|
|
Post by linuxianilmurov on Jul 13, 2011 18:21:13 GMT -5
So, some of those people were supporting are Al-Qaeda. I think that we are better off with Gaddafi in power, as he posed no threat to us. And he does have some support, otherwise how is he still in power? Both sides are reprehensible, so I think we should wait this out.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mlle Antéchrist on Jul 13, 2011 19:19:06 GMT -5
I think that we are better off with Gaddafi in power, as he posed no threat to us. I have mixed feelings about UN involvement in Libya, but I wouldn't exactly say he poses no threat. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muammar_Gaddafi#State-sponsored_terrorismHis attempting to play nice doesn't necessarily mean that he's changed. |
|
|
|
Post by linuxianilmurov on Jul 13, 2011 20:34:24 GMT -5
When's the last time he's done something. Ever since the invasion of Iraq he has been terrified.
|
|
|
|
Post by sylvana on Jul 14, 2011 2:19:20 GMT -5
The UN is a global peacekeeping force, and unfortunately when a government starts shooting its own people it is kind of obligated to step in. Remember that unlike the Afghanistan and Iraq wars this is the UN taking part, it is not just America, there is considerable effort from France, the UK and Italy.
Now the Libyan Rebels are causing some trouble. There was a report within the last two days about the rebels looting, raping and burning down houses in the villages they capture. While these activities are completely morally reprehensible it is also to be expected. The reason for that is that the rebels do not have a single unified command structure unlike the loyalist forces. So while the rebel leadership might be against such actions, most of the people who do the fighting are generally people who grabbed a gun and joined the mob without really even knowing what is going on.
The whole Libyan situation however is a complete screw up, although unlike Afghanistan it is not a UN/American stuff up. The loyalist forces have strong visible leadership and good resources. The rebels have extremely ambiguous leadership. This causes a huge problem because even if Gaddafi were to step down / be assassinated and the whole loyalist force defeated there would be no decisive leadership from the rebels to fill the void. In short they would turn on themselves to get into power and like so many other African stories the one most violent and corrupt will be the one to take Gaddafis place.
It is a sad state of affairs really.
|
|
|
|
Post by scotsgit on Jul 14, 2011 3:34:13 GMT -5
And apart from the ambiguous leadership, the rebels also seem to have no clear agenda for what to do once they've got rid of Gaddafi - will they the country be democratic or run by another tinpot dictator?
|
|
|
|
Post by malicious_bloke on Jul 14, 2011 3:59:06 GMT -5
US involvement will be no more than the occassional bombing and supplying weapons if that. Hopefully you're right. Landing NATO ground troops in libya would be an appalling idea. |
|
|
|
Post by Mlle Antéchrist on Jul 14, 2011 4:01:02 GMT -5
When's the last time he's done something. Ever since the invasion of Iraq he has been terrified. He fired on his own people. That certainly constitutes a threat. "We" may not be in danger, but can you say the same for Libyans? Like I said, I have mixed feelings about UN involvement, but UN decisions shouldn't be based solely on whether or not westerners are at risk -- they are, after all, a global organization. |
|
|
|
Post by Yla on Jul 14, 2011 4:09:27 GMT -5
And he does have some support, otherwise how is he still in power? Force of arms, simply enough. Gaddhafi is employing quite a number of foreign mercenaries. While there are a lot of pro-Gaddhafi demonstrations in Tripolis, as soon as the journalists there manage to escape their guardians and talk with the people privately, the story becomes different. I'm not saying he has no popular support at all, but most of the popular support we see seems to be pretend. |
|
czechmate
Full Member
Czech Republic / UK
Posts: 123
|
Post by czechmate on Jul 14, 2011 5:46:49 GMT -5
And he does have some support, otherwise how is he still in power? Force of arms, simply enough. Gaddhafi is employing quite a number of foreign mercenaries. While there are a lot of pro-Gaddhafi demonstrations in Tripolis, as soon as the journalists there manage to escape their guardians and talk with the people privately, the story becomes different. I'm not saying he has no popular support at all, but most of the popular support we see seems to be pretend. Gaddhafi doe have popular support, but mainly from those who have profitted by his rule. Many Libyans live well below the poverty line and the most brutal part of his armed forces are well-paid mercenaries who are utterly merciless. Demonstrations shown on the media are drafted in by "Rent-a-Crowd". If you look carefully, the crowds are seeded with agitators and the secret police, and the crowd is aware of this. |
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Jul 14, 2011 6:26:39 GMT -5
Force of arms, simply enough. Gaddhafi is employing quite a number of foreign mercenaries. While there are a lot of pro-Gaddhafi demonstrations in Tripolis, as soon as the journalists there manage to escape their guardians and talk with the people privately, the story becomes different. I'm not saying he has no popular support at all, but most of the popular support we see seems to be pretend. Gaddhafi doe have popular support, but mainly from those who have profitted by his rule. That's not popular support at all; that's elite support. Most dictators earn elite support, few have popular support. You get support by doing right by the particular group. If circumstances for people get better, the people will support the people in charge. But democratic governments have an easy way out. Because democracy is rule with the consent of the governed, there's a buffer. Democracies also rely on public opinion. A dictatorship can reasonably easily survive with little popular support, so the average dictatorship won't care. |
|
|
|
Post by Yla on Jul 14, 2011 12:33:29 GMT -5
While there are a lot of pro-Gaddhafi demonstrations in Tripolis, as soon as the journalists there manage to escape their guardians and talk with the people privately, the story becomes different. I'm not saying he has no popular support at all, but most of the popular support we see seems to be pretend. Demonstrations shown on the media are drafted in by "Rent-a-Crowd". If you look carefully, the crowds are seeded with agitators and the secret police, and the crowd is aware of this. That's what I meant, just more coherently. Thanks, czechmate. |
|
|
|
Post by linuxianilmurov on Jul 15, 2011 17:32:41 GMT -5
First of all, its not the UN, it's NATO thats doing the mission. Second the fact the Gaddafi is killing his own people isn't a sufficient reason to intervene. Shit like that happens all over the world, and we can't stop it from happening. Second, as my links have demonstrated the rebels are pretty bad people themselves. Gaddafi does have support from his own tribe. Libya is a very tribal society and its hard to speak of a "Libyan People".
|
|
|
|
Post by ironbite on Jul 15, 2011 17:35:17 GMT -5
You almost had a point. ALMOST had a point there but then lost it.
Ironbite-try again sweetheart.
|
|
|
|
Post by linuxianilmurov on Jul 15, 2011 17:38:07 GMT -5
?
|
|
|
|
Post by ironbite on Jul 15, 2011 17:41:04 GMT -5
Gaddalfi is one of the world's biggest terrorists. Ever hear of the pan-am bombings? Yeah that was him. He's not a nice guy but up till now, the US didn't care enough. Hell, the rest of the world didn't care enough. He kept his people under thumb and that was that. Until now. Now, he's pissed off the rest of the world that people care and they're going to do something about it. Just cause he's got the support of his own tribe doesn't mean jack.
Ironbite-just means a select group of people are idiots of a massive quality.
|
|
