Revolution in Tunisia & Egypt, Protests in Libya, Bahrain, Oman & Yemen - Page 11 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

dlish · 03-18-2011, 07:03 PM

cimm, no offense intended.

But charlatan's right. i wasnt talking about the price of oil, nor did i insinuate that you get it for free, nor that the US plans to steal it from the Libyans.

When you 'pick up the pieces' you basically mopping up after the french and brits have left and award contracts to american companies instead of eurpean ones that are in there right now. This obviously creates revenue, jobs and income for americans. Thats not a bad thing and i dont see why you would find this offensive.

i dont think that the americans are in this for the same reason that they went into Iraq. but if there's a buck to be made to recoup some of the efforts expended, then the american government and/or oil corporations will evaluate risks and decide that this is worthwhile pursuing.

i do thing the aussies have been spineless here, but i dont think Australia's commercial interests lie here. Geographically, with australia being so far, the time to deploy would take weeks as it stands. we've played similar roles in our own region with east timor, fiji and papua new guinea.

roachboy · 03-19-2011, 04:52 AM

as for 8:30 am eastern daylight time on this saturday 20 march benghazi is under attack from several sides. a jet has been shot down. people are fleeing toward egypt. they keep asking themselves pointed questions like:

"Do we have to wait till Gaddafi kills us all before the world acts? We are very disappointed," said Adel Mansoura, an air traffic controller fleeing Benghazi with his family. "When we heard the UN resolution, we were very happy and thought we had our freedom but now we have been left on our own to the killers," he said at a petrol station where dozens of other cars queued for fuel.

what the fuck is the delay?

on the other hand, while the massacre continues, it is perhaps good to consider the fact that any move is fraught with complications:

Quote:

West overzealous on Libya
Al Jazeera's senior political analyst discusses the risks and opportunities inherent in UNSC Resolution 1973.
Marwan Bishara Last Modified: 18 Mar 2011 14:02

Now that the United Nations Security Council resolution for a no-fly zone has been passed, how will it be implemented?

The UNSC Resolution 1973 has made it legal for the international community to protect the Libyan people from Muammar Gaddafi's lethal and excessive force - by, among other things, imposing a no-fly zone and carrying out military strikes and other military action short of occupation.

However, the overzealousness of certain Western powers like Britain, France and, as of late, the US, to interpret the resolution as an open-ended use of force, is worrisome. With their long history of interference and hegemony in the region, their political and strategic motivation remains dubious at best. Likewise, their rush to use air force individually or collectively could prove morally reprehensible - even if legally justified - if they further complicate the situation on the ground.

This sounds like 'damned if they do, damned if they don't'?

Well, the onus is on these Western powers to prove that their next move and actions are based on a strictly humanitarian basis and are not meant as a down payment for longer-term interference in Libyan and regional affairs.

They need to demonstrate how their 'change of heart' from supporting the Gaddafi dictatorship over several years to condemning him as a war criminal and acting to topple him, is not motivated by more of the same narrow national and Western strategic interest.

Unfortunately, the Libyan dictator's statements and actions (and his recent cynical and contradictory threats and appeals) have played into Western hands, making it impossible for Libyans, like Tunisians and Egyptians before them, to take matters into their own hands.

Those who abstained at the UN Security Council, including Germany, India and Brazil, wanted to co-operate in charting a brighter future for Libya, but are also suspicious of the overzealous French and British eagerness to jump into a Libyan quagmire with firepower.

What then should Libyans, Arabs and other interested global powers do to help Libya avoid a terrible escalation to violence or a major humanitarian disaster?

Now that the international community has given the Libyan revolutionaries a protective umbrella that includes a full range of military and humanitarian actions, it is incumbent upon the Libyan opposition to mobilise for mass action in every city and town both in the east and west and challenge the regime's militias.

As the Libyan regime loses its civilian, tribal and international legitimacy, so will his security base be shaken over the next few days and weeks.

In fact, if the Libyan revolutionaries avoid complacency and exploit their newly gained legitimacy and protection in order to work more closely with their Arab neighbours and to demonstrate their political and popular weight in the country, the regime could very well implode from within.

The most effective and constructive way to use the newly mandated use of force by the UN Security Council is to use as little of it, as accurately, as selectively as possible, and ideally not use it at all. It is still possible for the threat of the use of international force, coupled with domestic popular pressure, to bring down the weakened regime.

An escalation to an all out war is in no one's interest, especially Libya's

West overzealous on Libya - Opinion - Al Jazeera English

so there's a quandry.

it's pretty clear that gadhafi's main ally at the moment is speed.
so what he's done already is to continue fragmenting the information environment as a way of creating diversions and/or screens with the sole function of buying time.
you know, declare a cease fire by saying that there is a "stoppage" or a process of stopping of attacks, so a process a kind of slowing-down that might be happening at a rate imperceptible for most people particularly those who find themselves under attack from several sides at benghazi.

the west, whatever that means, has a problem of definition of scope and scale of the operations. gadhafi is apparently banking on the effectiveness of threatening a much wider conflict than the imposition of no-fly zone, so is threatening nato with a longer-term war that would not be restricted to conventional means. he must calculate that this will be enough to create the delay necessary to complete pushing the rebels out of the country or killing them.

the west whatever that means also has a logistically complicated operation of developing a chain of command, a plan and moving materials around. this is obvious from a tv spectator position...and plays to the matter of speed as gadhafi's main ally.

it seems to me a back-against-the-wall approach that gadhafi is taking though---he has to be prepared to see this into endgame. he's erased other options; it hardly makes sense that he anticipates a future in a deposed dictator retirement community in hawaii.

it seems to me that nato has to act very quickly maybe before they're ready. that seems the main move that could alter the game---with all the caveats outlined in the al jaz editorial.

it would also seem to me that the logic of the situation would militate for a massive action aimed at entirely destroying gadhafi's military/milita capabilities at the hardware level. to counter that libyan state media is claiming that crowds of pro-gadhafi civilians are gathering at military targets that are likely to be hit.

so this is ugly.

what do you foresee happening?

Cimarron29414 · 03-19-2011, 09:06 AM

In typical UN fashion, France has been flying recon flights over the area. I suppose they need another day or two of slaughter before they can have a meeting to plan a meeting to talk about using planes with weapons on them.

We are three days from this all being irrelevant.

rb, kindly don't mistake defensiveness as whining. Those are two different things.

roachboy · 03-19-2011, 09:34 AM

there are reports that the shooting has started from the air. the french took out a tank outside of benghazi. so that prediction is already outdated.

dlish · 03-19-2011, 09:39 AM

RB, that plane that was shot down has been reported as an opposition plane that was safeguarding benghazi.

at the time of it being shot down there was elation in the streets. the lines of war have been blurred with libyans fighting libyans.

roachboy · 03-19-2011, 09:49 AM

dlish---i saw that information a few times since i put that post up earlier this morning, but decided to just leave it as it wasn't the only factor at play that prompted people in benghazi who were talking to the press to wonder what was going on.

at this point, it's pretty clear that things are going to ramp up quickly in the sense of air strikes and naval blockade. i don't really have a sense of whether the people opposed to gafhafi are in a position to act militarily in the wake of these air strikes---assuming that they do as advertised. this seems one of the giant open questions at the moment, the what then? matter.

Cimarron29414 · 03-19-2011, 10:01 AM

A supposition is not really a prediction. Certainly, the UN has not been swift in this action, which is the primary reason this will soon be over.

The rebels acted quickly early on and gained a lot of ground while <insert cool spelling of Qaddafi here> weighed his options. Once he was certain he wasn't going to get capped internally and that he had enough loyalists to make it worth his while, he started his counter attack.

Unfortunately, the rebels have blown their load. They don't have the supplies in Benghazi to maintain their defense. They'll run out of ammunition. So, unless the UN goes all in with peacekeeping forces, Qaddafi forces with squash them within three days. And there is no possible way the UN will muster ground troops in three days.

This isn't the outcome that I want, but I believe it will be the outcome, nonetheless.

Baraka_Guru · 03-19-2011, 10:13 AM

It's difficult to "take swift action" if you don't know what exactly is going on.

"Friendly fire," "collateral damage" and all that.

roachboy · 03-19-2011, 10:19 AM

i think everyone who's been watching things happen in libya hopes you're wrong and suspects you're not with that prognosis.

i think people in benghazi are voicing similar concerns:

Quote:

"Where are the air strikes? Why is the west waiting until it is too late?" asked Khalid el-Samad, a 27-year-old chemical engineer, who shook his finger in fury. "Sarkozy said it. Obama said it. Gaddafi must stop. So why do they do nothing? Is it just talk while we die?"

fact is, however, that much of the delay is due to ambivalence within the obama administration that follows from already being involved in two---to my mind entirely unnecessary---military adventures thanks to the bush administration. it appears that once the admin decided to back the french/uk plan for military action, it suddenly became a whole lot easier to get the bric to abstain (along with germany)...

i think the hostility to the un is misplaced.

Cimarron29414 · 03-19-2011, 10:43 AM

My hostility towards the UN is based on its poorly written charter, assuming the security council structure is in the charter. When one member can stop 14 others from action, you have created impossible gridlock. I have no doubt that there are huge backroom deals at the UN to get all 15 members to vote affirmative or abstain. So, its very structure breeds indecision at best and corruption at worst, in my opinion.

At the risk of sounding like a cowboy, we all knew what needed to be done weeks ago - we knew what the right thing to do was and we wanted to do the right thing. Because the rules at the UN are so broken, the right time to do the right thing has passed.

roachboy · 03-19-2011, 10:52 AM

right. we might have known but thanks to the cowboy mentality of the bush administration the united states was and is not in a position to go it alone either militarily or politically. the bullshit critiques of the un advanced by the project for a new american century crowd hold no water---but resemble your position.

it was the americans more than anyone else whose position accounts for it taking this long to get the security council to act.

by-passing the un in order to act in the name of legality on another country is a non-starter.

but you can thank the republicans for making absolutely sure that is the case.

Willravel · 03-19-2011, 11:41 AM

My problem with the UN is the permanent members of the security council, but we still signed the charter in good faith, making it US law.

Cimarron29414 · 03-19-2011, 12:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

right. we might have known but thanks to the cowboy mentality of the bush administration the united states was and is not in a position to go it alone either militarily or politically. the bullshit critiques of the un advanced by the project for a new american century crowd hold no water---but resemble your position.

it was the americans more than anyone else whose position accounts for it taking this long to get the security council to act.

by-passing the un in order to act in the name of legality on another country is a non-starter.

but you can thank the republicans for making absolutely sure that is the case.

I agree that the US has lost any sort of moral or political high ground to act unilaterally on these matters. I also agree that is a byproduct of the Iraq campaign.

I might be missing your point on my bullshit critique of the UN, though, because it seems like you are arguing my point. In one sense you are stating that my complaint that one country can stop all countries from action "holds no water." But then in the next sentence, you verify that the problem was that one country (the US) held up all other countries from action. If the veto process didn't exist and a 2/3 or simple majority was in place, action could have been swift. Perhaps unpopular to some, but swift.

Am I misunderstanding?

Look, I believe I understand your allegiance is more global than national. I don't necessarily agree with that, but I respect it. But, please understand that my complaint has very little to do with any sense of "Rah! Rah! USA!" and mostly to do with the obvious shortcomings in the veto process. You don't find it...flawed?

roachboy · 03-19-2011, 12:20 PM

i find the un to be procedurally cumbersome and dislike the security council on principle. but i think that it's important as an institution even with it's problems/limitations because it provides an institutional framework (amongst a few others) to thinking what a more function kind of transnational institution/regulatory system might look like. that's on a normative kinda level (which may explain the abstract sentences...i dunno...i'm in the middle of doing something else, too, which also might explain them)

insofar as this situation in libya is concerned---and it's developing very quickly, escalating very quickly in terms of western involvement (i'll drop the scare quotes now...they're implicit every time)---the delay in passing a resolution to authorize was not the result of any procedural issue---it was particular actors within the security council that had reservations about whether there should be an action at all--and there were debates within those governments about it--and gadhadi knew they were happening and tried to exterminate the rebels before there was a chance to resolve those debates and act. it's really quite hard to say what the situation is in all sectors of libya at the moment so its impossible to know the extent to which he succeeded...but he was on the edges of benghazi overnight and that seems to be where the initial air strikes and cruise missle activity is centered (i could well be wrong on this as the reports i've heard are very preliminary)...

so to go back to the place we actually do agree---the action was close to being too late and things are still uncertain as to situation not to mention outcome(s).....but like i say, things appear to be changing very quickly. surprisingly so. my more cynical side would have likely been running closer to your position had you not blamed the un as such for the delay---i was thinking it might take longer to get organized. but apparently afghanistan was good for something, if not for the people of afghanistan...

Cimarron29414 · 03-19-2011, 12:30 PM

Thanks rb, and I do agree that there is a need for an institution like the UN.

roachboy · 03-19-2011, 12:46 PM

9:59pm: Reuters reports that no major coalition strikes have been initially planned around the opposition stronghold of Benghazi.

Operations in the first phase are currently aimed at degrading the Libyan government's air defences.

from al jazeera's live blog:

http://blogs.aljazeera.net/live/afri...-blog-march-19

03-18-2011, 07:03 PM	#401 (permalink)
dlish Currently sour but formerly Dlishs Super Moderator Location: Australia/UAE	cimm, no offense intended. But charlatan's right. i wasnt talking about the price of oil, nor did i insinuate that you get it for free, nor that the US plans to steal it from the Libyans. When you 'pick up the pieces' you basically mopping up after the french and brits have left and award contracts to american companies instead of eurpean ones that are in there right now. This obviously creates revenue, jobs and income for americans. Thats not a bad thing and i dont see why you would find this offensive. i dont think that the americans are in this for the same reason that they went into Iraq. but if there's a buck to be made to recoup some of the efforts expended, then the american government and/or oil corporations will evaluate risks and decide that this is worthwhile pursuing. i do thing the aussies have been spineless here, but i dont think Australia's commercial interests lie here. Geographically, with australia being so far, the time to deploy would take weeks as it stands. we've played similar roles in our own region with east timor, fiji and papua new guinea. __________________ An injustice anywhere, is an injustice everywhere I always sign my facebook comments with ()()===========(}. Does that make me gay? - Filthy

03-19-2011, 09:06 AM	#403 (permalink)
Cimarron29414 Still Free Location: comfortably perched at the top of the bell curve!	In typical UN fashion, France has been flying recon flights over the area. I suppose they need another day or two of slaughter before they can have a meeting to plan a meeting to talk about using planes with weapons on them. We are three days from this all being irrelevant. rb, kindly don't mistake defensiveness as whining. Those are two different things. __________________ Gives a man a halo, does mead. "Here lies The_Jazz: Killed by an ambitious, sparkly, pink butterfly."

03-19-2011, 09:34 AM	#404 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	there are reports that the shooting has started from the air. the french took out a tank outside of benghazi. so that prediction is already outdated. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

03-19-2011, 09:39 AM	#405 (permalink)
dlish Currently sour but formerly Dlishs Super Moderator Location: Australia/UAE	RB, that plane that was shot down has been reported as an opposition plane that was safeguarding benghazi. at the time of it being shot down there was elation in the streets. the lines of war have been blurred with libyans fighting libyans. __________________ An injustice anywhere, is an injustice everywhere I always sign my facebook comments with ()()===========(}. Does that make me gay? - Filthy

03-19-2011, 09:49 AM	#406 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	dlish---i saw that information a few times since i put that post up earlier this morning, but decided to just leave it as it wasn't the only factor at play that prompted people in benghazi who were talking to the press to wonder what was going on. at this point, it's pretty clear that things are going to ramp up quickly in the sense of air strikes and naval blockade. i don't really have a sense of whether the people opposed to gafhafi are in a position to act militarily in the wake of these air strikes---assuming that they do as advertised. this seems one of the giant open questions at the moment, the what then? matter. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

03-19-2011, 10:01 AM	#407 (permalink)
Cimarron29414 Still Free Location: comfortably perched at the top of the bell curve!	A supposition is not really a prediction. Certainly, the UN has not been swift in this action, which is the primary reason this will soon be over. The rebels acted quickly early on and gained a lot of ground while <insert cool spelling of Qaddafi here> weighed his options. Once he was certain he wasn't going to get capped internally and that he had enough loyalists to make it worth his while, he started his counter attack. Unfortunately, the rebels have blown their load. They don't have the supplies in Benghazi to maintain their defense. They'll run out of ammunition. So, unless the UN goes all in with peacekeeping forces, Qaddafi forces with squash them within three days. And there is no possible way the UN will muster ground troops in three days. This isn't the outcome that I want, but I believe it will be the outcome, nonetheless. __________________ Gives a man a halo, does mead. "Here lies The_Jazz: Killed by an ambitious, sparkly, pink butterfly."

03-19-2011, 10:13 AM	#408 (permalink)
Baraka_Guru warrior bodhisattva Super Moderator Location: East-central Canada	It's difficult to "take swift action" if you don't know what exactly is going on. "Friendly fire," "collateral damage" and all that. __________________ Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing? —Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön Humankind cannot bear very much reality. —From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

03-19-2011, 10:43 AM	#410 (permalink)
Cimarron29414 Still Free Location: comfortably perched at the top of the bell curve!	My hostility towards the UN is based on its poorly written charter, assuming the security council structure is in the charter. When one member can stop 14 others from action, you have created impossible gridlock. I have no doubt that there are huge backroom deals at the UN to get all 15 members to vote affirmative or abstain. So, its very structure breeds indecision at best and corruption at worst, in my opinion. At the risk of sounding like a cowboy, we all knew what needed to be done weeks ago - we knew what the right thing to do was and we wanted to do the right thing. Because the rules at the UN are so broken, the right time to do the right thing has passed. __________________ Gives a man a halo, does mead. "Here lies The_Jazz: Killed by an ambitious, sparkly, pink butterfly."

03-19-2011, 10:52 AM	#411 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	right. we might have known but thanks to the cowboy mentality of the bush administration the united states was and is not in a position to go it alone either militarily or politically. the bullshit critiques of the un advanced by the project for a new american century crowd hold no water---but resemble your position. it was the americans more than anyone else whose position accounts for it taking this long to get the security council to act. by-passing the un in order to act in the name of legality on another country is a non-starter. but you can thank the republicans for making absolutely sure that is the case. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

03-19-2011, 11:41 AM	#412 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	My problem with the UN is the permanent members of the security council, but we still signed the charter in good faith, making it US law.

03-19-2011, 12:20 PM	#414 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	i find the un to be procedurally cumbersome and dislike the security council on principle. but i think that it's important as an institution even with it's problems/limitations because it provides an institutional framework (amongst a few others) to thinking what a more function kind of transnational institution/regulatory system might look like. that's on a normative kinda level (which may explain the abstract sentences...i dunno...i'm in the middle of doing something else, too, which also might explain them) insofar as this situation in libya is concerned---and it's developing very quickly, escalating very quickly in terms of western involvement (i'll drop the scare quotes now...they're implicit every time)---the delay in passing a resolution to authorize was not the result of any procedural issue---it was particular actors within the security council that had reservations about whether there should be an action at all--and there were debates within those governments about it--and gadhadi knew they were happening and tried to exterminate the rebels before there was a chance to resolve those debates and act. it's really quite hard to say what the situation is in all sectors of libya at the moment so its impossible to know the extent to which he succeeded...but he was on the edges of benghazi overnight and that seems to be where the initial air strikes and cruise missle activity is centered (i could well be wrong on this as the reports i've heard are very preliminary)... so to go back to the place we actually do agree---the action was close to being too late and things are still uncertain as to situation not to mention outcome(s).....but like i say, things appear to be changing very quickly. surprisingly so. my more cynical side would have likely been running closer to your position had you not blamed the un as such for the delay---i was thinking it might take longer to get organized. but apparently afghanistan was good for something, if not for the people of afghanistan... __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

03-19-2011, 12:30 PM	#415 (permalink)
Cimarron29414 Still Free Location: comfortably perched at the top of the bell curve!	Thanks rb, and I do agree that there is a need for an institution like the UN. __________________ Gives a man a halo, does mead. "Here lies The_Jazz: Killed by an ambitious, sparkly, pink butterfly."

03-19-2011, 12:46 PM	#416 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	9:59pm: Reuters reports that no major coalition strikes have been initially planned around the opposition stronghold of Benghazi. Operations in the first phase are currently aimed at degrading the Libyan government's air defences. from al jazeera's live blog: http://blogs.aljazeera.net/live/afri...-blog-march-19 __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite