Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Kogan Loloklam]

You're grossly overestimating the willingness and abilities of the international community. If Italy would intervene in Libya to prevent a forced exodus across the Mediterranean or if Morocco would intervene to stabilize the region they may catch some flak but in the end trade relations are more important that the fate of a random country that is already useless to everyone. Plus, if one of them would need to wait for official permission they can wait till the Mediterranean has evaporated...


I also think you have a twisted sense of "justice." The amount of suffering caused by the American forces in Iraq is in no way comparable to the suffering that was caused by Saddam Hussein or the Islamists that are trying to blame every last drop of blood they shed themselves on the US and get their way because reporters who think differently have a tendency of finding their cars riddled with bullets. The problems in Iraq are due to rabidly violent groups who think they're going to heaven if they kill and maim as many people as possible. There is not even a political point to the bloodshed, it's just unguided genocide against everyone and no one in particular. And don't think it's just Iraq that's a problem, because Pakistani are about as likely to get violently murdered by random people who have a slightly different view on "justice" then most. It's just that in Iraq it's most visible because the US doesn't have a "bureau of covering suspect and inconvenient deaths up"

Your example is... Interesting.

I can agree that we don't have a bureau of covering suspect and inconvenient deaths up. They probably call themselves an agency. Very slim chance it's called a bureau.
Here in America we like to pretend we are the good guys. As such, ANY bad action from our side is too much. Saddam didn't make such pretensions. So saying we were better because Saddam was utterly evil is just silly.

I think the problems in Iraq come from the US supporting someone who wasn't devoted to doing the right thing, the choice being made because it seemed like we needed someone to attack Iran for us. This came from the USA thinking it was okay to ignore international law because it didn't fit with our plans. Sound familiar? Mercenaries today are the extremists and oppressive problems of tomorrow.

[Seamas]

the US doesn't have a "bureau of covering suspect and inconvenient deaths up"

After watching Collateral Murder I'm inclined to disagree.

There's at least one bunker somewhere in this country full of intrepid g-men working on it around the clock.

[Aqizzar]

This thread really needs a newsfact injection.

The eastern side of Libya would effectively be an independent country right now, if they chose to be, instead of wanting the righteous closure of taking the whole shebang, Presidential Palace and all.  The former head of the justice ministry, Mustafa Abdul Jalil, resigned in protest against Qaddafi's insane treatment of his people... two weeks ago, before the real show even got started.  He's declared himself head of an interim government, to no significant opposition, at least until something more stable and permanent can be arranged.  He's leading his effective new government from Benghazi, and is insisting to the world that his brand spankin' new Libya can handle the old Libya's problems.  He also has a military to do it with, the Libyan People's Army (always a foreboding name, but we can let it slide), a fairly ramshackle and patchwork military mostly staffed and commanded by defected officers who've sworn to take down the old government.

Libya's largest oil company, the state-owned (which is to say, Qaddafi-owned) Agoco is now in rebel hands, and quite happy about it.  They are ready and able to resume oil exports, the eastern region accounting for most of Libya's production, but their transactional bank accounts are still hardwired to Qaddafi's pockets, so they're holding off until a solution is found.  On top of all the incidental problems that come from running an oil industry in the throes of a civil war, of course.

There's also, finally, a real (if obviously biased) reporting agency able to get news out of and around Libya, called Radio Free Libya (natch).  It's supposedly hosted from a news van parked at the very same, and kinda old, radio transmitter station that a much younger and slightly more sane Colonel Qaddafi used to announce his assumption of rule in 1969.  On a clear day, the AM broadcasts can reach the capital.

[olemars]

Seems to be a bit of a stalemate at the moment. In practice, Qaddafi holds Tripoli, the two minor cities of Sirte and Sabha and some villages, but his mercs are said to be roaming the roads making any travel unsafe, particularly at night.

His problem is that the places he holds are kept in check only through repression with security forces. He can't move much of his troops around since that would risk uprising. Every day there are riots in areas of Tripoli, a city of 1 million+. Also, Qaddafi is apparently vain and afraid of making himself look bad in front of international press, so their presence might actually be preventing outright massacres for now (until he gets totally desperate). He's instead trying his hardest to paint the opposition as a band of al-qaeda thugs, which nobody is buying. He's still killing people though, al-jaz showed a clip from libyan state tv of public hangings of "al-qaeda members" that were probably just random people from Tripoli.

Meanwhile the opposition is a bit stuck too. They have plenty of weapons and supplies in the east, including tanks, but they lack trained crew and unit cohesion. Much of the gear is also old since only the security forces get the shiny stuff.  Biggest problem might be lack of fuel, tanks are heavy drinkers and it's a long way from Benghazi to Tripoli or even Sirte. I don't think we'll see large movement of forces from east to west anytime soon.

Time seems to largely be on the opposition's side though. Qaddafi lacks the manpower to regain much ground and his guys must be getting low on morale.

[RedKing]

Three media-related observations this morning:

1. USA Today headline yesterday: "Libya inches closer to civil war". Really? Inches? You have two semi-functional governments, two armies with tanks and large-caliber firearms, two areas of delineated control and a death toll probably near or above 1,000 people. I'd say you could take that inferential leap and just call it a damn civil war. 

2. CNN was running a lunchtime segment where they seemed to be mystified that al-Qaeda hadn't made much noise during the Tunisia-Egypt-Libya revolutions. "Which side are they on?" the newscasters breathlessly wondered. Umm...maybe neither? Consider it from their POV. They've been railing against virtually every Arab leader from Morocco to Oman for years, and called for popular Islamic uprisings for about as long. So now they're getting half their wish. Problem for them is, they're not Islamic uprisings, they're populist secular uprisings. So now they're in a pickle. They lose whatever religious/moral high ground they had among the Ummah if they now support the autocrats. But they don't really want to see democracies emerge out of this either. So they're just going to sit on the sidelines and see what happens. Don't see why this is so difficult to grasp.

3. Good piece on NPR this morning about what the Arab revolutions have done for Al Jazeera-English in terms of ratings. Website traffic has increased 2500% in the last couple of months, with 40% of that increase coming from the United States. I've been keeping their blogstream up in a browser tab most days since the shitfest started in Libya myself. They're doing a good job, better than the US outlets. They're breaking the stories faster and they're trying hard to confirm all the details they get. Plus, there's that segment where the al-Jazeera newscaster basically called bullshit on the Qaddafi deputy minister who called in and said there was no unrest at all, everything is just fine...that was awesome. And sadly, something you just don't see on US networks. BBC is the only other major network I've seen call bullshit on an interviewee who is just obviously lying through his teeth.

[olemars]

Al-jazeera is great both at getting their reporters into the right spots even if it's risky (Egypt especially was impressive, they had live feeds from the heart of the protests even as the government was burning down their office), and at getting non-journalist contacts on the ground via phone or whatever it takes. Having a simultaneous translator standby is a stroke of genious for those calls where the caller doesn't speak english.

Their anchors are about as annoying as any other news channel though, but I guess it's hard to figure out something meaningful to say for hours on end with no new input.

[Zangi]

2. CNN was running a lunchtime segment where they seemed to be mystified that al-Qaeda hadn't made much noise during the Tunisia-Egypt-Libya revolutions. "Which side are they on?" the newscasters breathlessly wondered. Umm...maybe neither? Consider it from their POV. They've been railing against virtually every Arab leader from Morocco to Oman for years, and called for popular Islamic uprisings for about as long. So now they're getting half their wish. Problem for them is, they're not Islamic uprisings, they're populist secular uprisings. So now they're in a pickle. They lose whatever religious/moral high ground they had among the Ummah if they now support the autocrats. But they don't really want to see democracies emerge out of this either. So they're just going to sit on the sidelines and see what happens. Don't see why this is so difficult to grasp.

If I was them...  it would be more... useful to help the 'rebels'.   Putting into question the legitimacy of the democracy and diluting Western support/influence while gaining a foothold into the decisions and doings of the rebels in the case of winning.  Instead of just a half win...  it'll be a 2/3rd win...

EDIT: (I meant 2/3rd win  not 1/3rd)

[Sheb]

Mostly the fact is that al-Qaeda is death. At the most, we got a few terrorrists cells here and there using the al-Quaeda "brand" to frighten the west.

[RedKing]

That thought occurred to me, but it also occurred that they're probably secretly hoping that the autocrats prevail, because without them, al-Qaida loses one of its chief targets to rally people against. When your whole screed is built on "The Emir of XXXX is a pro-Western, Islam-hating pawn! Join us and strike the dog down!", it kinda falls apart when the Emir is replaced with a democracy. Especially because even if people do have grievances against the ruling government, they don't have to join a radical militant group to do something about it. They just go to the ballot box when it's time.

[RedKing]

Y'know...it's genuinely satisfying to see al-Qaida grasping at straws to stay relevant. With any luck, they'll wind up the QVC of terrorism:

"But wait, there's more! Commit suicide bombing now and for a limited time only, we throw in two extra virgins in Paradise!"

[Sowelu]

You realize that in terms of organization, AQ isn't that different from Anonymous, right?  They're a bunch of loosely affiliated thugs that occasionally have charismatic leaders pop up that people in the "organization" listen to, largely because they share the name brand.  It barely exists beyond a loose bunch of camps that happen to like the name.

[Puzzlemaker]

Are you saying that Anonymous are terrorists?!???!?
</foxnews>

[Ampersand]

They did make a van explode. It's true, it was on Fox.

Other than that the analogy works. There is no longer a real organization called Al Qaeda. Just a bunch of thugs that barely know eachother dedicated to hiring young, uneducated men to blow themselves up. Treating them as if they're comparable to anything else we've ever fought a war against before is just stupid.

[Bohandas]

How dare you people speak ill of Anonymous!?!?

[GamerKnight]

I had a weird dream once where I was fighting my way through the internet, except it was skewed into a generic fantasy world. So many breasts... But anyway, in the end I killed Anonymous! And became King of Internet Land.

And now back to your scheduled viewing.