New page for Libya

Discussion in 'Every Day Debating' started by Foinikas, Aug 31, 2011.

  1. Foinikas

    Foinikas Playing backgammon!

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2005
    Messages:
    7,802
    Likes Received:
    96
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    VDNH Station,Moscow
    Ratings:
    +97 / 0 / -0
    New page in Libya's history with looting,revenge and about 70% of the country without clean water.What do you see in the future of Libya and do you think that NATO has gone too far taking a much more important role that gave the rebels the victory against Gaddafi?€
     
  2. ~Elladan~

    ~Elladan~ A Elbereth Gilthoniel

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2006
    Messages:
    4,907
    Likes Received:
    215
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    England
    Ratings:
    +225 / 0 / -0
    With dozens of countries (latest Russia) recognising the NTC the Gaddafi era is over although loyalists may cause problems for months to come. I hope SIrte is not the scene of a revengeful bloodbath though as that has the potential to open up all sorts of fissures within Libyan society.

    I noted the BBC article (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-14728565) which gave a figure of 43% of states who overthrew a dictator in the last century fell back into a civil war. To have a chance of successful transition they'll need to sort out security & critical services, get weapons out of general circulation, mediate last loyalist hotspots, get NATO to back off and hold elections asap. The NTC is not elected or necessarily representative nor are some key players devoid of responsibility for the part they played during the Gaddafi era. Bringing Gaddafi to trial would make things easier too. If these issues persist or Libyans don't see real change then some will no doubt start believing that life under Gaddafi was perhaps not that bad after all.

    As to NATO's part in this... I still don't believe the end justifies the means. The UN security council was misled from the start which could have long term implications especially for future interventions. This was always primarily about regime change. Protecting civilians was a noble aim if it had been applied evenly and they were protected against armed attacks by either side but it wasn't. By supporting/arming the rebels who chose an armed uprising (unlike Egypt, Syria, Tunisia, Bahrain, Yemen etc), arguably NATO have contributed to more people dying than would otherwise have been case if all Libyans had taken to the streets in peaceful unarmed protest. NATO chose to force their desired military outcome rather than encourage diplomacy. The fact that many (most) Libyans hated Gaddafi doesn't make NATO's and indeed the rebels methods & actions right. NATO did not have a UN mandate for regime change and also chose to flaunt the UN arms embargo. The actions were illegal hidden behind the veneer of a narrow UN resolution.

    The world is better of without Gaddafi but the way this victory has been achieved leaves a bad taste.
     
  3. LyannaWolfBlood

    LyannaWolfBlood Ella Dictadora

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2006
    Messages:
    6,374
    Likes Received:
    230
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Ireland
    Ratings:
    +230 / 0 / -0
    What? If all Libyans had taken to the streets in peaceful, unarmed protest there would have been a bloodbath as the military mowed them down, much as is taking place in Syria. I do share some of your misgivings about the precedent NATO is setting here and I'm generally fairly pacifistic, but if the rebels hadn't chosen an armed uprising they would almost certainly have died heroically and not succeeded in ousting Gaddaffi. The rebels didn't begin violently; they tried peaceful protest at the beginning and Gaddaffi let the military loose. And, ultimately, I believe people have the right to use violence to overthrow a dictator; not as a first resort, perhaps, but certainly as a last.
     
  4. Foinikas

    Foinikas Playing backgammon!

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2005
    Messages:
    7,802
    Likes Received:
    96
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    VDNH Station,Moscow
    Ratings:
    +97 / 0 / -0
    What is unacceptable is that NATO was helping the Rebels by bombing Sirte AFTER the rebels took over Tripoli.At least that's what I heard on TV.Helping rebels in their vengeful attacks against a town of loyalists is a war crime.The loyalists can't defend from air attacks and the Rebels besiege them from the ground with probably hundreds if not thousands of soldiers.
     
  5. ~Elladan~

    ~Elladan~ A Elbereth Gilthoniel

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2006
    Messages:
    4,907
    Likes Received:
    215
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    England
    Ratings:
    +225 / 0 / -0
    Given that large chunks of the army refused to fire on civilians in Benghazi and switched sides instead I'm not sure you're correct in your assumption that it'd have turned into a bloodbath any more than it did in Egypt. As soon as the protestors did arm themselves I think that Gaddafi's lot had every right to put down armed rebellion within their own borders especially when they were then supported by external military support. Personally I think that once UN/NATO had prevented the attack on Benghazi they should have just concentrated on diplomacy between the two sides and only taken action to neutralise any armed convoys/offensive action against populated areas by either side.

    Estimated deaths in Syria ~ 2000, Libya ~ 20000++
     
    Last edited: Sep 1, 2011
  6. LyannaWolfBlood

    LyannaWolfBlood Ella Dictadora

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2006
    Messages:
    6,374
    Likes Received:
    230
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Ireland
    Ratings:
    +230 / 0 / -0
    It's possible, El, but not every conflict can be resolved peacefully - it doesn't look like Syria will end that way. (That's not a suggestion that NATO should intervene in Syria BTW.) I can't criticise the Libyan people for choosing to fight, nor can I criticise them for requesting NATO's assistance because they didn't want to be slaughtered. Nor do I agree that Gaddaffi had the "right" to put down armed rebellion within Libya. He was a dictator who took over in a coup, not a popularly elected leader, and to my mind his legitimacy as a leader was severely compromised by the fact that he'd ordered the military to shoot on peaceful protesters.

    I don't deny that this many not end well and, as I said, I'm unsure about NATO's intervention. But people definitely have the right to rebel against an oppressive government as far as I'm concerned, and I do think that in the Libyan case the violence was fairly close to being as a last resort.
     
  7. Ser Land

    Ser Land New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2009
    Messages:
    458
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Azores, Portugal
    Ratings:
    +6 / 0 / -0
    Nato didn't do wrong in taking the role it did in Lybia. The more influence it has in the new Lybian era, the less influence extremist islamist organizations like Al-Qaeda has.
     
  8. ~Elladan~

    ~Elladan~ A Elbereth Gilthoniel

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2006
    Messages:
    4,907
    Likes Received:
    215
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    England
    Ratings:
    +225 / 0 / -0
    We'll never know what may have been if another route had been taken.

    What if the population had just taken and stayed on the streets, refused to work like in Egypt. How many of Gaddafi's soldiers, tribe or even family would have been able to shoot unarmed civilians? How could Gaddafi have spun this as a terrorist, colonial led invasion with drug crazied Libyans being deluded to take up arms? It's been printed many times that even the Gaddafies had recognised that some sort of political change was needed and drafts were already written. I'm not suggesting that those would have been anywhere near acceptable as written but if the uprising had been peaceful what might have been achieved peacefully?

    We'll agree to disagree on the right of any state to put down armed protests. As far as I'm concerned once they chose to take up arms it was a civil war and they should have been left to it.
     
  9. ~Elladan~

    ~Elladan~ A Elbereth Gilthoniel

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2006
    Messages:
    4,907
    Likes Received:
    215
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    England
    Ratings:
    +225 / 0 / -0
    And yet one of the reasons Algeria was on close terms with the Gaddafi regime was because he clamped down on al-qaeda in North Africa. NATO's involvement can spin either way ~ more evidence of economic 'colonialism' (oil), regime change outside of UN mandate or a friend of the oppressed. Either way Libyan state sponsored terrorism will be less, other types probably more!
     
  10. Foinikas

    Foinikas Playing backgammon!

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2005
    Messages:
    7,802
    Likes Received:
    96
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    VDNH Station,Moscow
    Ratings:
    +97 / 0 / -0
    Actually the people were sick of Gaddafi ruling them.He had been ruling them for about 42 years and his sons were so many that a Gaddafi would rule them after his death,apart from his crazy ideas,Gaddafi kept trying to spread Islam in Europe the last few years.However removing him and his family with such a way,by a vast number of armed civilians who got their hands in WAY too many weapons especially after Tripoli has fallen,was not wise.Who's going to disarm them?When will Libya have drinkable water,power and a normal economy running again?Who will ensure that the Rebels won't butcher half the population of Sirte and thousands of other Libyans both men and women in various parts of the country?The jails in Tripoli were opened and the prisoners freed.Who's going to put an end to this chaos?
    Once again NATO acted for the benefit of America and Western Europeans.A spontaneous event took a weird turn but instead of organizing a REAL governenmt and a normal,documented anti-Gaddafi army before they took Tripoli or completely destroy the regime,NATO rushed to help the rebels by bombing loyalists or whatever targets they thought were "dangerous" to prevent a humanitarian crisis(or so they say?).So did NATO handle this correctly?No.They rushed to bomb whatever they wanted again,not caring or thinking about restoring order and economy apart from peace after Gaddafi's fall.
     
  11. LyannaWolfBlood

    LyannaWolfBlood Ella Dictadora

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2006
    Messages:
    6,374
    Likes Received:
    230
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Ireland
    Ratings:
    +230 / 0 / -0
    I'm happy enough to agree to disagree in general, but on this:
    Very, very easily. Have you ever read any of his Little Green Book? The guy is: a) quite literally insane, and b) a genius at spinning things - highlights include claiming that the Libyan people now control Libya but that he had "moral authority" after he instituted Jamahiriya (the "state of the masses") back in the 1970's and that Libya was "the only true democracy" in the world. Really, he has no problem making anything fit his worldview.
     
  12. azuren82

    azuren82 Berserk got banned...

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2005
    Messages:
    2,795
    Likes Received:
    25
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Singapore, Singapore, Singapore
    Ratings:
    +25 / 0 / -0
    @LY: Well, that's the gist of politics. In order to get your way, lying (bluffing the masses), cheating (non-accountable to the masses) and stealing (shortchanging the masses) is the only way out. The only difference between the individuals is how good is the level of knavery. Apparently Gadhaffi isn't a pro in being a rogue unlike the direct opposite as a dictator. But then again he's not the only one. My country is right now swarming with similar fools at the helm as well. -.-

    Latest news: Apparently we're seeing documents being leaked where Gadhaffi's regime actually has vital diplomatic exchanges with the big US of A and the other NATO ppl as well. I went so lol at the mass show of public outrage. It's as if nobody has been schooled in the basics of politics right from the bat. i.e. If it serves your purpose, then why should you care so much about integrity let alone the people under you? I could have use worse terms for politicians, but in order not to create a massive trollfest where we will get to see the likes of Sparrow wading in, let's just use the term "combat pragmatism". -.-
     
  13. Foinikas

    Foinikas Playing backgammon!

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2005
    Messages:
    7,802
    Likes Received:
    96
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    VDNH Station,Moscow
    Ratings:
    +97 / 0 / -0
    Lol I love it when you post azuren and you're right man,everybody was like "whaaat...they talked with Gaddafi?" it's like...lol "why would they talk with Gaddafi and keep diplomatic relations with him under the table?"
     
  14. Anduil

    Anduil New Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2011
    Messages:
    1,052
    Likes Received:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Mekta land of dreams! you can find me in Pireaus
    Ratings:
    +11 / 0 / -0
    Nato - otaN is the organization that rule the world without counting the suffering of the people... Libya = oil and of course stability in the area by helping the rebels against Kaddafi. Hope that deaths will stop. Somebody must put an end to the killing of inosents... That's the only think that i care for. Not for who is the head.
     
  15. Turambar

    Turambar Harebrained Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2004
    Messages:
    7,784
    Likes Received:
    162
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Not in Amsterdam :)
    Ratings:
    +189 / 0 / -0
    I really don't know what to make of this revolution yet. It might be of the 180 degrees type. It might also be a full revolution, with Libya setting off in exactly the same direction as it did under the Colonel.

    Seeing as the national transition council was very quick to claim the void in power, I really fear for the worst. In economic terms, Libya might come out on top, with international aid and the oil reserve. However, I think a large part of both will end up being hogged by whoever or whatever fills the void. It has happened in Africa many times before. Much more than most people are aware of. Much, much more than revolutions have turned out for the better.

    Don't get me wrong, Khadaffi was an animal and I am glad the world is rid of him. He was a special kind of evil reserved for a select number of dictators. However, I don't believe - as of yet - that Libya will bloom under a new regime in anything less than 30 years, despite the oil reserve and the outstanding business opportunities it has.
     
  16. Sparrow

    Sparrow Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2011
    Messages:
    2,822
    Likes Received:
    159
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    here and there
    Ratings:
    +251 / 3 / -1

    I think perhaps there might be some hope for Libya.
    The population is relatively small and better educated than you might believe, they don't have nearly the 'tribal' attachments as do the Iraqis nor are they given to religious fanaticism like some of their neighbors; and of course they have oil reserves. Libya is much better situated to receive European aid and business investment, which is why NATO, especial France, got involved so heavily with helping this particular revolution along. This was not a very bloody revolution, as revolutions go, so things may quiet down enough for a stable government to take hold within the next year.

    There is money to be made in Libya.
     
  17. Turambar

    Turambar Harebrained Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2004
    Messages:
    7,784
    Likes Received:
    162
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Not in Amsterdam :)
    Ratings:
    +189 / 0 / -0
    Sadly, that doesn't bode particularly well. To be honest, I don't know about the level of education in Libya compared to - say - Iraq or Egypt. What I do know is that Africa's richest country is Botswana, a vast arid country and about a million souls with no natural resources to speak of. Botswana has been able to grow so (relatively) successful simply because it's of no ones interest. I think it used to be a British protectorate. The British didn't know what to do with it so they left Botswana just about to their own devices. Nor did the corporate world (with the exception of De Beers) ever take interest in this barren country. And still it must be considered to be the richest and currently probably most succesful countries in Africa.

    Libya is an example of the opposite. There's lots to gain and, therefore, everything to lose. A smart head of state will be able to pocket billions in bribes and oil dollars, which makes it a very attractive position to have. I don't know about Libya, but this is the line of thought shared between most African politicians. Worse, a bribable dictator is somewhat convenient to the corporate world directly and, indirectly, often beneficial to western gouvernments. That's why I fear for the worst.
     
  18. Foinikas

    Foinikas Playing backgammon!

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2005
    Messages:
    7,802
    Likes Received:
    96
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    VDNH Station,Moscow
    Ratings:
    +97 / 0 / -0
    I just had to show you this,this is what Gaddafi did for Libya:

    The country of Libya enjoys large natural resources,[278] which Gaddafi utilized to help develop the country. Under Gaddafi's Jamahiriya "direct democracy" state,[62] the country's literacy rate rose from 10% to 90%, life expectancy rose from 57 to 77 years, equal rights were established for women and black people, employment opportunities were established for migrant workers, and welfare systems were introduced that allowed access to free education, free healthcare, and financial assistance for housing.[279] In addition, financial support was provided for university scholarships and employment programs.[280] Gaddafi also initiated development of the Great Manmade River,[279] in order to allow free access to fresh water across large parts of the country.[279] The country was developed without taking any foreign loans, and, as a result, Libya was debt-free.[14]

    And they killed him.He did all that for them and they killed him.That's one more reason why I don't buy the whole "revolution" in Syria either.I have to admit I did believe it was a justified revolution in Libya but now I feel like an idiot because Libya is now a ruined country ran by former gangs who want power and refuse to give up their guns.
     
  19. Sparrow

    Sparrow Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2011
    Messages:
    2,822
    Likes Received:
    159
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    here and there
    Ratings:
    +251 / 3 / -1


    What does it matter if you have an education, healthcare, and a roof over your head... and can be thrown into jail for expressing your opinion?.. and by the way, we now know that many of the claims made by the rebels against the Libyan Army were false... "In June 2011, an investigation carried out by Amnesty International found that many of the allegations against Gaddafi and the Libyan state turned out to either be false or lack any credible evidence, noting that rebels appeared to have knowingly made false claims or manufactured evidence."


    Personally, I could care less.
    Except for Communists, I consider Muslims to be the lowest form of life on Earth.
     
  20. Foinikas

    Foinikas Playing backgammon!

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2005
    Messages:
    7,802
    Likes Received:
    96
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    VDNH Station,Moscow
    Ratings:
    +97 / 0 / -0
    I don't think that people in Libya were thrown in jails like that and all.Personally I don't think that Libya's regime was a sadistic regime like Saddam's was.Saddam's Iraq was a sadistic place.It was a beautiful and rich place before the Iran-Iraq war but afterwards it was simply a country of true State brutality and evil while Saddam kept building palaces and the people were starving like in a third world country without daring to say a word.

    I wonder what else could these people want in Libya?They had a much higher level of freedom compared to other Arab countries and all these incredible(for an African and not only)country and yet we saw them rebel in the thousands....SOMEHOW.....(which could pose a good question in the future,right?)and win with the help of NATO Air Force and arming.

    If it wasn't for Western European countries,Libya would have still remained a prosperous and debt-free country.