|
Competition posted:Because half the people commenting on Syria are predicting some massive proxy war where Israel, Iran, Lebanon, Hezbollah, etc... will all pick a fraction and get them to duke it out, it betrays an utterly simplistic and lacking understanding of the country and the region. Syria quite frankly isn't diverse enough for these fractions to emerge, it has it's particular religious minority which holds power but is too small for an actual civil war to be sustained, even Libya isn't being called a civil war (yet) however it has far bigger ethnic divides and historical reasons behind the fractions we see (hint: go look up why Gaddaffi lost the East so totally). quote:I didn't claim there wasn't an element of foreign intervention, just that it didn't become this massive proxy war which people predicted which included Iran supporting the Shiites, Saudi the Sunnis, PKK the Kurds, along with a Turkish invasion, people were predicting an Islamic civil war which would spread throughout the Muslim world.
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2011 19:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 15:17 |
|
|
Brown Moses posted:Based off what? I think he mean's Gaddafi's government, I could be wrong and he means the Council, but expanding further on Benghazi it's also possible of a future thinking that 2 Libya's will the outcome to this whole conflict.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2011 19:39
|
|
|
Oh yeah, see how my mind already thinks of the TNC as the government in Libya. Bit of good news if it pans out quote:Coalition tells opposition forces it will secure safe passage for aid ships from Malta to Misrata to dock, according to Reuters. Reuters also quotes a member of the opposition as claiming a major success – killing 30 government snipers in Misrata. He also says that all Libyan government military vessels have abandoned the port. There's a lot of trapped foreign workers at the port as well, so being able to delivery aid and rescue those workers will be a very good thing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2011 19:40
|
|
|
Gaddaafi isn't the only one committing human rights abuses. We should expect this to continue.quote:But some of those same tactics appear to be creeping into the efforts of the opposition here as it seeks to stamp out lingering loyalty to Kadafi. Rebel forces are detaining anyone suspected of serving or assisting the Kadafi regime, locking them up in the same prisons once used to detain and torture Kadafi's opponents. http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-libya-prisoners-20110324,0,5389027,full.story
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2011 19:40
|
|
|
piss posted:It really sounds like the government has lost complete control of Benghazi. Finally, something we can all agree on!
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2011 19:41
|
|
|
TheFallenEvincar posted:It's funny that it took so long for me to lose faith in Michael Moore/Ralph Nader/Dennis Kucinich and see them as the loving attentionwhoring assholes who have no connection to the common people that they are. All it took was the slaughter of thousands of Libyans. At least I lost faith in Hugo Chavez ages ago. Moore is the worst. Kucinich and Nader I think have a somewhat more principled approach to the world even if it's extreme. Moore just lobs PR bombs to get limelight and then runs away to the next issue. I mean just a couple weeks ago he was talking about a US middle class revolution because of Wisconsin... how did he follow that up... he didn't of course he ran to the next thing he could use for a limelight because the notion of backing up any of his words is far outside of his actual interests.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2011 19:42
|
|
|
Nonsense posted:I think he mean's Gaddafi's government, I could be wrong and he means the Council, but expanding further on Benghazi it's also possible of a future thinking that 2 Libya's will the outcome to this whole conflict. I think it would be strange to call the transitional council the government. I'm really not sure though how to take the comment since it is entirely accurate for anytime in the last month. News from Yemen: President Salah : Oh man those rebels, they so bad! quote:AlArabiya_Eng: Yemeni President Saleh: we will defend legitimacy and protect our land #alarabiya #Yemen #Saleh #Sanaa Meanwhile the WSJ is apparently claiming Saleh has almost struck a deal to resign. Behind pay wall quote:Yemeni President Ali Abdullah Saleh and the country's top general are hashing out a political settlement in which both men would resign from their positions within days in favor of a civilian-led transitional government, according to three people familiar with the situation. True? Not True? Who knows! Edit: Maybe it is quote:AlArabiya_Eng: Yemeni President Saleh announces amnesty for military personnel who have defected to opposition #alarabiya #Yemen #Saleh #Sanaa
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2011 19:44
|
|
|
Ramms+ein posted:Gaddaafi isn't the only one committing human rights abuses. We should expect this to continue. Yeah this was posted near the beginning of the uprising, and it was troubling then, and it must have been even more terrifying for blacks, and other foreigners in Libya these past recent weeks when the rebellion was suffering big setbacks. This kind of behavior is also occuring in Bahrain, where Pakistani's, and other foreigners are being targeted by some really angry gangs/mobs. They're seen as "agents" brought in by the monarchy. While it is true the monarchy in Bahrain tried to bring as many Sunni's into the country as possible, the people being targeted are poor construction workers, and other laborers who don't have much money, or a means of being protected by police, as many had their passports stolen from them by their bosses as soon as they got work. These kinds of stories should really inform people that blanket support is not always right, there are plenty of bad folk as well on all sides.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2011 19:45
|
|
|
Ramms+ein posted:Gaddaafi isn't the only one committing human rights abuses. We should expect this to continue. Yeah, this isn't unexpected - I mean, these guys literally do have people out to get them, and they were a day or two away from probably getting executed - but it's still not ok and will seriously poison future efforts to rebuild. The provisional government needs to get in there and ensure that this sort of thing stops quickly.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2011 19:46
|
|
|
Meanwhile, in Egypt, the courageous and moral Egyptian army continues to safeguard the people:quote:Female activists detained during the Egyptian army's evacuation of Tahrir Square on March 9 told human-rights organizations that they were beaten, tortured and forced to take virginity tests while in military custody. quote:The human-rights group alleges the tests were carried out by a male doctor and that one woman, who claimed to be virgin while tests proved otherwise, was beaten and given electric shocks.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2011 19:59
|
|
A Winner is Jew posted:I made this point in the Wisconsin protest thread, but I think it needs repeating here. A Winner is Jew posted:Think about for one fraction of a second how long conservatives had to work to get to where they are now... where every liberal idea today are just things conservatives were talking about only a few years ago. 30 loving years it took for the right to push us every so gently over the years to where we are now... but since our magical negro progressive didn't fix everything in 2 years he's somehow just as bad as the conservatives?
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2011 20:05
|
|
|
Deep Hurting posted:What, you mean the lies? Could you please read up on the difference between "reasons" and "objectives"? Afghanistan: Destroy Taliban Iraq: Boot Saddam Libya: Um, protect "civilians" with a "No Fly Zone", oh and "Gadaffy must go" or something  And we might hand it off to someone else, and we are not going to commit ground troops. *CREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEeeeeeeeeeppppppppp*
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2011 20:10
|
|
|
A Winner is Jew posted:waaaaaah Not once have I got angry because he hasn't answered all our prayers. I have repeatedly asked for an example of one, one! progressive thing he has done in the two and a half years since he got elected (two of which he had both houses) and have not got one (apart from allowing DADT to pass but anyone who remembers the process by which that passed will know that this happened in spite of him), while I myself have provided examples of multiple recessive things he has either had to power to stop but didn't or has willingly expanded. You paint it like a long slog of a war but he hasn't even fired one bullet, gently caress to continue the lovely metaphor he might as well be a defector. kw0134 posted:That's just as simplistic, if not even more so. Qadaffi lost the east because he basically had no troops there, and what troops were there were deliberately undersupplied. He almost lost the west too, but since he kept his best and loyal troops close to the capital, massive protests in Tripoli were crushed forcibly before it could become the new Tahrir Square. Misurata is not far from Tripoli and it's being shelled constantly for its stanch anti-Qadaffi population. In short, this is a broad-based uprising that undercuts your simplified understanding of the situation. quote:And I don't necessarily think this would happen either (like I disclaimed), but flatly going "no" is, well, simplified. Many things can happen, and most things won't come to pass. But ignoring the possibility because you're reading demographic figures off of wikipedia is not informed and nuanced analysis. Let me educate you: Hezbollah is a Shi'ite paramilitary stuck in the southern Ghettos of Lebanon, outside of those Ghettos they're loathed, utterly utterly loathed. Occasionally Syria gives them some weapons because they like to antagonise Israel, Hezbollah has no loving influence, connections, or sway in Syria. Seriously of all the Arab countries undergoing protests Syria is one of the ones with the least amount of possibilities for civil war.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2011 20:11
|
|
|
shotgunbadger posted:Death is always a tragedy, especially when the underclass are being stomped by the autocrats, but we simply can't play the world's police, we can't run in every place there is wrong and fix things (by bombing apparently). What is wrong with the far and away superpower within the military world stepping up to support an organization they are apart of to prevent a massacre of civilians who dared to peacefully protest? You seem to be a very snide "gently caress you, got mine" kinda guy. But poo poo, wouldn't it be so delicious to see your reaction if you disagreed with the party in power, went to protest, and not only those in favour of the party you oppose but the army commanded by that party decided to wage a ruthless war on all that opposed them. Thomase fucked around with this message at 20:19 on Mar 24, 2011 |
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2011 20:12
|
|
|
Competition posted:Bull, if you knew the history of Libya you would see why the East is such a stronghold while the West has been a struggle (and it's got little to nothing to do with troop distribution). quote:You idiots are citing Hezbollah having influence in this pseudo-Syria proxy civil war, it displays complete loving stupidity and can only come from glances at headlines associating the two.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2011 20:22
|
|
|
Competition posted:Not once have I got angry because he hasn't answered all our prayers. You are arguing that Obama is conservative. That is not the same as "neo-con". The Neo-Conservative movement came out of the Project for the New American Century, a conservative think-tank that had a strong influence on the Bush presidency. The think-tank itself is essentially defunct, having lost a great deal of the prestige and credibility it had in the late 90s and early 2000s. Guys like Bill Kristol and Richard Pearle were PNAC hardcore, and a number of other Bush officials were signatories, including Scooter Libby, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, and most importantly, Dick Cheney. The PNAC advocated a doctrine of American exceptionalism and proactive use of American military power to achieve American interests: specifically, spreading democracy and regime change through military means. This came to be known as "Neo-Conservative" and when people say "neocon" they are referring to this collection of policies. Importantly, neo-conservatism is a foreign policy. It has nothing to do with domestic politics. George W Bush was influenced by neo-cons, but he himself was not really a neo-con - or perhaps it would be better to say, that you cannot summarize Bush's politics as neo-conservative, because that can only encompass aspects of his foreign policy. To argue that Obama is a neo-con is ludicrous. It is obvious to everyone who knows what the term means, that you are misusing the term. The use of the term "neo-con" to just mean "conservative" robs it of its meaning. This thread is about what's going on in the Arabic countries experiencing turmoil and revolution in the Middle-East and North Africa. To the extent that the US has become involved, it's useful and interesting to discuss why and how, and what policy drives it, and in that respect, what Obama is doing, why, and perhaps what he ought to do instead, if you disagree with that. Babbling on about how he's a neo-con is both off-topic and makes you look stupid. Leperflesh fucked around with this message at 20:40 on Mar 24, 2011 |
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2011 20:34
|
|
|
kw0134 posted:So are you going to actually rebut the tactical situation in Miszuratu, or the past events where the streets of Tripoli practically ran red until everyone was cowed into toeing the party line? Or are you going to continue to wave ambiguously at "facts" that don't support your assertions? Oh, wait, you're going to say next that "West" Libya starts at the Qadaffi compound in Tripoli and ends two blocks over. quote:Um, what? Syria isn't a candidate for civil war at all because Hezbollah is hated? And not the inherent demographic and power imbalance at work or the social failures of a repressive government which is apparently widely detested? You have a weird way of "educating" us ignorant peasants. Syria has slaughtered protesters in one city and your imaginations have run away with you into some Tom Clancy-esque war fantasy when it is one of the least likely candidates to fall into civil war (a term that is still not being applied to Libya) I described Hezbollah's circumstances because you idiots think Hezbollah would be exerting some sort of power over a yet named fraction in this imaginary proxy war you've invented, quite simply it cannot.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2011 20:40
|
|
|
Competition posted:Stop this poo poo, people were claiming potential proxy civil war for Iraq which had ten times to potential than Syria does and that didn't happen. Yes, it did  There was a large civil war in Iraq which involved Shiite Iranian trained fighters, Sunni groups including foreign fighters ideologically aligned with al-Qaeda, and those allied with the US.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2011 20:43
|
|
|
Competition posted:I'm going to state that Gaddaffi totally lost the East due to the historical resistance of Cyrenaica from the rest of Libya, his losses in the West of Libya have been less total and were caught up with the momentum of the total loss of the East and the general Arab revolts, historically understanding Libya is key to seeing which parts of it have fallen and have little to do with troop deployments. I do not feel you have a serious claim in saying that innate demographic characteristics are necessary for a civil war. In fact I would go so far as to say that such a claim is ludicrous.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2011 20:50
|
|
Thomase posted:What is wrong with the far and away superpower within the military world stepping up to support an organization they are apart of to prevent a massacre of civilians who dared to peacefully protest?
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2011 20:57
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:words Xandu posted:Yes, it did farraday posted:I do not feel you have a serious claim in saying that innate demographic characteristics are necessary for a civil war. In fact I would go so far as to say that such a claim is ludicrous.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2011 21:01
|
|
|
Afganistan is such a huge loving morass. nevermind we armed the Taliban and actively fund them to get anything done over there. We've got US soldiers coming back and talking about guarding opium fields, while the brother of the president of Afghanistan is one of the largest opium runners in the country, and he's got the CIA flying his dope outta there. These are all just pulled from NYT articles. They also say that Afganistan is now producing 90% of the world's supply of opium, so for every junkie throwing their life away and tearing apart their family, 9 out of 10 will be shooting up with US Govt junk. and people are so worked up that their tax dollars might fund an abortion here and there. The CIA sold coke in the 80s to fund anticommunist deathsquads, today I wonder where this money is winding up and to what end? Could it have been used to stir up Benghazi and hire the African mercenaries earlier attributed to khadaffi, but have now completely fallen out of the public eye? I don't know, but we'll probably find out what really happened 20 years from now and we're not going to like it, but by that time nobody gives a poo poo and no one will be held accountable.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2011 21:03
|
|
|
Competition posted:
Fair enough, I've tried to block out all the terrible predications on Iraq from my memory. I don't see a civil war happening, but it will absolutely change the regional order, especially for Lebanon and Iran, if al-Assad falls.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2011 21:12
|
|
|
Competition posted:I'm going to state that Gaddaffi totally lost the East due to the historical resistance of Cyrenaica from the rest of Libya, his losses in the West of Libya have been less total and were caught up with the momentum of the total loss of the East and the general Arab revolts, historically understanding Libya is key to seeing which parts of it have fallen and have little to do with troop deployments. quote:It's what has been cited by those who started claiming civil/proxy war. Very few civil wars don't have any demographic elements in their divisions (I can only really think of one off the top of my head), for this fantasy proxy war to develop there would have to been deep and multiple divisions creating large fraction of which no-one has actually outlined yet (hint: because they don't exist).
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2011 21:13
|
|
|
trollstormur posted:
Can you give a plausible rationale for why the US would hire mercenaries to massacre civilians in Libya?
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2011 21:14
|
|
|
Thomase posted:What is wrong with the far and away superpower within the military world stepping up to support an organization they are apart of to prevent a massacre of civilians who dared to peacefully protest? As for the question, I see several potential problems to consider. The first, and currently the biggest, one is that revolutionaries in other countries will get a wrong message and start an armed rebellion in the belief that NATO will come to protect them. That could only end in tears because the west is not going to get involved. Think of Iraqi Shias in 1991. Or Europe in 1848. The other one is that when confronted like this, autocratic governments will tighten up their hold, seeing how any concessions will increase the likelihood of civil unrest and therefore foreign invasion. If that can be avoided by continuing to arrest and torture opposition leaders, so be it. I think that blatant interventionist policies usually stand in the way of reforms, rather than assist them. The outcome that we should pursue is a peaceful transition of power to people, not war, even if it was more gradual. Why would, say, the Cubans release political prisoners if they simultaneously knew that we are planning to use the same opposition as an overture to invade them? Shouldn't they just execute them all as a liability? Friendly negotiations don't always work either, like in China, but China could be even worse if we were trying to instigate rebellion within the country. And then there is a myriad of other factors, such as the question of how we don't know what things could go wrong either with the execution or the outcome. How many children gathering wood can get bombed before the campaign is deemed as a failure? How do we know that this will work? Western intervention did nothing in Somalia. Why would it solve Libya's problems? This doesn't mean that there are no reasons to support the NFZ over Libya, because there are many. But you should realize that there are several reasons to not be enamoured with the intervention, too. Neither the intervention or non-intervention are optimal solutions. But I don't know if the 'ideal' solution would be realizable. To me, it would be an international agreement outlining procedures for these kinds of circumstances so that no USNC political resolutions would be needed any more - a government starts killing their own people, others will be obliged to intervene. With a universal policy for action against governments that breach human rights no government could look past the issue, thinking that their allies or something will protect them, forcing them to take heed and make changes. However, it's a utopian plan that would in practise not work. First because countries like North Korea probably still wouldn't acknowledge it, leading into wars that most people don't want, and secondly because most of the UNSC countries don't have a clean platter either (and USA also has to consider the Israel-Palestine thing). And because the vast majority of governments value sovereignty over human rights. Or, to put it in other words: no government in the world would cede over their OWN sovereignty for that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2011 21:14
|
|
|
Xandu posted:Can you give a plausible rationale for why the US would hire mercenaries to massacre civilians in Libya? To start a civil war we can take advantage of, just like in Nicaragua, Afganistan et al
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2011 21:19
|
|
|
kw0134 posted:So basically history says he should have lost the East and in the west, where he shouldn't have historically been challenged at all, we'll just handwave. quote:Okay, got it, you don't have an actual argument, you're just making up facts as we go along. quote:YOU brought up specific demographics. I mentioned various national interests which while may implicate demographics, also involve basic political interests unique to nation states. Basic divisions like how power and wealth in a local polity, such as it is in every protest we've seen to date, have been ample fuel for "deep divisions" leading to civil war. We've seen it in the English Civil War, the American Civil War, the Shining Path uprising in Peru, FARC in Colombia, Sandinistas in Nicuaragua, the Chinese civil war between Communists and Nationalists, shall I go on? For someone who slams down history at every opportunity, this is an incredible oversight. 2. Not all uprisings = civil war You created this fantasy civil war where Hezbollah, Saudi, and Iran would get involved. It's pure Tom Clancy fantasy.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2011 21:23
|
|
|
trollstormur posted:To start a civil war we can take advantage of, just like in Nicaragua, Afganistan et al What Civil War did we take advantage of in Afganistan?
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2011 21:23
|
|
|
Pretty decent collection of recent articles on Yemen for anyone who wants some background on the protests.trollstormur posted:To start a civil war we can take advantage of, just like in Nicaragua, Afganistan et al Okay, but don't you think it's just slightly more plausible that Gaddafi used them to attack protesters because he didn't want to deposed?
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2011 21:28
|
|
|
Competition posted:1. Wealth division is a demographic No extreme division in wealth in Syria then by your logic since they can't have a civil war? You're being absurd, please stop it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2011 21:28
|
|
|
The one that drew in the soviets, coming to the aid of a democratically elected government because the US was funnelling cash and arms to the Mujahideen? obviously we couldn't just seat a puppet at the head of that, but here we are finishing the job and stabbing our "comrades" in the backs in the name of democracy.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2011 21:30
|
|
|
DeclaredYuppie posted:What Civil War did we take advantage of in Afganistan? Northern Coalition vs. Taliban, which was actually very handy for deposing the Taliban. edit: silly me, that was far too reasonable to have been what he meant. evilweasel fucked around with this message at 21:48 on Mar 24, 2011 |
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2011 21:30
|
|
|
trollstormur posted:The one that drew in the soviets, coming to the aid of a democratically elected government because the US was funnelling cash and arms to the Mujahideen? obviously we couldn't just seat a puppet at the head of that, but here we are finishing the job and stabbing our "comrades" in the backs in the name of democracy. This post is a bit hard to follow, but are you suggesting that the Soviets entered Afghanistan to help a democratically elected government that the US was trying to depose, and that 13 years later, the US invaded so as to finish the job?
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2011 21:32
|
|
|
Competition posted:Yes, by stating that there was a historical reason for the quick uprising in the East I am somehow stating that it is an impossibility in the West. quote:1. Wealth division is a demographic (By the way, the English Civil War was entirely about the right of a king to rule without the consent of parliament. Charles I lost that fight badly to a group of rich nobles and their bourgeois supporters. But but demographics.)
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2011 21:33
|
|
|
This just popped up on Twitter:quote:FLASH: Coalition naval force seize oil carrier on its way to Zawya 50km from Tripoli and change its route to Tobruk quote:Alert: #Malta flagged tanker 'BREEZE A' laden with fuel reportedly heading for #Libya
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2011 21:49
|
|
|
Brown Moses posted:This just popped up on Twitter: It appears there's some problems with the port at Tripoli, they're just redirecting it to a similar port in the same country. Hah, suckers.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2011 21:51
|
|
|
kw0134 posted:Then your argument is entirely empty; "Why is the West easier to put down? HISTORY!" is pure sophistry because you can just attribute everything to history. quote:Wow, we've descended into arguing semantics now? The biggest divide in the Middle East at this moment is the demographic division of those with AK knock offs versus those that don't. There. quote:(By the way, the English Civil War was entirely about the right of a king to rule without the consent of parliament. Charles I lost that fight badly to a group of rich nobles and their bourgeois supporters. But but demographics.)
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2011 21:52
|
|
|
trollstormur posted:The one that drew in the soviets, coming to the aid of a democratically elected government because the US was funnelling cash and arms to the Mujahideen? obviously we couldn't just seat a puppet at the head of that, but here we are finishing the job and stabbing our "comrades" in the backs in the name of democracy. Also, the CIA created the AIDS virus to kill off black people and give the continent to the U.S. since we need its resources! And I think 9/11 was an inside job.... (don't tell anyone what I said and you're going to have to start wearing a tin-foil hat like me in order to stop the government from finding out that I told you the truth about them!)
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2011 22:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 15:17 |
|
|
Xandu posted:This post is a bit hard to follow, but are you suggesting that the Soviets entered Afghanistan to help a democratically elected government that the US was trying to depose, and that 13 years later, the US invaded so as to finish the job? ill address this when ive a computer handy, it's difficult to form coherent posts from a phone.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2011 22:02
|
|