was a dirty mission creep movement from the beginning. We have been "working," with radical Islamists since the 1979 Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. There was an unannounced civil war going on that we were backing. Those clandestine operators were working with radical Islamists.
It was into this environment that the ANC troops were transferred into, basically a holding pattern in a lukewarm civil war, punctuated by the occasional terrorist attack on the Quaddafi government. I think it took Israel by surprise, the NATO bombing because I don't think they would have facilitated the transfer if they knew that was going on.
In no way do I blame Israel for the slaughter of these blacks. They were caught off guard like everyone else. This was the time the USA was working with Quaddafi and praising him for his anti-terrorism stance. Then they use the same jihadists to take down Quaddafi.
Sometimes I wonder if it matters what side we are on. We are damned.
polly7
(20,582 posts)Last edited Fri Jan 9, 2015, 03:00 PM - Edit history (5)
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/polly7/6The Untold Story in Libya
*****************************************************
No Evidence? No Problem!!
Exposed: The "Humanitarian" War In Libya
Must Watch Video
How the CIA Used "Libyan Expatriates" To Engineer Consent For Regime Change
One of the main sources for the claim that Qaddafi was killing his own people is the Libyan League for Human Rights (LLHR), an organization linked to the International Federation of Human Rights (FIDH). On Feb. 21, 2011, LLHR General Secretary Dr. Sliman Bouchuiguir initiated a petition in collaboration with the organization U.N. Watch and the National Endowment for Democracy. This petition was signed by more than 70 NGOs.
Then a few days later, on Feb. 25, Dr. Bouchuiguir went to the U.N. Human Rights Council in order to expose the allegations concerning the crimes of Qaddafis government. In July 2011 we went to Geneva to interview Dr. Sliman Bouchuiguir.
These videos were linked to in mainer's thread and others way back in 2011. Very revealing and showing just how easy it was - "How to circumvent international law and justice 101." - originally published by http://laguerrehumanitaire.fr
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article29428.htm
Would anyone here know how to access this in the archives ..... it was an amazing thread by mainer on Sun Oct-23-11 called "My experience in Libya", followed by hundreds of articles and links showing what a sham/horror this all was. Would be greatly appreciated.
NewDeal_Dem
(1,049 posts)Schema Thing
(10,283 posts)the reality is that before the west stepped in to help the rebels, Libya was already in full blown civil war.
So saying "still think overthrowing Qaddafi was such a good idea?" is nonsensical. Syria might (likely would) still be a horrible chaotic place if Assad had been taken out immediately - but worse than it is now? With worse choices going forward than it has now?
Hardly.
joshcryer
(62,265 posts)It was going to turn to shit regardless. The question may hinge around whether or not the current state is the worst condition. Given Syria, that's obviously not the case.
Of course, there are those who do believe that Gaddafi would've rounded up the belligerents Assad-style and things would just blow over.
That is wishful thinking.
TheKentuckian
(24,934 posts)Hardly my ass. Worse with worse choices is well within the realm of possibility, in fact with Libya it is already there. By what standards are we saying conditions for the average citizen has improved or is reasonably expected to improve (since we're are going to flip back and forth)?
Where is the improvement in the lives of the people we are "saving and freeing from oppressive dictators", it looks to me that our "help" makes bad worse and enables regressive, murderous, authoritarian and generally theocratic forces more than anything else.
Interventionist are cruel, regressive, destructive, and delusional wasters of blood and treasure ever trying to justify the indefensible and contemptibly disastrous efforts that destabilize to feed profiteers,expand the power and resources of our own military, justify gutting our own rights usually for some soon to be failed resource grab for multinational corporations.
The world would be a better place if the bullets were used on those cheerleading their use around the globe for their or their favored politicians bullshit games. Doing so would save a lot of lives and net increase prosperity and self determination around the globe.
Schema Thing
(10,283 posts)than Syria. Not by a long shot. And it's possibilities and prospects going forward ARE much better than Syria's at this point.
The fact is the PEOPLE of Libya did rise up against Qaddafi and then the west stepped in and gave them a much needed hand.
If you want to compare, compare it to the American revolution. That is more accurate than comparing it to Iraq.
jamzrockz
(1,333 posts)Syria is in the condition that is is now because they refused to fall in line and because Russia stepped in to prevent yet another country from falling victim to west imperial ambitions. I rather be free and a bit uncomfortable (Syria) than to be held captive a be a bit comfortable (Libya). But at the end of the day, I rather not be a victim of the west's military intervention in my country at all.
Just think how normal Libya would have been now if the west had allowed it (not like they should ask for permission in the first place) to squash the terrorists killing and destroying Libyan society in Benghazi? That should be the alternative not NATO bombing vs continuously supporting Islamic extremists for 3 yrs and hoping that somehow fixes the country.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)If you didn't like the dictator, it wasn't so nice. But stability is all that's important, right?
Look, virtually all of the countries in the region are artificial creations made by Europeans decades ago. The borders were drawn to satisfy European politics at the time with zero regard to what the local people felt.
Libya should probably be two countries. But Europeans preferred one. So they made one. But the only way to hold the country together was a brutal dictatorship. Libya is currently in the process of figuring out if it should really be two countries, or if they have enough in common to remain a single country. It's not pretty, but it's the only way you will end up with true stability.
Syria should not exist. But the French wanted a country there, because the British were getting other countries in the region. So Syria exists. Left to their own devices, chunks of Syria, Iraq and Turkey would form Kurdistan. Other chunks of Syria, Iraq, Lebanon and Jordan would form another nation. Chunks of Iraq would be part of Iran. And chunks of Turkey, Syria and Lebanon would form yet another state. But the French and British did not let the locals draw the borders when the Ottoman Empire lost WWI.
The only alternative to the locals drawing the borders is death and brutality. Either through severe oppression, or through civil war. The latter at least has an end to the pain and dying, and produces stable countries with culturally-defined borders. Hopefully through separation of disparate groups, instead of "the ISIS solution" of genocide.
Propping up Gaddafi would just delay the civil war. Like Russia propping up Assad delayed Syria's civil war. But propping up the dictator doesn't work forever. Eventually, that civil war will happen and the borders will be made to culturally fit.
We should use our influence to try and steer these countries towards the least-brutal way of getting those culturally-drawn borders. Which means beating up on groups like ISIS because of their genocidal goals, while letting the Libyans work out where Libya's borders should be.
jamzrockz
(1,333 posts)things you said. But I am not talking about propping anybody up. Look I am a Nigerian who is deadly afraid of what Boko Haram is doing in that country, but the last thing I would want is to ask for US to "help" mostly militarily) in any way shape or form. But I assure you, if they start helping Boko haram as some type of revolutionary force, I wouldn't hesitate if the Nigerian govt ran to Russia for help.
These problems should be solved internally by the people living in the country and not outside forces who have their own plans for the nation. The west have done enough damage to these countries, its high time they left us alone to solve our own problems. No matter how much some people in the country beg, don't dont arm them. I bet you, there are Nigerian today that would love to plunge the country into civil war if they can get some foreign sponsor to back them. These people should not be listened to. Its hard enough lfe in some of these places that destroying he infrastructure and social structure can only make it worse not better.
If it cant be achieved peacefully without sanctions, then forget it.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)It's not like Gaddafi or Assad built their advanced weaponry.
"Leveling the playing field" so that it can be worked out internally may or may not be a good idea - each country is unique.
Schema Thing
(10,283 posts)And it wouldn't have become an option simply by letting time pass while Gaddafi went wilding.
Yeah, that would be great optics in the middle of the Arab Spring. I know we've "propped" up dictators in the past, but as you note it doesn't work - and I don't think we've ever done it once a situation has become what Libya was by the time we got deeply involved (I could be wrong about that, but my point would still remain).
NewDeal_Dem
(1,049 posts)Schema Thing
(10,283 posts)They Libyan people had risen up against their horrible dictator.
When people do that, we should give them a hand so long as we can.
Those were not "terrorist" and it's insulting to intelligence and common sense and the Libyan people for you to infer that they were.
Go review the footage. You are willfully forgetting the events that led to Western involvement.
joshcryer
(62,265 posts)How "normal" would Libya be? They took over a dozen arm depots. The Libyan rebels had more power than the Syrian rebels ever had. Assad killed tens of thousands in Homs. Had Gaddafi done the same in the west of Libya, do you remotely have any comprehension how it would've turned out?
It would've made Syria look like a picnic. Easily a quarter of the entire population.
This dictator worship needs to end. This "Muslims must be held captive by dictators" paradigm is racist at is core.
NewDeal_Dem
(1,049 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)That slammed President Obama for not supporting the rebels enough.
CJCRANE
(18,184 posts)I too was convinced at the time but now I regret it. I think we were mislead into another neocon trap.
JEB
(4,748 posts)What drives our policy is not the interests of the common people, neither ours nor others.
jamzrockz
(1,333 posts)how the war in Libya was sold. No evidence, no facts that Gaddafi committed any crimes on the Libyan people. Just trust us and let us bomb another country full of brown people. These non white countries must be getting very tired of all these so called humanitarian wars. But is anyone listening? certainly not with Syria
mythology
(9,527 posts)have responsibility for the Rwandan genocide. For those opposed to forceful on the ground intervention are responsible for the Srebrenica massacre.
If you disagree with that logic, ask yourself what you would do if you saw a random stranger beating their kid or their wife. Would you say "It's none of my business because I don't know their relationship"? Or would you feel obligated to help where you could?
People will be killed by their government whether we intervene or we don't. But doing nothing doesn't mean we have no responsibility for it. What we can do is intervene where we think we can do the most good or at least prevent the worst harms.
jamzrockz
(1,333 posts)If you mind your own business. But the real problem with the Libyan affair is how it went down. This was clearly a CIA inspired regime change not any sort of humanitarian assistance by the west. They wanted to forcefully take over that country just like Gen Wesley Clarke said in the speech and that is exactly what happened. The only people Gaddafi was going to kill in Benghazi are the same type of people that make up ISIS. I am again going to post my last video which I stole from polly7's blog because it shows just how much we were lied to by the likes of HRC.
Watch and understand how a nation was lied into supporting another CIA meddling into another country that never needed it.
NewDeal_Dem
(1,049 posts)Jesus Malverde
(10,274 posts)Jesus
KG
(28,748 posts)Kaleva
(36,145 posts)Libya didn't become a nation until 1951.
NewDeal_Dem
(1,049 posts)The2ndWheel
(7,947 posts)The borders of Iraq, for example, were drawn up by outside interests. Has it ever functioned as a state without a dictator holding it together? No.
It takes war and violence to figure out who's rules people are going to live by, or what borders will be drawn. That's how every nation has ever been built. Whoever wins gets to make the rules. That's how it works. That's the only way it works.
You have to let it play out, however it's going to go. Imagine if something like the UN had been around when America was being founded and established. The US doesn't even get off the ground, what with the killing, and taking of land, and whatever else.
Calista241
(5,584 posts)The NYT published that the state department cables led to the protests in Tunisia, which ultimately spread throughout the middle east as the Arab Spring.
MisterP
(23,730 posts)36th parallel
(some people actually do think this way, that it's not hypocritical or gonna cause any blowback)
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)drmeow
(4,995 posts)attested to this when I was there in 2013:
"And the poison in Libya is seeping out across a great swathe of the Sahel, Africas scrublands south of the Sahara desert, from Mali in the west, through Niger and northern Nigeria, eastwards on to Sudan and Somalia, and even as far as Egypts Sinai desert abutting Israel."
Qaddafi kept the extremists in the region in check (most by giving them checks, so to speak).
NewDeal_Dem
(1,049 posts)drmeow
(4,995 posts)but I don't think Abdoulaye would have disagreed with it. This was not long after the fighting in Mali which was definitely partly a result of the removal of Gaddafi. When I was in Niamey we visited the Gaddafi Mosque (also known as the Grand Mosque) which was funded by him and is the largest mosque in the city.
bhikkhu
(10,708 posts)I would never advocate supporting a ruthless dictator for the sake of maintaining a nation's unity; its the people that matter, not the nation's borders or internal integrity. We like to see a neat globe with clean borders, but the world is full of autonomous regions, self-governing regions, oppressed minorities, break-away republics, cohesive cultures spanning borders, etc.
While the world has become a much more peaceful place since WWII, I do think the UN has more or less failed to provide a solution to what are typically seen as "internal issues" of member states. Lacking a solution, pointing fingers isn't much use. I don't think many in Libya want to go back, however difficult the way forward is. Respect would say we let them, and help if we are asked, and if we can.
on edit - reading a bit from our own revolution, post-war: "John Adams feared that greed, disobedient children and apprentices, and turbulent schools and colleges would weaken the Republic. In 1813, he asked when, where and how "the present chaos" would be "arranged into Order." Thomas Jefferson believed that the nation was moving backward rather than forward; Alexander Hamilton concluded that "this American world was not made for me," and by the time George Washington died, his hopes for democracy had waned. Benjamin Rush, a physician and signer of the Declaration of Independence, eventually threw his notes and documents for a planned memoir of the Revolution into the fire. "America's revolutionary experiment on behalf of liberty," he wrote in 1812, "will certainly fail."
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/mwt/sfeature/sf_after.html
quadrature
(2,049 posts)helping start the civil war in Syria.
tragic and epic failure.
hundreds of thousands dead
eridani
(51,907 posts)Sure, dictatorships are bad, but butting in without having the vaguest clue about how to establish functioning states in their place is always an idiotic thing to do.