|
Basically, the IMF accelerated what might have been a minor movement into a true revolution by virtue of how brutal its economic policy was. That said, Mubarak went voluntarily with the scheme.
|
#
¿
Feb 21, 2011 06:42
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 12:20 |
|
|
ecureuilmatrix posted:Yeah sure, the Afghan govt is pretty nasty, violent and corrupt, but not yet Gaddafi-crazy-evil-grade. The free Libyans might also want to privatize oil to companies like BP and pretty much give away the country's natural resources the prime minister of the rebels is the very same dude to organize privatization under Qaddafi which lead to high unemployment political rights are meaningless if it means people are going to suffer economically for it
|
|
#
¿
May 10, 2011 08:24
|
|
|
Al-Saqr posted:As someone who doesnt have the benefit of electing his officials I have a huge temptation to say something along the lines of "gently caress off you dont know what it's like to know every waking day that you can be dragged away killed and tortured without trial at any moment for speaking your mind because every third person you know is an informant and knowing that you'll have the same guy in office from when you're born right until you reach 50 without a glimmer of hope of voting him out of his chair. or be persecuted for campaigning for other people to have the right to have a lawyer around when they're being sentenced to a million lashes for questioning the mindset of the clerical judges who'd persecute a woman to 200 lashes for having the audacity of being raped, etc." and what of the people who can't make ends meet and are quietly starving to death? Is it because their suffering is less dramatic it is okay? Democracy doesn't make economics better either, we arn't starving in the US but our economic system will never get any better and there are plenty of third world countries with "democracy" like Haiti in which starvation is a fact of life You are using the flashiness of political oppression to argue for the the silence of economic oppression The rebel government is staffed by people who in part CREATED the economic conditions that started the situation in the first place, don't you think it is insane that they are given full ride? After all the killing is done, where is the assurance they will be any better? Was Iraq worth it? Afghanistan? Yemen? and you mention torture like it doesn't exist in democracies? can you be so blind?
|
|
#
¿
May 10, 2011 14:44
|
|
|
I guess quiet period to see if all that faith in the NTC was actually worth it from this thread.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 22, 2011 12:00
|
|
|
When all is said and done, Gaddafi did implement a remarkable safety net, it is actually when he started to push for liberalization that things went haywire as unemployment soared. I don't see things in Libya getting better if the rebels don't work to rebuild and improve on that legacy, that or the rebels just turn on each other and Libya becomes a listless wreck of a country. Also, the video makes it really clear (in HD with HDR?!?) that Gaddafi was beaten and then executed by the rebels without even a summary trial. An eye for an eye.... makes everyone blind.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 24, 2011 04:10
|
|
|
etalian posted:No he pretty much pursued the standard divide and conquer policy, people close his his tribe got reward while most of the country withered. At least according to its HDI levels and GDP per capita, Libya was one of the most advanced Arab states. You can't deny there was actually a expansive safety net in Libya, even if there was probably favoritism. You can't deny the guy did some stuff right, especially in regards of social spending and infrastructure at least prior to the 00s. Gaddafi was did horrendous stuff, like Pinochet, but his focus on state spending and infrastructure wasn't his fault. Seriously, Libya's per capita income (from oil production) makes it the wealthiest state in Africa with a "high" development index.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 24, 2011 04:36
|
|
|
Hydrogen Oxide posted:Guys I looked at some charts and the numbers only went up during his rule. Why are people mad?? Did people revolt against him because of him being a dictator or him implementing liberal economic policies that raised unemployment to high levels?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 24, 2011 04:38
|
|
|
etalian posted:A combination of both similar to all the other Arab Spring uprisings. I agree, which is why Gaddafi and his regime's mistakes did to be looked with context and put against other regimes in the region. It is also why the US should get the gently caress out of Bahrain and Yemen and stop supporting both regimes, which especially in Yemen have been bloody and corrupt. I guess it comes off as kind of weird to celebrate the beating and summary execution of one dictator, but kind of ignoring an other guy the US is actively supporting. There has been a lot of put downs in this thread against people asking similar questions, and it really hasn't been answered. Why Gaddafi but not Saleh?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 24, 2011 04:53
|
|
|
farraday posted:It has been answered, you just refuse to ever accept any answer. These are not the same things. Wait so why is Saleh's regime so different than Gaddafi's? Sorry, if I haven't see the answer in the last few pages.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 24, 2011 05:01
|
|
|
etalian posted:Probably because Libya was more compelling for intervention especially when the rebels reached their breaking point and Gaddafi suddenly becoming very vulnerable. So why is the US actively assisting the Saleh regime with advisors and has been moot about coming up with any solution? Rebels being backed by Iran isn't an answer, since the rebels have plenty of reasons to be pissed. It isn't like the US is just being hands off here, Saleh has gotten their direct support. You can point to Al Qaeda or Iran, but the many of the rebels/Islamists only came after Saleh has drove the country into the ground and honestly have good reason to be pissed. Even if Saleh gets mild criticism from the West, the US gave over 300m in military support last year and actively has troops within the country. I am for getting rid of them all, but the US has always has had "do as I say, not as I do" mentality to democracy and self-determination. This is why I think it is so dangerous to cheer lead wars, especially when things can't be distilled into black and white.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 24, 2011 05:17
|
|
|
farraday posted:It's a 473 page thread, I assure you it has come up. None of them those reasons actually address, the US and the West supporting the Saleh regime directly. If it was a choice between Libya and Yemen of who gets "first in line" of support it would be a coherent arguement, but currently it is why did we did bomb Libya, but training/supplying and arming Saleh's forces?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 24, 2011 05:21
|
|
|
farraday posted:As I said you're not interested in an answer you'll just shift the posts to something else. I have been asking that exact question since the line of this conversation started, it hasn't shifted. You just didn't read what I wrote.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 24, 2011 05:27
|
|
|
farraday posted:So what you're saying is that once the mountain of why there was an intervention in Libya and not Yemen you're out of metaphorical breath and can't continue on on your own. The US by giving Saleh money is implicitly supporting him, even if it is to "fight terrorism". Also, the Al Qaeda finds fertile ground in Yemen because of Saleh not despite him. The US is actively fuel on the fire in Yemen, they are a giant part of why it is so unstable in the first place. Your "mountain" of evidence is meaningless because intervention in Yemen isn't on the table and probably will never be, as long as the US supports him.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 24, 2011 05:59
|
|
|
LYE-OONS posted:Intervention will probably never be on the table regardless of whether or not the U.S. funds anti-terrorist activities in Yemen. Unless Yemen has a credible resistance movement (like the NTC), the chances of a Western-backed intervention are none, nada, nil. So, in this case, what would you like the U.S. to do? Burn bridges in a country that is unwilling to fight for its independence by withdrawing any financial support and possibly ruin relations or wait until an actual resistance movement develops and there is somewhere to which they can shift support? It is kind of hard for a "creditable" resistance movement to be "successful" when the military gets has training, funding and equipment from the US. I don't see how keeping the Saleh regime around is helping anybody, especially since it he left and then recently came back. The West had a giant window in order to push Saleh out of power but they didn't. I don't see support flipping like that anyway. Also, Chaebol makes a good point, we don't invade plenty of countries that have oil and give jack poo poo back to their people. The Saudis are about as corrupt as Gaddafi was. That said, I honestly hope the NTC can get their poo poo together and rebuild Libya and transfer that oil wealth directly to the people. Some of their leaders have poor records in that regard, but it is only fair to give time. That said, it would a grave mistake to dismantle many of the economic programs Libya had unless they were to replace them with even greater ones. One real worry, if that the NTC might be pressure to pursue "shock therapy" like Russia did in the 90s and privatize state assets which would be a giant mistake. Let's all hope that doesn't happen
|
|
#
¿
Oct 24, 2011 06:43
|
|
|
farraday posted:You know gently caress all about the Yemen movement don't you? There are literally existing parties which refuse to cooperate with each other for various reasons along with non antagonistic generals and tribes that have solid control on the ground. If they were able to form a unified leadership they could and it has very little to do with the military stopping them from doing so. Come on you don't think the Yemen military and its US assistance has any ramification on the status of things in that country? Also, one big reason they don't united if because some of the groups don't want to be part of Yemen period and if you know Yemen's history, that makes a lot of sense. The celebration over Gaddafi's death obscures the fact, that despite for Libya and Syria, the US's support for the Arab Spring has been mostly cold and in the case of Yemen we are still supporting the dude. At best, I can see the US acting like it did in Egypt and issue vague statements of concern and at worst, I could see it spending even more money and sending more troops/advisors to support Saleh. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 07:22 on Oct 24, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Oct 24, 2011 07:17
|
|
|
eSports Chaebol posted:The issue is that right now there is a prime opportunity to paint Qaddafi with a single stroke, including his economic legacy, in order to reverse the economy in the direction of providing less for the Libyan people, which would be a very bad thing. Yeah, thats the real danger, that the anger at Gaddafi used to reserve the legitimately good things he did. Privitization would make Libya become an even bigger kleptocracy than it already is, Gaddafi stole from his people but he isn't the only one in the world capable of that feat. Now that he is dead, the goal should be securing the economy rights of the people of Libya and making sure Gaddafi's and the states assets are held for the people.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 24, 2011 07:46
|
|
|
zalderach posted:A few of my friends on facebook are complaining about Libya now becoming a Islamic Republic that have already signed all their oil away to US-NATO. I've tried pointing out that western Oil companies where already heavily invested in Libya (oh hay BP), but by accepting help from NATO Libya have apparently given away their Oil to NATO for free. The latter is more of a possibility than the former, Western companies are already in Libya but they can always press for better deals especially in a chaotic time such as now. It question of actual proof is different, and the NTC's near term economic plan is something that is I want to definitely see. I heard them mention an "alternative economy" expect for oil but no specifics.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 24, 2011 08:33
|
|
|
Ultras Lazio posted:Well, look, far leftists are a pain, agreed. Naive, idiotic, boring, malicious, past-the-sell-by-date and everything but |branding| is a bit like putting a yellow star on their coats and I wouldn't advocate for that. I like how people are talking about branding "leftists" when the world is in upheaval much of it led by leftist anarchists/socialists. No one takes them very seriously until they surround the parliament building/stock exchange. That said, I say go ahead and persecute everyone left of moderate democrat, thats only going to make things change far quicker. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 12:14 on Oct 26, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Oct 26, 2011 11:38
|
|
|
It doesn't mean a invasion of Iran, but probably a re-invasion of Iraq at some point with or without the Iraqi government's permit. We wouldn't win an invasion of Iran, much less hold an occupation. At this point our invasion force would probably be outnumbered 5 to 1.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 31, 2011 10:20
|
|
|
Vincent Van Goatse posted:And the Obama administration would do this completely suicidal thing because why, exactly? Because we want to control iraq... badly. I don't know if we would force a real confrontation with the iraqi army, but those troops are "plan B" without a doubt. quote:Because Iran has suddenly developed the premiere first world air force and has replaced it's troops with cybernetic monsters? gently caress, where was I when this happened? We don't have enough warm bodies period.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 31, 2011 10:28
|
|
|
Namarrgon posted:You two are using different definitions of 'winning' here. Could the US win a military victory against Iran in a total war scenario? Absolutely and without too much effort. Could the US invade Iran, keeping most of the nation intact and successfully occupy it? Doubtful. Yeah, it could nuke the country or carpet bomb it, but thats not what we are talking about. The US doesn't have the troops for a land invasion nor an occupation. Iran has about 2 and 1/2 times the population of Iraq, it doesn't take a bunch of armchair generalizing to realize the US doesn't have the troops to even attempt an invasion. quote:I don't know what you've been up to the last decade, but the Americans tried that and it went to poo poo in a most spectacular way, which is why they're pulling out now. Despite how nice it would be to have permanent air bases next door to Iran, the US would have nothing to gain in trying to keep them against the wishes of the Iraqi government. I mean, what are they going to do, re-invade and topple the sort-of-democratic regime they spent eight years, hundreds of billions of dollars and god knows how many lives in order to establish, and replace it with what? Direct military rule by a US general? Another civilian viceroy? A re-instated Baath party? Counter-factuals are pretty impossible to answer, but it is clear those troops are there to keep an eye on Iraq and quell a rebellion there. That said, the US's relationship with its allies is very mercurial and who knows what the future will hold. Our invasion of Iraq itself was pretty insane the first time around, and we just got done bombing Libya.... again. I will be honest I can not say with certainity the US would topple a democratic Iraqi government, because I haven't seen a government in Iraq yet that I could see the US launching an invasion over. However, I could easily see something akin to Pakistan or if things get really bad a full intervention on the "side" of the iraqi government.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 31, 2011 10:55
|
|
|
Ultras Lazio posted:Listen, if "we" do war as we do nowadays then you're absolutely right. Yeah, there is a reason we don't use nukes, we aren't the only ones with them. Even the possibility of rich people getting vaporized is the enough to keep them locked up.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 31, 2011 11:04
|
|
|
Ultras Lazio posted:I am not even talking about going nuclear, "we" have a vast array of other bombs or startegies etc that are not being used. The thing is that the current neo-liberal capitalist system is not designed for such endeavors, this is why Vietnam blew up and we the US went the professional military/smart bomb route. If you want a consumer society focused on extracting profit from people, having them sent to a meat grinder is socially disruptive since they might start fighting back and thats not really good for capitalism. Nationalism can smooth that stuff over for a while, but that era is slowly eroding. The US is a sick empire that is only growing more sick as time goes on, and having white middle class people sleeping in tents in the cold to make a point is another giant warning sign.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 31, 2011 11:23
|
|
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-15530640 So Al-Kieb is the new prime minister as a "consensus" candidate, he is an engineer with seemingly little to no political experience. It is going to be be interesting to see what are the first steps he wants to take.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2011 01:18
|
|
|
Btw, Iranian-Turkish relations are pretty tight and a lot of money goes back and worth. Also, Turkey really has nothing to gain from a fight with Iran since they really don't have any reason to oppose them expect that the West doesn't like them. If Israel-US attacked Iran, there is a better than 50% chance than Turkey would defend Iran otherwise they almost certainly would remain neutral. Basically, Turkey has nothing to gain from working from the West they aren't already getting and plenty to lose. At this point it looks like Turkey is building up as much Western technology as it can get its hands on to build an indigenous arms industry. They are planning on producing F-35s within Turkey, and a next generation MBT. As for Syria, I think there are making bold statements but won't intervene. However, I am sure there are waiting to pick up the pieces and in the process putting a Turkish stamp on Syria and probably Lebanon as well.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 17, 2011 10:37
|
|
|
Yeah..... Turkey is not very Arab, which actually brings a weird dimension of neo-Ottomanism to the entire thing. To be honest, the Turkish-Kurdish conflict only really heated up after the empire fell, for most of the 18-20th century, the Kurds were just another group within a polygot empire. The only unfortunate part is that Erdogan is still a economic liberal, although Turkey has wisely taken a more government focused response to the recession with a heavy emphasis on needed infrastructure. It would be a pity through if the bubble popped and Turkey return to the same cycle of coups and political chaos without any real improvement for common people. Also, yeah Turks are not Arabs and have closer linguistic ties to Kazakhstan than Syria. Turks originally weren't from Anatolia but trace their roots to the Central Asian steppes, but settled during the Medieval period during the fall of the Byzantine Empire. Also, the name of Istanbul is a corruption of a greek phrase, it isn't a "muslim" thing. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 11:40 on Nov 24, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Nov 24, 2011 11:35
|
|
|
etalian posted:Some other factors: More or less, you can honest say that the West (Britain, France and the US especially) was responsible for about most of it through direct colonization, cold war paranoia, overt favoritism or nonsensical neo-liberal economics. Once the Ottoman Empire's military started to slip in the 1600s, it has been a steady march of the West taking a bigger and bigger slice of the pie until today. I guess maybe the first time in a long time that might be changing, but who knows.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2012 23:50
|
|
|
I actually chatted with Vilerat quite a bit in #currentevents back in the day, I didn't always see eye to eye with him but I can't believe he actually died.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 12, 2012 06:14
|
|
|
To be honest, Turkey invading Syria sounds like some type of dumb alternative history short story. I think it would be bloody, not in the direct combat sense but that the Turkish would be as involved in a conflict just as dirty as Kurdistan. I don't doubt the Turkish army would far well against regular forces but beyond that it looks like a poo poo show.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 4, 2012 00:10
|
|
|
Comstar posted:I'm pretty sure Harry Turtledove is cursing himself for not thinking of it before. Though I don't know what actual historical war he could copy and replace. I guess he would just copy/paste the inital conquests of Selim, but with CYPER-JANASSAIRES (and aliens, and confederates). As for Civil Wars bringing in local outside powers, there are probably too numberous to count (Afghanistan, Vietnam, Korea hell even Mexico, the list goes on).
|
|
#
¿
Oct 4, 2012 01:45
|
|
|
Yeah, also the way size of the base and way the base is awkwardly positioned is going it difficult for them to do more than park a frigate sized vessel there there just isn't any room to dock them or move them into position. It certainly isn't designed to be a major forward position unless buy the entire port and a portion of the city and basically start building it from scratch. I don't think Russia, China or anyone else is going to lift a finger beyond diplomatic protests if things escalate.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 4, 2012 18:59
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:Since 1996, Syria has been the occasional home of Admiral Kuznetsov, Russia's only carrier of her class since the purchase of Varyag by China. I would argue that makes Syria a significant strategic staging point for Russian fleet operations. Also, the uprising came at a time of another planned (since 2010) mission of A. K. (and her escort) in the area. Eh, I don't think the Kuznetsov actually docked in that base, it almost certainly sat off shore. The carrier is probably physically larger than the base itself. They were showing the flag, but because you park a carrier off of somewhere doesn't make it a "significant staging point" any more than a Coast Guard station if the Nimitz sails by it. I know everyone in this thread has these "Red Storm Rising" war scenario in their head but maybe it would be safer to just stick to that stuff in a Heart of Iron mod. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 22:50 on Oct 4, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Oct 4, 2012 22:45
|
|
|
DesperateDan posted:So what happens if tests do indicate Sarin use? The US has kept saying that CBW use was a "red line", yet reliably removing chemical weapons from Syria is probably going to be nigh on impossible without major combat actions, which may well prompt Syria to start lobbing around as much chemical weapons as they can, especially if they feel they are going to lose them anyway, or the regime is at direct risk. To be honest, I am not completely sure the US would directly get involved in combat operations even if there has been active Sarin use. Obama is quite the budget hawk, and a long term involvement in Syria would be detrimental to the bottom line. I don't know if that would be such a bad thing either, the US leaves pretty giant messes behind it. I guess they could take the "Libya" approach, no-fly zone + maybe some bombing and let the FSA take care of the job and then leave the country a dysfunctional basket-case. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 22:42 on Apr 24, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Apr 24, 2013 22:39
|
|
|
Jordan in many ways is a pretty considerable lynch pin for US-Israeli strategy in the region, if it began to destabilize (not out of the question considering the amount of refugees) how would they handle it? Yeah, I agree, that the US probably has done about what it has wanted to do at this point. If Sarin attacks were proven, I am sure there would be increased sanctions and aid with the extreme being a no-fly zone but I don't see US boots going on the ground, thankfully. Slowly but surely Assad seems to be becoming more desperate, but as of yet, I don't see much that gives me much hope for future stability within Syria.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 25, 2013 03:30
|
|
|
I wonder what economic tact the Muslim Brotherhood and any government they back is going to take in the post-war period, unlike Iraq and Libya, Syria doesn't have the oil for reconstruction and millions of displaced people and ruined cities are expensive problems to fix. Granted, this is not to mention the global economy itself isn't in the most stable position either. Is there a break down of the affiliations/assumed affiliations of the non-Qatari/Muslim Brotherhood backed representatives? How many are secularists/left secularists?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 25, 2013 06:29
|
|
|
VikingSkull posted:It's going to be tricky for Obama, because all the other lines were more pink, but he said chemical weapons use was the big no-no. It's going to send a message to the world that he doesn't mean what he says if he doesn't act on this with some kind of intervention. Granted, it is momentarily embarrassment versus the much greater headache of an intervention. Maybe he will go for a no-fly zone, but the greater the intervention, the greater the chance the US will be responsible for the clean-up. Syria doesn't offer the US anything but problems, and it isn't likely to make an easy transition once the war is done. I can see why no one wants to touch it even if Assad is firing off chemical weapons, it is a complete lose-lose situation.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 25, 2013 17:19
|
|
|
MRC48B posted:I might remind you all that a significant part of the cover for Operation Cyclone was as "humanitarian aid". Just because Obama hasn't done anything overtly, doesn't mean he isn't doing anything. I think the important thing is that Obama doesn't want public intervention or aid because of the "you break it, you buy it" rule. It is fine to have the CIA give them weapons, just don't make the US responsible for cleaning up the mess because it is going to be quite a mess.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 25, 2013 17:27
|
|
|
Admittedly, the "least bad option" of the rebels quickly winning the war one way or another, is still going to be probably amount to even more and sustained violence in the future of lesser intensity. There really aren't any winnable solutions. Personally, I think any situation that leads to a US occupation isn't the least bad option in that retrospect.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2013 01:09
|
|
|
Another thing is that Syria one way or another is probably going to drag down Lebanon with it regardless of what happens, sectarian violence is already spilling across the border and it looks like whatever government that is going to come to power will have far from a universal mandate. Yeah, a US/NATO occupation of Syria would be pretty awful for everyone involved (including Turkey).
|
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2013 02:14
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 12:20 |
|
|
suboptimal posted:It seems irresponsible for the US State Department's Bureau of Conflict and Stabilization Operations to be tweeting this. Seems like a pretty firm tip of the hand from the administration their going to suggest a no-fly zone, more or less what a lot of people in the thread already thought. Ultimately, I think US and the rest of NATO wants to just hurry this thing along to its ultimate destination, chaos of a different form. It is a morally grey world after all.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2013 03:45
|
|