Print

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

[Grakelin]

And yet look at us now. It did spread everywhere. Just didn't happen over night.

Oh, I'm not saying that it'll never happen. Just that this instance isn't "the beginning of the end for autocracy in the Middle East". It's not even the end of the beginning of the end. When Assad goes in Syria, that'll wrap up the first round. Remember, it took 50+ years and some major wars to push most of the European monarchies into constitutional monarchies. It took even longer for some of them to dispense with monarchy altogether.

That's a tricky example to mention, because when the European monarchies were toppled we fought with muskets or rifles, not machine guns and artillery. Aid from political allies could take ages to arrive. The losing side would hole up in their castles (just like Gaddafi did), and the winning side would have to either lay siege or starve them out. In this case, starving out the current regime isn't an option.

[scriver]

http://blog.heritage.org/2011/08/22/libyan-draft-constitution-sharia-is-principal-source-of-legislation/

And now for the Islamists to take over.

Seems no different than what the early European proto- and in-transition-democracies, or what the Christian right still wants today. I don't think anybody expected them to end up the most liberal state in the world - the people want democracy, not necessarily secular such (even though it's obviously going to be a power struggle between those opinions). I'm just hoping it'll end up a stable democracy and that the conservative Muslims won't just coup away the state in case sharia ends up being part of it. If it ends up being a healthy, stable country with good relations to Europe, I think both fundamentalism and religiosity will decline over time.

Also note that sharia doesn't necessarily equal what they have in Saudi-Arabia and such, it can be interpreted in many different ways - much of the horribler stuff isn't even based on sharia but on separate customs and traditions. Though of course, it would be a bit blue-eyed to not view it in relation to the climate and currents of the rest of the region/world, so I'm not getting my hopes up for it being something different.

[Aqizzar]

http://blog.heritage.org/2011/08/22/libyan-draft-constitution-sharia-is-principal-source-of-legislation/

And now for the Islamists to take over.

How much of the draft did you actually read?  Suffice to say, I can't be the only one who's a little cautious of taking any interpretation of Islamist government (in draft form no less), from a personal Internet blog whose frontpage articles include things like "Cohabitation Compounds Divorce as a Threat to America’s Children" and "O, Canada! The Greenies Are On the Attack!".  I'll wait to hear something about a government that's actually being formed, from people who don't believe they have skin in the game.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

"Cohabitation Compounds Divorce as a Threat to America’s Children"

What.

"O, Canada! The Greenies Are On the Attack!".

Wait, Greenies? As in the Green Party of Canada? The one with one seat on the Canadian Parliament this most recent election, and none at any point before now? Attacking?

....Yeah, I'm thinking that who ever is running this blog may just have a slightly skewed view of reality.

[Realmfighter]

Wait, Greenies? As in the Green Party of Canada? The one with one seat on the Canadian Parliament this most recent election, and none at any point before now? Attacking?

No, no you idiot! The blog of a environmentalist group. Jesus Christ, why would you even think of the Green Party over the ubiquitous NRDC!

In Nikiforuk’s eyes, the Keystone XL pipeline is only the latest sin staining Canada’s already black soul. Nikiforuk traces Canada’s misdeeds back to the Hudson Bay Company’s 17th century fur trade, providing pulp for the world’s newspapers, supplying cod to slave plantations in America’s South, and mining uranium for atomic bombs, all as if the country were a living, breathing monster come to life:

If you use words that colourful I think you waive all ability to call your writing fair and unbiased.

[RedKing]

Guys, it's the Heritage Foundation. They're like the Internet troll of thinktanks.

[KaelGotDwarves]

Iraq War: $792 billion American dollars spent, 4,792 Americans dead, Saddam Hussein removed from power.

Libyan intervention: $1 billion American dollars spent, 0 Americans dead, Muammar Gaddafi removed from power.

Hmmm...

[MetalSlimeHunt]

To be fair, Iraq was the foremost power of its region.

[ChairmanPoo]

That was the Gulf War 1 motto. And it was not true even then.

[Nadaka]

That was the Gulf War 1 motto. And it was not true even then.

At the time beginning of the first gulf war, Iraq was what? the #4 (maybe even #3) military power on earth?

[ChairmanPoo]

Do you truly believe that? It was a backwater even then. As the gulf war proved, in fact

[Zangi]

That was the Gulf War 1 motto. And it was not true even then.

At the time beginning of the first gulf war, Iraq was what? the #4 (maybe even #3) military power on earth?

...  ?  #3 or #4?

Please, give a source.  A credible one.

[Nadaka]

It was 20 years ago, I don't know exactly where to look for "credible" sources with a lot of info from that era.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iraq/army.htm

They supposedly had a million soldiers, a large number of armored vehicles and a relatively modern air force plus a large arsenal of chemical weapons.

There used to be a more detailed breakdown on what kind of military vehicles they had.

[RedKing]

There was a lot of misinformation at the time on Iraq's military capacity. I know, because I was busy buying it hook, line and sinker.

Quick confession: I was a flag-waving redneck conservative at the time (and all of about 14 or 15). I was one of those people who actually thought protesters should be shot for treason. 

Anyways...while they may have had a significant inventory and a large conscription base, their ability to actually mobilize and field that army was sorely overstated. And the big thing was that it was a potent army *for that region*. But going up against a 1st-rate military, their airforce and air defenses were outclassed (and most of it destroyed on the ground). Once the Americans were allowed to establish air superiority, that large army began just so many ground targets.

It's kind of sad, in a way. The Iraqis weren't as potent as we were all warned at the outset of the war, but then because they collapsed so quickly, the public interpretation was "Wow, they really weren't very tough at all," which is also inaccurate and which deprives the US military planners of the credit due them. It was a perfect storm as far as military operations -- poor Iraqi morale and battle doctrine, excellent Allied planning, and an early acquisition of air superiority which allowed overwhelming firepower to be directed onto Iraqi ground formations with little to no capability for them to return fire. After suffering withering and continuous aerial bombardment and missile strikes for weeks, it shouldn't have been that much surprise in retrospect that entire formations were surrendering to the first foreigners they saw.

[Siquo]

Iraq War: $792 billion American dollars spent, 4,792 Americans dead, Saddam Hussein removed from power.

Libyan intervention: $1 billion American dollars spent, 0 Americans dead, Muammar Gaddafi removed from power.

Hmmm...

Not to mention the legality.
But yeah, this one's nice vs the Obama bashers