|
Slantedfloors posted:One of the most important things to remember about the NTC is that under Ghadaffi, there were basically no organized groups of people larger or more relevant than a football club. There were no unions, no political parties, no special interest groups. The NTC had literally nothing to work with when they were setting up. Nothing. Nobody is saying they should have done all that. Of the people in this thread opposed to how the intervention is playing out, few are calling for an outright noninterventionist policy in Libya and practically nobody is supporting Qadafi. Personally, I think it's great that we stepped in to stop a civilian slaughter when it seemed imminent. The problem right now is that the West appears to be supporting the NTC unconditionally. This means that when all is said and done, they will be the ones with de facto control of the country and be in the best position to take charge going forward. They will be the ones with weapons, training, momentum, and practically every advantage necessary for holding on to power once Qadafi is out. If all of this results in a legitimate democracy, that would be great and wonderful. Unfortunately, the history of Western intervention is usually one of taking sides with a group of rebels who may or may not be representative of the country as a whole, then supporting them materially while they undermine any political competition. If there’s a humanitarian crisis and civilians are threatened, it’s good and noble to step in and protect them. But when we start picking sides and supporting our team by providing them with tactical air cover, arms, and military “advisors”, it ends up undermining the self determination of the Libyan people.
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2011 17:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 07:29 |
|
|
Chade Johnson posted:He didn't actually win the election, it was overturned by the constitutional court. It isn't as clear as that. The UN monitors tasked with overseeing the vote, and EU and other international monitors say that Ouettara (sp?) won the election.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2011 17:30
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:And what's your alternative? The only one I've seen which even begins to approach reasonableness is a partition of Libya, which is not supported by anyone I've read on the ground and would absolutely just be another "great-power partition" which people have been oh so thrilled about in the past. Someone claimed there were other groups claiming to be in charge of the Rebelling areas, lets take a look at them and see if they are more legitimate than the NTC, which LF has been more than willing to assure us is a CIA plant operation to secure neo liberal goals.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2011 17:33
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:Nobody is saying they should have done all that. Of the people in this thread opposed to how the intervention is playing out, few are calling for an outright noninterventionist policy in Libya and practically nobody is supporting Qadafi. Personally, I think it's great that we stepped in to stop a civilian slaughter when it seemed imminent. Right now yes they are because they aren't targeting civilians. The Canadian NATO general leading all of this said yesterday that if the rebels started to target civilians they they would be the target of air strikes as well. Furthermore the US has just sent it's first team of CIA operatives to look into just who the hell is in control of the rebel army while at the same time giving them training so that they are on equal ground with Gadaffi's forces. Really I would like to see their report on the situation as opposed to just the twitter feeds that we've been getting. I can't believe I just said I was looking forward to reading the CIA's assessment of a civil war.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2011 17:34
|
|
|
t3ch3 posted:Why is that the only alternative? Because there aren't any other government administrations in Libya besides Gadaffi and the NTC at the moment? Jut posted:I'll try to make it simple. I suggest you look at the links I referred 1mpper to, which will greatly alleviate your enormous ignorance of the relationship between the rebellion and the NTC.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2011 17:35
|
|
|
farraday posted:And what's your alternative? The only one I've seen which even begins to approach reasonableness is a partition of Libya, which is not supported by anyone I've read on the ground and would absolutely just be another "great-power partition" which people have been oh so thrilled about in the past. Prevent attacks on civilians as possible (including on the ground if there are countries willing to provide peacekeeping troops), and let the conflict play out as it will. Recognize whoever comes out on top, and if the country does end up partitioning itself in the process (this is not the same as a partition imposed from outsiders), so what? Certainly not choose a champion and go to any ends to make sure they end up in control of the whole country - again, that only undermines the self-determination of the Libyan people.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2011 17:37
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:Prevent attacks on civilians as possible (including on the ground if there are countries willing to provide peacekeeping troops), and let the conflict play out as it will. Recognize whoever comes out on top, and if the country does end up partitioning itself in the process (this is not the same as a partition imposed from outsiders), so what? So you applaud intervention to save civilian lives and want the conflict to play out as it will. And these do not strike you as diametrically opposed situations? That apparently the UN will hold the cities, the armies will fight it out in the country side and the UN will bequeath the cities unto the winner? I literally have no idea how you think this would work, that "fighters" and "civilians" are two separate sets and can be sorted by a UN version of maxwell's demon.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2011 17:41
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:The problem right now is that the West appears to be supporting the NTC unconditionally. It's a binary issue as much as some people don't want to admit it. If you don't support the NTC, you're basically supporting Gaddafi, it's in fact that simple, there is nothing else to possibly support yet as even the NTC and rebel fighting forces are so far working on an us/them basis. What I don't get is before the intervention nobody really doubted the fact regardless of how corrupt or authoritarian any rebel government might be, that given other current events in the region that inspired these events in Libya we could assume some form of representative government, even if incredibly flawed would probably come out of a rebel victory. At the least people would be substantially more free than they were before or could've ever hoped for until a few months ago. All of a sudden the west goes in to help the rebels and it becomes "Well how do we know the NTC and rebels aren't just going to become the new Gaddafi, hmmmmmmm?" Granted I'm sure like in any political body anywhere in the world enough members of both the fighting rebels and the NTC governmental body are hoping to secure their power base for any future national government. However to think a rebel victory wouldn't at least lead to some form of flawed democracy seems asinine given what they're fighting for and other events in the region, unless we all really believe at the end of the day if the NTC takes over that the Libyan people will be fine with going back to business as normal after all this as long as the new CEO doesn't have the name Gaddafi. Hell even if they do form a legitimate democratic government at breakneck speed a lot of people in the thread seem to have this wet dream that western involvement in any form lays the foundation for a CIA revolution to make sure Libyans live in an authoritarian nightmare for ever.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2011 17:42
|
|
|
Amused to Death posted:It's a binary issue as much as some people don't want to admit it. If you don't support the NTC, you're basically supporting Gaddafi, it's in fact that simple, there is nothing else to possibly support yet as even the NTC and rebel fighting forces are so far working on an us/them basis. What I don't get is before the intervention nobody really doubted the fact regardless of how corrupt or authoritarian any rebel government might be, that given other current events in the region that inspired these events in Libya we could assume some form of representative government, even if incredibly flawed would probably come out of a rebel victory. At the least people would be substantially more free than they were before or could've ever hoped for until a few months ago. All of a sudden the west goes in to help the rebels and it becomes "Well how do we know the NTC and rebels aren't just going to become the new Gaddafi, hmmmmmmm?" This argument reminds me of the people fearful of the people protesting against Mubarak in Egypt. Ultimately, we don't know who these people are. However, here is a situation where on one side you have murderous tyrant bent on wiping out civilian population centers, and on the other a group espousing democratic values and ideals. The choice is clear, even if we don't know too much about the latter group.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2011 17:55
|
|
|
Shageletic posted:This argument reminds me of the people fearful of the people protesting against Mubarak in Egypt. Ultimately, we don't know who these people are. However, here is a situation where on one side you have murderous tyrant bent on wiping out civilian population centers, and on the other a group espousing democratic values and ideals. The choice is clear, even if we don't know too much about the latter group. And that situation turned out fantastic since it's largest (and richest) supporter turned out to be a proponent of socialism.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2011 17:58
|
|
|
A Winner is Jew posted:And that situation turned out fantastic since it's largest (and richest) supporter turned out to be a proponent of socialism. ... so? If that's what people vote for then what's the problem?
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2011 18:04
|
|
|
Scorchy posted:... so? If that's what people vote for then what's the problem? I was saying it was a good thing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2011 18:07
|
|
|
Oh! Sorry, thought you were being sarcastic. I'm use to people waving socialism around like it's a boogie man.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2011 18:09
|
|
|
Contraction mapping posted:Because there aren't any other government administrations in Libya besides Gadaffi and the NTC at the moment? Who elected the NTC again?
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2011 18:10
|
|
|
Jut posted:Who elected the NTC again? Oh, you're a twat. At least I can ignore you without any worries now.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2011 18:12
|
|
|
Jut posted:Who elected the NTC again? The same people who elected the transitional government in Egypt. No one
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2011 18:17
|
|
|
AllanGordon posted:Oh, you're a twat. At least I can ignore you without any worries now. It's a legitimate question. The NTC can say it has democratic values all it wants, but that proves nothing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2011 18:20
|
|
|
Space Monster posted:It's a legitimate question. The NTC can say it has democratic values all it wants, but that proves nothing. It's not a legitimate question. Asking the ultimate goals, who leads the NTC, how they plan to govern Libya in an interim period, ect are legitimate questions. Making a point on how no one elected a body that basically had to be build itself from nothing in an area that after 40 years of dictatorial rule suddenly found itself under the hands of a bunch of ragtag rebels is asinine, especially when there's still a civil war raging and their hold on their territory is tedious still at best. Tunisia is currently being ruled by unelected(or elected under rigged elections) government officials and Egypt by a military council, guess we should call Mubarak and Ali and tell them to come back, the revolution has failed.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2011 18:26
|
|
|
Space Monster posted:It's a legitimate question. The NTC can say it has democratic values all it wants, but that proves nothing. No, it's a stupid question. Obviously no one elected the NTC given the fact that there really hasn't been time to have a nation wide vote for who should be in the rebel government since they're kind of having a civil war. Basically the world had two options. Help the rebels and work with the NTC to hopefully create a democracy in Libya or do nothing. And the whole talk is cheap part of your argument is also stupid. They kind of need to win a civil war first without any heavy weapons to prove to the world that they either have or do not have democratic values. Only way for them to win against Ghaddafi's heavy weapons is with western (and Qatarian?) help. So it's a disingenuous argument to make that we can't help them until they prove themselves when they cannot prove themselves without our help.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2011 18:28
|
|
|
Whining about how the NTC isn't democratically elected may be the dumbest thing I've read in this entire thread.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2011 18:29
|
|
|
A Winner is Jew posted:
The real and original job of the Central Intelligence Agency was to provide the President the world's best newspaper. This is something that should not be forgotten. A problem with the organization is that it is schizophrenic, the operations side has turf battles with the intelligence side, and, historically, has been run by goofy-rear end cowboys. But their assessments, provided they do not get unduly biased by the operatives personal opinions, which they might, should be pretty good.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2011 18:30
|
|
|
Vincent Van Goatse posted:Bruce Cumings isn't really taken seriously by the mainstream historical community just FYI.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2011 18:41
|
|
|
Jut posted:You linked to Wiki-loving-pedia. Great reliable source you have there. Do you want me to link the links from Wikipedia that point to major news sources, or perhaps a link to the NTC website? What constitutes a 'reliable source', in your your opinion? Because if you don't believe that any current sources regarding the NTC are reliable, then pretty much any information regarding the conflict in Libya is unreliable. (it may not even be happening at all!) Space Monster posted:It's a legitimate question. The NTC can say it has democratic values all it wants, but that proves nothing. This is a fair point (dumb question, though), but again, we don't have the luxury of assessing the moral stature of the NTC in a vacuum. From what's been reported, the NTC has treated the civilian population with far more respect than Gadaffi, and at least claims to support democratic values in complete contrast with Gadaffi's rhetoric. This, imho, is enough reason to support them against annihilation from Gadaffi's forces. If it turns out that they were secretly theocratic or whatever who were only posturing to get Western support, and end up being worse than Gaffy, then I will be the first to condemn them.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2011 18:44
|
|
|
Dear Obama, I hear you would like to freeze pay rates for soldiers starting next year. Would you also consider cutting your own pay to save more money for our country? While you're at it, lets cut down all congressman's pay too. If the people who risk their lives don't get an increase in pay, why should we continue raising pay for those who take no risks and reap the benefits? QUOTE THIS if you support troops!
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2011 18:45
|
|
|
The TNC has decided to form a Unified Military Command under the leadership of Major General Abdel Fattah Younes according to various sources on Twitter, This was also posted on the Guardian live blog: quote:Libyan rebels sought win fresh foreign confidence and support today by moving the first soldiers in what it describes as a newly trained army, my colleague Chris McGreal reports from Benghazi.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2011 19:07
|
|
|
Jenzar El posted:Dear Obama, I hear you would like to freeze pay rates for soldiers starting next year. Would you also consider cutting your own pay to save more money for our country? While you're at it, lets cut down all congressman's pay too. If the people who risk their lives don't get an increase in pay, why should we continue raising pay for those who take no risks and reap the benefits? I think only Congress can affect their own pay. Good luck with that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2011 19:10
|
|
|
We don't have to determine that the NTC is great. We only have to determine that it's better than Ghaddafi, in order to pick a side. Not picking a side is unconscionable, given the slaughter that was (and still threatens to) take place. That we have done the unconscionable thing many times before and still are doing it in many other places does not argue against doing it now, in Libya. That picking a side has backfired many times in the past does not mean it is certain that it will backfire this time, because history is not a series of repeatable, controlled experiments. The UN determined that intervention was appropriate. The UN is not perfect but it is the best international body for making these kinds of decisions that we have. The US elected to cooperate with the effort to implement the UN's decision. Obama has obviously tried very hard to tread the right line between ensuring the UN's decision is implemented at all (because the US has unique military capability that was obviously critical to full and effective implementation) and ensuring that the US cannot be used as a scapegoat if this turns out badly, limiting the degree to which the expense falls disproportionately on the US, and limiting the degree to which detractors can characterize the intervention as a US intervention. I really do think the people in the thread who are being critical have some legitimate fears. Many of them are realistic fears. They do not, individually or collectively, amount to a convincing argument that the US ought not to have gotten involved at all, or that we ought not to be cooperating with whatever rebel organizations we can contact. This thread is at its best when people are posting new information about the conflicts, the people involved, maps, details, basically being more informative than any single media outlet manages to be. It is at its worst when it descends into bickering and (often stunningly uninformed) pointless debate.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2011 19:10
|
|
|
Young Freud posted:I think only Congress can affect their own pay. Good luck with that. Only Congress can change the President's pay too. THe President can't cut his own pay.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2011 19:13
|
|
|
euphronius posted:Only Congress can change the President's pay too. THe President can't cut his own pay. That makes it even better (and it was one of those things I thought after posting, because pay rates are all tied in with the budget).
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2011 19:17
|
|
|
euphronius posted:Only Congress can change the President's pay too. THe President can't cut his own pay. And after the longest amendment ratification in history those changes in pay apply only to the next term of the elected position who's rate of pay is being modified anyway.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2011 19:19
|
|
|
Jenzar El posted:Dear Obama, I hear you would like to freeze pay rates for soldiers starting next year. Would you also consider cutting your own pay to save more money for our country? While you're at it, lets cut down all congressman's pay too. If the people who risk their lives don't get an increase in pay, why should we continue raising pay for those who take no risks and reap the benefits? Congressional Pay pre:Date House salary Senate salary January 2001 $145,100 $145,100 January 2002 $150,000 $150,000 January 2003 $154,700 $154,700 January 2004 $158,100 $158,100 January 2005 $162,100 $162,100 January 2006 $165,200 $165,200 January 2007 $165,200 $165,200 January 2008 $169,300 $169,300 January 2009 $174,000 $174,000 January 2010 $174,000 $174,000 January 2011 $174,000 $174,000 The president has been paid $400,000 since 2001, when it was raised from $200,000. Salary increases for congress are voted on by congress, but do not take effect until the following term. The congress sets the president's salary as well.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2011 19:21
|
|
|
Coalition aircraft have bombed Gaddafi forces inside Misarata.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2011 19:41
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:This thread is at its best when people are posting new information about the conflicts, the people involved, maps, details, basically being more informative than any single media outlet manages to be. It is at its worst when it descends into bickering and (often stunningly uninformed) pointless debate. Yeah information is good, but you know what's better than information? Twitter. quote:SultanAlQassemi: Syrian News Agency: a group of armed militants opened fire on citizens in town of Homs resulting in the death of a young girl. #Syria This continues the Syrian governments efforts to claim all violence is instigated by armed militants amoung the protesters. quote:AlmanaraMedia: #Breaking: UNCONFIRMED by Almanara: Reports of Saif al-#Gaddafi arrived to UK today morning || #Libya Probably to check is Mousa Kousa is feeling better and if he can come back to work. quote:AlmanaraMedia: #Breaking: 17 Feb Revolutionaries have gained control of #Brega || #Libya If they hold it for 48 hours they'll be able to spawn there.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2011 19:50
|
|
|
farraday posted:If they hold it for 48 hours they'll be able to spawn there. Will the base need an ANT drop, or did they kill the generator when they took it? (God I miss planetside being a good game)
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2011 19:55
|
|
|
farraday posted:If they hold it for 48 hours they'll be able to spawn there. It does seem like Libya is a giant RTS, with all the capturing of control points and who holds the more resource points, except with real lives being lost. I'm wondering if the rebel army prohibiting journalist is less about them reporting positions and more to keep the attention-seekers from getting in the way.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2011 19:58
|
|
|
AllanGordon posted:No, it's a stupid question. Obviously no one elected the NTC given the fact that there really hasn't been time to have a nation wide vote for who should be in the rebel government since they're kind of having a civil war. I never said that the NTC wasn't worth backing, just that their goals aren't something we can be sure of at this point. Even if the rebels win this situation could potentially stay ugly. I don't think it will, but at this point we really have no way of knowing. Also, relax. I'm not making an 'argument.' I support the Libyan rebels and the NTC because I hope that they are what they're claiming to be. It could easily turn out that they aren't. quote:We don't have to determine that the NTC is great. We only have to determine that it's better than Ghaddafi, in order to pick a side. This. Space Monster fucked around with this message at 20:02 on Apr 1, 2011 |
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2011 19:58
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:Not picking a side is unconscionable, given the slaughter that was (and still threatens to) take place. Switzerland seems to have done ok for itself all these centuries. I don't see anyone calling them unconscionable monsters. Refusing to pay attention to history because "history is not a series of repeatable, controlled experiments" doesn't seem like a good idea. Continuing to slam our collective dicks in door after door because "this time it will be different" and "this particular group of people is undeniably deserving of us killing this other group of people for them" doesn't seem smart at all. Especially when we are still heavily involved in two other messes, and currently recruiting psychopaths into our volunteer army because we're scraping the bottom of the barrel.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2011 20:07
|
|
|
Contraction mapping posted:Do you want me to link the links from Wikipedia that point to major news sources, or perhaps a link to the NTC website? What constitutes a 'reliable source', in your your opinion? Because if you don't believe that any current sources regarding the NTC are reliable, then pretty much any information regarding the conflict in Libya is unreliable. (it may not even be happening at all!) The issue is that these wikipedia articles you are pointing to as solid evidence of the aims and legitimacy of the NTC link to 'major news sources' who are merely reporting on the claims that the NTC and spokespeople are making themselves. That is not a legitimate source of evidence, it's news - but only news of what the council is claiming in press releases and interviews. Not what is actually true. A 'reliable' source concerning the conflict would be akin to what I linked, the new yorker article where a somewhat neutral reporter (despite being obviously pro-western - more your position) actually talked with the fighters on the frontline, and talked with the spokespeople for the council. He came to the conclusion that the exact aims and legitimacy of these leaders and connection to the rebellion are extremely tenuous at best. In other words, skepticism is warranted. It is unwise to take PR releases and claims by one group about themselves at face-value. Psychological warfare and media manipulation are essential and almost always done in any conflict like this. Propaganda is a powerful force, and it is important not to be taken in by it. For example, if you had taken the Contra and American claims at face-value about Nicaragua in the 80s, you would have assumed that the Contras were spontaneous democratic freedom fighters valiantly attacking a murderous and despotic leftist regime. That sounds familiar. Unfortunately, the truth was that the Contras were merely a right-wing authoritarian force illegally funded and trained by Americans, and organizing death squads to sow terror in the countryside by killing civilians in order to take down a democratically elected leftist government. (Note, I am not comparing the Libyan rebels to the contras, or Gaddafi with the Sandinistas, only using an analogy to show that taking their own word without question is ridiculous.) This is why neutral reporting and evidence by third-parties is important and necessary before accepting the claims that you are proposing. You need independent analysis by a legitimate reporter for solid evidence of NTC objectives and legitimacy. 1mpper fucked around with this message at 20:16 on Apr 1, 2011 |
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2011 20:08
|
|
|
In the ongoing saga of blaming African (mercenaries) for supporting Ghaddafi.quote:Qahtani:The senior commander in #Brega fighting for #Gaddafi is general in the republican army of #Chad!! #UN do you job! #Feb17 {Insert chad joke here} farraday fucked around with this message at 20:14 on Apr 1, 2011 |
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2011 20:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 07:29 |
|
|
Contraction mapping posted:Do you want me to link the links from Wikipedia that point to major news sources, or perhaps a link to the NTC website? What constitutes a 'reliable source', in your your opinion? Because if you don't believe that any current sources regarding the NTC are reliable, then pretty much any information regarding the conflict in Libya is unreliable. (it may not even be happening at all!) I stopped trusting twitter sources in the first week or so of the revolution. The only average/good information we have is coming from independent reporters on the ground and the UN. quote:This is a fair point (dumb question, though), but again, we don't have the luxury of assessing the moral stature of the NTC in a vacuum. From what's been reported, the NTC has treated the civilian population with far more respect than Gadaffi, and at least claims to support democratic values in complete contrast with Gadaffi's rhetoric. This, imho, is enough reason to support them against annihilation from Gadaffi's forces. If it turns out that they were secretly theocratic or whatever who were only posturing to get Western support, and end up being worse than Gaffy, then I will be the first to condemn them. This isn't the first time there has been a wave of revolutions in the Middle East and Africa, and it's not the first time the West has favoured certain political groups. Last time we ended up with Nasser, Saddam, The Shah, CQ, Ben Ali, etc... who all turned out to be sooooo much better than their predecessors. We DO NOT KNOW what the motives and plans of the NTC are. Preventing civilian deaths? ok fine, helping an unknown political entity seize power? no. The west should stick to the UNSCR and stay out of the political struggle. quote:Continuing to slam our collective dicks in door after door because "this time it will be different" and "this particular group of people is undeniably deserving of us killing this other group of people for them" doesn't seem smart at all. Jut fucked around with this message at 21:07 on Apr 1, 2011 |
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2011 21:02
|
|