Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
So, the latest country to be engulfed by revolutionary action is Libya, home of everyone's favourite crackpot dictator Col. Muammar Gaddafi. Up until last week, protests and demonstrations had been largely sporadic, but over the last few days the situation has intensified greatly. Protesters are (allegedly) being being machine-gunned and there are claims of several hundred deaths. Benghazi is under the de facto control of the rebels, and Saif Gaddafi made a rambling appearance on Libyan TV last night, making dire warnings of civil war and possible foreign occupation.
First Tunisia, then Egypt... there's trouble throughout North Africa, and it seems to be spreading east, with Bahrain looking wobbly and Yemen in disarray.
So, is Libya next? What will the fall-out be?
BBC wrote:
Libya protests: Col Gaddafi under mounting pressure
Col Muammar Gaddafi's regime is under pressure amid unprecedented protests in the Libyan capital and defections by senior diplomats.
Protesters out on the streets of Tripoli late on Sunday were met by security forces using live ammunition and tear gas.
Benghazi, the country's second city, now appears to be largely under the control of protesters.
But Col Gaddafi's son, Saif al-Islam, has warned that civil war could ignite.
In a lengthy TV address, he offered significant political reforms but also vowed that the regime would "fight to the last bullet" against "seditious elements".
'Massacre'
On Monday, reports from Tripoli suggested the streets were mainly quiet, with government forces still patrolling Green Square after crushing protests in what witnesses called a "massacre".
A central government building, the People's Hall, was said to have been set ablaze and firefighters were trying to put out the flames.
Libya's envoy to the Arab League, Abdel Moneim al-Honi, announced he was "joining the revolution" and its ambassador to India, Ali al-Essawi, told the BBC he was resigning in protest at his government's violent crackdown on demonstrators.
Mohamed Bayou, who until a month ago was chief spokesman for the Libyan government, said the leadership was wrong to threaten violence against its opponents. He made his comments in a statement obtained by the Reuters news agency which appeared to indicate disagreement within the ruling elite.
In another blow to Col Gaddafi's rule, two tribes - including Libya's largest tribe, the Warfla - have backed the protesters.
Human Rights Watch says at least 233 people have died since last Thursday, though in his speech, Saif Gaddafi insisted reports of the death toll had been exaggerated.
The US, UK and French governments are among those which have condemned the harsh treatment of protesters.
Slightly off-topic, but the Sunday Times was reporting that Abdelset al-Meghrahi is probably about a fortnight from death. Good.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2011/02/21 11:27:19
It's a tough call to make, he might cave in to international and internal pressure, or he might just do what Mahmoud did in Iran and simply keep on malleting the protesters. Shoot enough, and they stop.
And knowing the colonel... it might just be the latter.
We are arming Syrian rebels who support ISIS, who is fighting Iran, who is fighting Iraq who we also support against ISIS, while fighting Kurds who we support while they are fighting Syrian rebels.
I think I'm right in thinking that Gaddafi's grip/control/influence on the military is a lot stonger than Mubarak's was? Or at the least, Mubarak ruled with the assistance of key army generals whereas I think Gaddafi has much more direct control.
I can see this getting a lot bloodier than it is so far. According to the BBC reports this morning, there is a huge uprising in progress, nearly all the Libyan tribes have come out against Gaddafi and I think his only response will be with military force.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Something else that struck me as well was that one of the justifications for the US going to war in Vietnam was fear of the so-called 'Domino Theory' which now appears to be the very same reason the middle east has erupted in flames...
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2011/02/21 12:28:40
Unstable Middle Eastern and African nations causing international security uncertainty?
Oil supplies threatened?
Tin-pot dictators running their countries into the ground?
You need a controlling force, somebody to set the priorities.
People with class and culture.
You need; The New British Empire.
Our six point scheme to re-instate good and proper control, in new and old territories, has been scientifically proven to be the best course of action.
You savages will never have had it so good!
Join NOW!
We should just leave them to it. As long as the oil flows, who really cares?
The West really needs to stop being International Rescue.
Exploding Oil Field at the end of the video... spooky.
Albatross wrote:Rumours are circulating that Gaddafi has already had it away on his toes...
That would be a rather smart man.
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
I thought you said he was running away when you said that . Which I think WOULD be a rather smart move, but meh, YMMV.
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
Melissia wrote:I thought you said he was running away when you said that . Which I think WOULD be a rather smart move, but meh, YMMV.
No, I agree that running for his life is VERY smart move! He's just not that smart in general.
In other news: The Libyan UN representative has urged 'international action'. Uh-oh....
Much like everything else representatives from libya urge, this will be ignored. The west has done a great job of wringing its hands of these dictators so far, its highly unlikely anyone will do anything except support the rebels through speeches or call for peaceful negotiations.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/02/21 17:47:20
----------------
Do you remember that time that thing happened?
This is a bad thread and you should all feel bad
Melissia wrote:I thought you said he was running away when you said that . Which I think WOULD be a rather smart move, but meh, YMMV.
No, I agree that running for his life is VERY smart move! He's just not that smart in general.
In other news: The Libyan UN representative has urged 'international action'. Uh-oh....
Much like everything else representatives from libya urge, this will be ignored. The west has done a great job of wringing its hands of these dictators so far, its highly unlikely anyone will do anything except support the rebels through speeches or call for peaceful negotiations.
I dunno man, seems to be getting pretty serious over there. WAY more violence than in the case of Egypt. There may be no choice but for the UN to get involved, certainly to put in place the no-fly zone that the Libyan delegation requested...
Unconfirmed reports coming in:
BBC wrote:
1754: Al-Jazeera is quoting Tripoli residents as saying Libyan warplanes are bombing locations in the capital. It's important to note that while we have reliable reports of fires in Tripoli, as well as aircraft overhead, it is not possible to confirm such reports at this stage.
1742: All Italian air bases have been placed on maximum alert, the Italian news agency Ansa reports. The alert comes after two Libyan fighter jets apparently fleeing unrest in Libya landed in nearby Malta.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/02/21 18:05:14
Melissia wrote:I thought you said he was running away when you said that . Which I think WOULD be a rather smart move, but meh, YMMV.
No, I agree that running for his life is VERY smart move! He's just not that smart in general.
In other news: The Libyan UN representative has urged 'international action'. Uh-oh....
Much like everything else representatives from libya urge, this will be ignored. The west has done a great job of wringing its hands of these dictators so far, its highly unlikely anyone will do anything except support the rebels through speeches or call for peaceful negotiations.
I dunno man, seems to be getting pretty serious over there. WAY more violence than in the case of Egypt. There may be no choice but for the UN to get involved, certainly to put in place the no-fly zone that the Libyan delegation requested...
Unconfirmed reports coming in:
BBC wrote: 1754: Al-Jazeera is quoting Tripoli residents as saying Libyan warplanes are bombing locations in the capital. It's important to note that while we have reliable reports of fires in Tripoli, as well as aircraft overhead, it is not possible to confirm such reports at this stage.
1742: All Italian air bases have been placed on maximum alert, the Italian news agency Ansa reports. The alert comes after two Libyan fighter jets apparently fleeing unrest in Libya landed in nearby Malta.
If all it took was repressive violence to get involved militarily in north egypt we would of been there decades ago. The situation is far too messy for a military peacekeeping solution, about the best we could hope for would be to strong arm Ghadaffi into calling for his forces to stand down. That hasn't worked well in too many cases previously.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/02/21 18:08:05
----------------
Do you remember that time that thing happened?
This is a bad thread and you should all feel bad
Flashman wrote:Well if armed assistance is required, I don't see us wading into this one (not in force anyway) and surely America can't fight a war on three fronts?!
Sad as it may be, I suspect the west will let this one burn itself out.
Well, there ARE other countries in the UN. Apparently.
The leader of one of the largest tribes in libya, which covers a large portion of the populace, did an interview on BBC News this morning, and halfway through called for open rebellion...
Medium of Death wrote:Something on the BBC news about the Rebels declaring the city of Benghazi as a seperate Islamic Emirate. Or something along those lines.
Looking at the UAE (Abu Dhabi, Dubai etc.) it could be quite good if Libya goes that way. Each tribe/social group getting it's own mini-state.
Although the sheer size of Libya might prove to be a problem. Just thought showering.
So, do we support a legitimate nation state or do we support rebels in their cause?.
I still can't figure out why all of a sudden all the revolutions. Who will take control? Will they be more western friendly, or will the countries fall into the hands of extremists?
Medium of Death wrote:Something on the BBC news about the Rebels declaring the city of Benghazi as a seperate Islamic Emirate. Or something along those lines.
Looking at the UAE (Abu Dhabi, Dubai etc.) it could be quite good if Libya goes that way. Each tribe/social group getting it's own mini-state.
Although the sheer size of Libya might prove to be a problem. Just thought showering.
So, do we support a legitimate nation state or do we support rebels in their cause?.
Legitimate nation state is kind of a risky term considering the state of Libya and it's governance before this.
----------------
Do you remember that time that thing happened?
This is a bad thread and you should all feel bad
We'll I guess it's either; Prop the G Dawg up, make the people resent the West for doing so. Or let them get on with it, with the potential that they elect people that hate the West anyway (big change).
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2011/02/21 19:17:02
rryannn wrote:I still can't figure out why all of a sudden all the revolutions. Who will take control? Will they be more western friendly, or will the countries fall into the hands of extremists?
As I understand it, the global economic crash has hit Northern Africa which has made the life (which wasn't that great to start with) pretty hard for their populations. Iran style Islamic states are a possibility in some countries (maybe more so in Libya), but unlikely in Egypt and Tunisia which are quite moderate.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/02/21 19:15:09
Perhaps the last few days were more buying time to get assets out than any attempt to salvage the junta.
n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion.
Frankly, once you get to the point where you have to bomb you own capital city to try and suppress dissent, you have lost by any measure.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
rryannn wrote:I still can't figure out why all of a sudden all the revolutions. Who will take control? Will they be more western friendly, or will the countries fall into the hands of extremists?
To give a very broad brush portrait of the situation, after WW2 the colonial powers in the region, mainly Britain and France, were ousted by a combination of US pressure and economic necessity. The regimes which took control in the various Arab states were undemocratic, based on either monarchical systems or dictatorial systems, depending on whether they were clients of the west (USA and allies) or Soviet Union. Israel being the only exception, and arguably Jordan.
This process began in the late 40s and was completed by the late 60s.
Various attempts at secularisation, modernisation and Islamicisation did not conceal the fact that by the new century, many of these states were economically and politically moribund, and could not satisfy the aspirations of the mass of people for an improved life.
Then by natural process of time, the old dictators and kings began to weaken or die off, and seek to pass their power on to unelected descendants.
Seeing no hope of a better future under the sons of the corrupt elite, the people are revolting.
It is hard to say which countries might fall into the hands of extremists. Both principles and pragmatism warn the west to keep their hands out of this particular pot. If extremists are elected, we will have to deal with them, we won't get away with trying to coerce things. That is what got these countries into the mess in the first place.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/02/21 19:58:18
Kilkrazy wrote:It is hard to say which countries might fall into the hands of extremists. Both principles and pragmatism warn the west to keep their hands out of this particular pot. If extremists are elected, we will have to deal with them, we won't get away with trying to coerce things. That is what got these countries into the mess in the first place.
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
